Paging Chris Crocker: Sarah Palin needs you

Originally published July 6, 2009.

Remember the “Leave Britney alone!” kid, Chris Crocker? Given her speech last Friday, it sounds like Sarah Palin could use his support right about now.

In her rambling announcement, the soon-to-be ex-governor of Alaska gave few reasons why she plans to step down next month: refusing to continue with “politics as usual,” the freedom of Alaskans (which has apparently been in danger these last two-and-a-half years, if you believe Palin), and the almost $300,000 tab billed to Alaskan taxpayers thanks to investigations into 15 ethics complaints made against Palin.

However, it’s hard to break the cycle of “politics as usual” when you opt out of politics altogether.

Palin’s speech was disorganized, repetitive, and didn’t explain why she plans to resign. That is, all but the brief moment when she mentioned asking her children their feelings about her decision.

John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer who spoke with Palin this spring, hit the nail on the head when he quoted conversations with her. In a Washington Post article last Sunday, Coale explained, “She asked me, ‘Well, what do you think all this is? Why are all these people attacking me?’… she couldn’t ignore the hits on the kids. She said, ‘It brought out the mama grizzly in me.’”

There may be a small amount of chivalry left in politics, which at least last fall resulted in a swearing-off of candidates’ children as targets during the heated campaign rhetoric. But Palin insisted on leading her children to the media slaughter, shoving daughter Bristol into the jaws of the spotlight, as well as, albeit to a lesser extent, sons Trig and Track. Palin did little but complain in an effort to keep both news and entertainment media from sensationalizing the details of her family’s personal lives.

Taking up a career in politics is willingly exposing yourself and your loved ones to the scrutiny of others, including those in the blogosphere who will endlessly Photoshop pictures of you, your children, your great-uncle Bob and your dead mother. This not-unusual behavior, evidenced recently by Linda Kellen Biegel’s superimposition of Anchorage radio host Eddie Burke’s face onto Trig’s in a photo from the RNC, was only amped up by Palin’s characteristic defensiveness­— illustrated clearly by her reference to the image in follow-up announcements about her resignation.

I hate to break it to you, Sarah, but no one will ever take you seriously if you believe the “right” response to any public or media scorn is to hold a press conference to whine about being teased and quit in an attempt to spite everyone.

After all, it doesn’t quite make sense to spend several minutes explaining how well your state is doing under your direction in order to make the case that it’s better for you to quit. If this whole quitting business wasn’t about Sarah Palin’s hurt feelings, I imagine she simply would have said, “I have personal reasons for declining to run for a second term, and my family needs me now. Thank you for your time, and for the opportunity to be governor of this great state.”

I certainly don’t mind Mrs. Palin unintentionally falling back into the obscure hidey-hole she crawled out of last year (despite her insistence that she’ll remain a strong advocate of change outside politics), but here’s something she should keep in mind. In many places around the world, bringing real political change often means death. She would do well to read up on events in countries like Iran, and count herself lucky that her greatest concerns are Tina Fey skits and insensitive media.

Palin’s plotting

Originally published November 6, 2008.

A few hotly-contested races have yet to be resolved following Election Day, including, perhaps surprisingly, Alaska’s Senate showdown between Ted Stevens and Mark Begich. This may not sound like a big deal to some, but if you were waiting with baited breath for Sarah Palin to crawl back under the rock of obscurity from whence she came, listen up. Don’t sigh in relief just yet.

Despite all statements to the contrary prior to her selection as McCain’s VP, Sarah Palin may not be interested in just serving as the governor of Alaska anymore. The GOP found exactly what it wanted in Palin: a devout social conservative with an externally female appearance (I cannot believe that Palin represents or fights for women in this country). Though her handlers in this campaign found her perhaps a little too outwardly caustic or unwilling to stick to campaign rhetoric, there is plenty of time to reprogram her before she is put back into action in a presidential race. Now that they have her, the Republicans are not going to let her go.

In a radio interview with Rush Limbaugh, Palin said in response to a statement about her heavy open criticism of the Obama campaign, “I’ve got nothing to lose in this.” And she’s right. She has been catapulted onto the national stage even though McCain lost, and after giving her a taste of fame, the party seems comfortable with continuing to entertain her delusions of grandeur. Tina Fey’s “Palin 2012″ jokes may not be so far from the truth.

But you have to learn to walk before you can run, right? Well, that’s where Palin’s friend Ted Stevens comes in.

Stevens, who just barely led Alaska’s polls Wednesday, is in a little bit of legal trouble. In October, the senator was convicted of seven federal corruption charges because he filed false statements on Senate ethics reforms. If he wins, he would be the first convicted felon to be re-elected to the U.S. Senate. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already quashed this would-be first, saying that it would never be allowed to begin with, but also pressing the reality of Stevens’s having to face an ethics committee investigation followed by expulsion, regardless of his ability to appeal.

So, should he retain his Senate seat, one of two things will happen: Senator Stevens can step down from his position, or he will be expelled from it. And it’s a realistic possibility that Sarah Palin will be waiting in the wings to appoint herself in his place. After all, ethics are not an obstacle for her, as she has already demonstrated. Maybe she and Gov. Rod Blagojevich can appoint themselves together, in solidarity.

Even if she’s not willing to weather the legal storm that would surely follow a self-selection to the Senate, Palin could easily use her newfound popularity and $150,000 wardrobe to campaign her way into the spot during a special election. I wonder if she would get taxpayers to foot the bill for flying her kids back and forth to D.C. with her.

And besides, now that she’s taken the time to publicly shame her pregnant daughter and soon-to-be son-in-law by pushing them into the spotlight with her, who could possibly want to hear the end of it (hint: every discerning person in the United States)?

So, are we looking at an extended stay in the national political scene for Governor Palin? You betcha, and likely not just for 2012, despite what SNL has to say about it. Assuming Obama runs for re-election in four years, Palin stands a better chance if she decides to run in eight, especially if she “mavericks” her way into Congress. By 2016, voters will probably consider Hillary Clinton too old for the Oval Office in the same way they responded to John McCain’s substantial age. Can we count on some up-and-coming, liberal-minded female titan to stand up and truly represent not only women, but the entirety of our nation? If so, she better start now.

Chelsea is a senior in English and Creative Writing and hates that every step equality moves forward, it gets shoved four steps back: four states passed anti-gay and -lesbian legislation.

Election won’t end prejudice

Originally published October 30, 2008.

After centuries of exploitation, an arduous and bloody struggle for liberation in the United States, and a perpetual battle against discrimination, it’s finally happened. As we draw nearer to Election Day and watch Senator Barack Obama still campaigning fervently, it’s apparent. Racism has been eliminated.

Yep, that’s right. Now that a black man has been successfully nominated by a major party for the presidency, now that he’s run a powerful campaign, and now that he just might win that spot in the Oval Office, racism’s gone. Everyone is equal now. Yes, if one black man can make it to the top, everyone can!

So goodbye, affirmative action! While we’re at it, why don’t we just get rid of the technicalities of equal opportunity employment and nondiscrimination statements, too? After all, Barack Obama has gotten rid of racial prejudice. That must mean that we’re done with discrimination, no matter who it pertains to. Thanks, Barack!

If nothing else, the Obama campaign has shown the United States the exact opposite of my jokes–that is, how very racist we still are. From mainstream news media’s attempts to focus only on Obama’s “racial appeal” in the beginning of his presidential run to accusations that he isn’t “black enough,” from the disgusting suggestions that he and his wife are clearly black supremacists to the recently derailed assassination plot of two white supremacists, it is incredibly hard to believe that the Illinois senator’s success has eliminated racial prejudice.

That said, it’s also ridiculous to suggest that Obama’s accomplishments render affirmative action unnecessary, especially when people still have so many misconceptions about it: that affirmative action pertains only to racial minorities (wrong), that it is used to meet population “quotas” (wrong) and that its implementation means the selection of a candidate based solely on his or her race (you guessed it: wrong).

Let’s clear these up quickly. Affirmative action deals not only with race, but with gender, disability status, and veteran status. It isn’t used to meet diversity quotas, which are illegal. Most activity related to affirmative action deals with recruitment and outreach to qualified candidates (keyword: qualified) in underrepresented communities. Building on that, the policy can be used (not “is always used”) to consider a single, identity-based criteria as a deciding factor regarding a qualified individual.

The whole idea behind affirmative action is to ensure that we make an active effort to create truly equal opportunities for all people. Sorry, but just stating that a university or employer doesn’t discriminate doesn’t make it true. The policy is a means of rectifying this issue.

Because of mainstream misinterpretations of affirmative action, it’s easy to say that the issue would never have been brought up in response to Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that it applies to her, too. It’s certainly not being brought up against Sarah Palin now. If Clinton were in Obama’s position now, would we make any assessments about policies perceived to protect the interests of women?

Gender isn’t listed as an identity criterion in federal hate crime law. A wage gap between men’s and women’s earnings still exists. We’re kidding ourselves if we really believe that the placement of any woman in the White House means we’ve completely shattered that oft-mentioned glass ceiling. With gender inequity so obvious, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would have suggested some repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. Or maybe our silence has nothing to do with gender. Maybe it’s simply because Clinton and Palin are both white.

It’s not as though there’s been no change in attitudes about social identities, especially race, but let’s hold off on throwing confetti and proposing toasts to the “end of prejudice.” The appalling assumptions about affirmative action that still stand are testament to why we need it in the first place: people apparently can’t wrap their heads around the very real existence of qualified minority candidates applying for jobs and institutions of higher education, or that racial minorities can and do get selected without the implementation of affirmative action. Perhaps one day, we’ll reach a point when the policy is obsolete. For now, we still have a long way to go.

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and has a dentist appointment on Halloween.

Is your third-party vote a waste?

Originally published October 23, 2008.

As the days until November 4th fly past us with increasing speed, we’re watching Senators Obama and McCain campaign in swing states with renewed vigor. We’ve flocked to our televisions for three presidential debates between the two nominees, and one for their running mates. It’s impossible to go anywhere and not see one of these four names, and when one is mentioned, the other three are sure to follow.

What you don’t see are the names Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root. Despite his constant presence in presidential elections, you don’t really see Ralph Nader either, or his running mate Matt Gonzales. You certainly don’t see the names Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente. But in most states, the Libertarian, Independent and Green candidates will be on the ballot. What’s more, choices from all three representations will be interspersed among selections for federal and state congressional positions.

So, for all those undecided voters out there: If neither Obama nor McCain appeals to you, perhaps one of those other tickets does. But with them looms the dread of the “wasted vote.”

We all know the concept of the wasted vote. I lived in Texas during the 2004 election, and although I wasn’t old enough to vote at the time, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway – one blue vote in a sea of red. Similarly during this race, Illinois’s allegiance to Obama has never been questioned.

We stress our civic duty as an opportunity for the people to shape their governments. Our vote is our voice. Therefore, people should vote for whomever they believe to be the best candidate for the job – so we say, anyway. It’s difficult to deny the reality that the United States is often mired by fanatically bipartisan political representation. To vote for a politician unaffiliated with either major party, in most cases, means voting for someone who doesn’t stand a chance at actually winning office. In this sense, it becomes easy to believe that a vote for someone other than a Republican or a Democrat is also a wasted one. How can we help but feel disillusioned about the power of our beliefs?

In a presidential election, this may all be of debatable consequence depending upon how you view the Electoral College. Federal and state congressional elections are a different matter when it comes to the impact of the popular vote, but the wasted vote concept still applies. The dilemma: Do you vote for someone who really represents your beliefs but who likely won’t win, or do you bite the bullet and vote for a major-party person who you don’t completely support because they are a “realistic choice”?

If you’re diametrically opposed to the other major-party candidate, this question is crucial. If you vote for the third-party candidate you really want, you’re obviously subtracting a vote from the candidate you despise. However, if the race is tight, you’re also taking a vote from the tolerable major-party contender that could actually win the position.

This whole conundrum plays directly into the way the media frames elections as sporting events. If we have to consider whether to vote “strategically,” our attention over time ceases to focus on the policy goals of candidates (aside from trendy central issues, for which candidates will provide no detailed, step-by-step solutions). Their potential for victory becomes most important, trailed by our tolerance of said candidates – a short-sighted goal in an increasingly short-sighted bipartisan political system.

To everyone willing to cast their ballot toward people they wholeheartedly support, I admire you. Unfortunately, I find myself thinking back to Ralph Nader. If his status as a write-in on the New Hampshire primary ballot in 1992 is included, his 2008 candidacy will be his fifth. I cannot imagine how jaded one can become spending years backing a person who will never end up in the White House.

Perhaps this is the reason for voter apathy. At some point, we cannot stand to feel let down anymore. Like being unable to turn away from a car accident, we cannot help but be overwhelmed by the constant concern that we have wasted our vote, our hopes and our time. But after mailing my absentee ballot this week, I find myself unable to give up my youthful idealism that every vote counts for something.

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and after voting, can’t stand to wait another 12 days for results.