Christine O’ Donnell: A Constitutional Conservative?

              On Tuesday, the 19^th, in a debate for a U.S. Senate seat in Delaware, something unpardonable happened.  During the debate between Democrat Chris Coons and Republican Christine O’Donnell, the topic of “separation of church and state” took center stage.  Through this exchange, Mrs. O’Donnell showed the world how uninformed she really is.  She repeatedly asked her opponent to show her where separation between church and state exists in the constitution.  With Mr. Coons being forced to point out the painfully obvious—that the principle is expressed in the First Amendment—the audience at Widener Law School could not help but laugh.  Most who know about our constitution are aware that the mandate for government not to interfere in freedom of religion comes from the First Amendment.  It might not say word-for-word, “separation between church and state,” but this has long been the interpretation—as originally stated by Thomas Jefferson himself.  What really gets me heated is that this so-called leader of the Tea Party movement claims to be a constitutional conservative.  How can someone say that about themselves and have a fundamental misunderstanding of our First Amendment?  This idea boggles my mind! It is one thing for Tea Partiers to claim to be constitutional conservatives, but they need to be able to back up this claim with actual knowledge of and actual support for the principles set fourth in our constitution. 

            In actuality, many Tea Partiers support policies based on religious beliefs that infringe upon the American freedoms granted by the constitution.  Additionally, many Tea Partiers support altering the constitution in the form of an amendment designed to promote bigotry and discrimination against gays and lesbians.  Finally, many Tea Partiers, including Christine O’Donnell, support repealing the 17^th amendment of the constitution—while simultaneously touting the dangers of the deficit?!  How can these politicians claim to be constitutional conservatives when they want to bend the constitution every which way to support their whims?

            It scares me to know that there are people out there who may actually vote for someone like Christine O’Donnell, even after she has displayed such ignorance about the foundation of our country.  This is only one episode in a string of questionable statements and positions of Mrs. O’Donnell’s.  From her days of witchcraft to her misleading statements about her educational background, this candidate is not qualified enough, nor dignified enough, to represent our country as an elected official.  If Christine O’Donnell and other Tea Partiers are really the future of our national government, we should all be frightened.

Political Ads

            While browsing the Huffington Post, I happened to run across an interesting editorial written by Ron Howard, a well known and respected filmmaker, about campaign ads.  The article put an interesting spin on a hypothetical scenario: What if candidates running for office were required to follow a specific format when making political television advertisements?  What if the U.S. government required all candidates to run campaign ads that were identical to one another in format and basic content?  For example, there could hypothetically be a law requiring all candidates to stand behind the backdrop of the American flag while speaking directly to the people about the issues.  Mr. Howard believes this would give all candidates a level playing field and would lower the cost of campaign marketing. 

            While I can agree with Mr. Howard on the desire for a more level playing field, with less flash and more substance, I do not think his proposal is the most effective way to market political messages to the American public.  Although campaign ads today may be more about bashing one’s opponent than addressing the issues, one thing the advertisements are effective at is grabbing the attention of the American pubic.  I believe Ron Howard’s proposal would fail to accomplish this objective.  With political engagement declining, the last thing we need is for political ads to be less engaging and fail to gain the interest of the voter.  More importantly, this proposal interferes with a candidate’s constitutional right to freedom of speech.  While I do not believe candidates should be able to give false information in their ads, I think it un-American to dictate identical campaign ad requirements.   

            One point that I do agree with of Mr. Howard’s is that campaigning and political advertising should be less expensive.  Money should not be as big of a factor in a candidate’s success or failure as it is today.  A candidate’s success or failure should come down to the issues.  I would like to see more focus on the issues in both political advertising and in the minds of voters. 

            In conclusion, Mr. Howard is reaching out to an audience of political observers.  He is attempting to use his credibility as a filmmaker to comment on campaign advertising.  However, his thesis lacks evidence and falls short of persuasion.

Missed Goals

Poverty and infant mortality rates are important global issues that affect every nation around the world.  The editorial I read, entitled Missed Goals, discussed the progress the United Nations (UN) has made towards its goals of reducing global poverty by 50%, decreasing child mortality rates by 66%, and reducing maternal mortality rates by 75%.  These goals were set ten years ago by leaders of the UN’s wealthier nations.  Now, ten years later, the goals are no where close to being met by the 2015 deadline.  In fact, the aid given by the wealthier countries is far short of what was pledged. 

            Many believe the recession is to blame for the lag in financial donations.  While I see the truth in this statement, I agree with the author’s reasoning that the wealthier nations have not done enough to pursue these important goals. 

            The author is disheartened with President Obama’s stance on this issue during the recent United Nations meeting, in which he said little about affirming the United States’ commitment to meeting these goals by 2015.  Specifically, the author criticizes the administration’s emphasis on the non-legally-binding nature of the initial pledge.  However, the author points out some positives as well.  For example, the author paraphrases one of President Obama’s recent statements, which declared that, “the United States would still be a major donor but would put new emphasis on using all of its tools—including trade and export credits—to help poor countries get to the point where they don’t need assistance.”  This is an idea that the author supports.

            At the end of the editorial, the writer details how far away we actually are from reaching the stated goals.  For instance, child mortality rates have only dropped about 3% in recent years, while there has been almost no material change in the rate of maternal mortality.  These statistics help make the author’s argument more effective and drives home the point of how significantly these issues have fallen off the global radar.  I believe the author’s editorial could have been even more effective by describing the negative impact that we will all experience if these rates are not reduced by 2015.  This includes the economic impact high poverty and mortality rates have on all of us—as the economy is the number one issue for most of us these days.

            I do agree that the United States and other developed counties should do more to help.  However, I believe that the help can include more than just financial donations.  For example, education can help reduce global poverty and morality rates and can also help under-developed countries sustain any economic gains.  Further, I agree that these goals must remain a priority for the United States and many other developed countries.   I hope to see this issue gain more attention as the economy continues to improve.