EC blog: liberal fishbowl

December 2016,  Nicholas Kristof, a concerned liberal, wrote an article on "The Dangers of Echo Chambers on Campus" He describes the "echo chambers of campus" as the constant liberal propaganda being shouted at universities. 

The quote that I believe best sums up his report is "we liberals are adept at pointing out the hypocrisies of Trump, but we should also address our own hypocrisy in the terrain we govern, such as most universities: Too often, we embrace diversities of all kinds except for ideological."

These very often progressive campuses will accept anyone who does not look like them- as long as they think like them. I appreciate that a proclaimed liberal took the liberty of pointing this out. Finally, someone who decides to practice what they preach by saying we need more diversity, not just physically, but mentally. 

Echoed thought and no clash of ideologies can easily lead to liberal hysteria such as: attacking Trump supporters, closing a bakery for not making a wedding cake for a gay couple, and boycotting what they believed to be a "racist" shop owner simply because he had reason to think a black man attempted to shoplift his store.

Not only does this fishbowl of a single ideology promote hysteria, it also encourages hypocrisy. This opens the door for people getting angry at Trump for saying "grab 'em by the..." you know... When Jay-Z, an incredibly sexist rapper, performs at a Hillary Clinton rally. Trump apologizes profusely for what he's said, but, of course, Jay-Z does not. 



After Nicholas Kristof published his article, an uncategorized blogger, wrote an article titled "An Open Letter and Invitation to Nicholas Kristof". His claim is that Kristof is not depicting college campuses accurately, stating "More than a third (of students) were over 25, and a quarter were over 30". What he means by this is that ideologies are generational, and older generations tend to be more conservative than their younger counterparts. 

Whose to say that people 25 and above are to be considered old? Of, course, this is a matter of perspective, but I would consider 25-30 rather young in regards to liberal ideologies. 

Suppose that this blogger is right. These younger students only account for a little over half of the college attendees. Granted, this is the majority. Assume for a moment that republicans do account for the majority of the student population. Extreme liberalism would still prevail if you take into account Kristof's article because these liberal are closed-minded when it comes to conservative ideas.



This is not to say that Republicans are incapable of being narrow-
minded as well as Democrats. However, it is more typical to see cases of extreme liberalism rather than harmful republicanism; especially when one take into account the liberal news media. 

"Settled Science"

President-elect Trump has selected Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. The Washington Post's immediate response clearly states that "a man who rejects settled science on climate change should not lead the EPA".  Allow me to elaborate on why this statement is questionable.

I'm not denying that climate change could be a legitimate issue. NASA's research suggests that "human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet". There are, however, different aspects of scientific analysis and false news to take into consideration.

Climate change can be defined simply as a change in global patterns caused by the increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is immanent; it is where the blame is placed that concerns me.

In theory, several factors can contribute to climate change, meaning anything that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  This includes (but is not limited to) fossil fuels, volcanic eruptions, variability in solar activity, ocean- atmosphere exchange, and plant and animal respiration. 


Did you catch the odd one out? Bingo! Fossil fuels; AKA the ultimate global warming buzz word, Why do fossil fuels stand out and why do they get such a bad wrap? They are the only non-natural culprits of climate change listed. This is where blame can easily be placed because it is not 'mother nature's' fault, but ours.

Since the industrial revolution in 1750, man's activities have contributed greatly to the addition of heat- trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I have come to terms with this concept but what still irritates me the way people choose to approach this issue.

The majority of those concerned about the environment think human life is a disease that plagues the earth, making it a horrible place to live in. The truth is, the earth was made for us to temporarily reside in and if we can not make that work, that is pathetic.

A substantial amount of people fail to live by that of the Creation Mandate: a command God has given us in Genesis to practice proper dominion over the earth. Everyone needs to be taught that we need to treat the earth with a high regard out of respect for it's creator. Just as you would leave your guest room in an orderly fashion, you should leave your temporary home as a better place than it was before.

So, instead of casting blame on everyone but ourselves, how should we get out of this mess as a whole? Instead of worrying about melting icecaps in the arctic, you can actually make a change by recycling, re-purposing items, only driving when necessary, using high-efficiency appliances, insulating your home, and planting a tree which will soak up carbon from the atmosphere. Another thing worth your time is researching and implementing renewable energy sources that will work for your home.

What the heck does this have to do with Scott Pruitt being head of the EPA? It all boils down to an issue in the hearts of all people, not particularly the environment. We choose to incriminate individuals, such as Pruitt, who question the legitimacy of climate change. Instead, we should realize we all play a huge role in environmental protection and simply because his beliefs differ from ours, does not give us right to condemn him; but rather, let this provide us with the epiphany that we need to all start making individual, environmentally friendly changes.


The reason I am weary of the Washington Post's take on the subject is their use of the term "settled science" Science is, by definition, always changing because new studies are constantly being conducted. Please make it a point to approach all articles claiming their theories are 'set in stone' with a high level of skepticism because to completely disregard any different viewpoints on a topic is often a clear sign ignorance.

Remember that the characters who tell you climate change is '100% settled' are the same type of people that mocked Christopher Columbus for thinking the earth is round, punished citizens of ancient Greece for theorizing that the earth was made up of more than four elements, and laughed at anyone who suggested Hillary would lose the 2016 election. Never let anyone bring your curiosity to a close.

Good Grief

Many reactions have followed Trump being elected as president this year and full acceptance certainly is not one of them... yet. There are several  news reports written on the grief that is following the election from sites such as HuffingtonPost, USAToday, and CNN. 

In order for our country to function properly, we need to come to terms with Trump as our president.  As Abraham Lincoln adequately put it: "a house divided against itself cannot stand". As a nation, it is crucial to heal the wounds of division resulting in this heated election in order to move on and focus on America as a whole. 

Stage One: Denial 

In the early stages of the post-election results, republicans and democrats alike were shocked, to say the least. Before the results, I asked people their opinions of the election, to which many replied: "we all know who is going to win- Hillary". 

Unexpectedly enough, Trump came out the victor, although, some have denied the facts. Immediately after election results, I recall viewing crowds of millennials shouting the popular phrase "Not my president!". 

Stage Two: Anger

There is no denying the violence taking place in anti-Trump protests. I have already discussed in my previous blog, The Doggerel of Desecration, that violence is a poor way to express oneself and an even worse way to try and make a change in what you may see as less than ideal. 

Stage Three: Bargaining 

This is where the 2016 recounts come into play. A change in the outcome of the election is merely a desperate act of denial that simply will not come to pass. The only chance of a possible change in results of the election would be if the electoral college decides to make Clinton president instead of Trump. Although this is a probability, it is highly unlikely. 

Stage Four: Depression

All hate and anger stem from wounds. For example, the LGBT community (primarily anti-Trump) may feel that with Donald as president, they will lose their right to marriage. I highly doubt that Trump will change the same-sex marriage law, but he may appoint judges who will oppose it. regardless, cases such as these worry some people to the point where they feel they need a "safe space".

Stage Five: Acceptance

I understand you may not like Trump. He is not my first choice, either. He is, however, the president of the United States. Despite your political party, interest group, ethnicity or gender;  if you are a citizen of America, Donald J. Trump is your president. 

According to Gallup, 84% of Americans accept Donald Trump as their president, including three-fourths of which that have voted for Hillary Clinton. 

After reading several news reports and blogs, it is seen as apparent that a very small amount of citizens were happy about our options for this year- that is on us. This is our fault as a whole. 

Are you unhappy with our president? Vote for those who have America's interests at heart, not their own. Search for the candidates longing to improve our economy, not strain it. Stay informed! Do not riot in the street, fight on your ballot!

(warning: one curse word at the end, heaven forbid.)

Not Racist, Just Republican

You've heard of Trump and Pence plenty. Now it is time to talk about Stephen K. Bannon. Bannon is a businessman, media executive and, most important as of now, Trump's campaign chairman. When I search "Steve Bannon" into Google, almost every article has the same popular leftist label: "racist".



How is this dogmatic label able to be repeated over and over without question? Upon plenty of research, the only substantial negative reports  (substantial, meaning they are well-researched and backed with facts, not opinions) I have found on Bannon have the same exact quote from an old film colleague of his, Julia Jones.

Julia Jones told The New York Times that Bannon "had once said that voting rights should be limited to those who own property, as was the case in the early years of the United States." Ms. Jones continued to say "That would exclude a lot of African-Americans," to which Steve replied, "maybe that’s not such a bad thing."

Before we drive into an explanation on the apparent racism, allow me to elaborate on America's history and it's correlation of property ownership and the right to vote. This occurrence in history is generally frowned upon because it is seen as a practice that does not deliver freedom to everyone.

Douglas V. Gibbs, a historian, and talk show host wrote an informed and intriguing analysis on this topic stating "the real reasons for limiting the voting to property owners are actually very different from the collectivist viewpoint, and in truth, was designed in the way it was in order to preserve liberty, not limit it."

Gibbs further explains that "Since there was no direct tax on income, the taxpayers were primarily those that paid property taxes." Understanding this, it is important to note that those who paid taxes are directly influenced by politician's actions. 

At that time, the majority of those who did not own property had little interest in political policy and remained uninformed. However, non-property owners who did want to get involved in politics were encouraged to work diligently to reach "the upper echelon of society". 

Eventually, congress has decided that voting rights must adhere to the will of all people, including those who do not own property. This was agreed upon as long as voters reached a minimum age requirement and remained well informed so politicians could not take advantage of them.

Equal rights for all is a beautiful concept! Alas, human nature has left us with uninformed voters that care less about our country, and vote based on who will continue to issue them free college, food stamps, and health care. 






I believe Bannon is not trying to show hate for African-Americans, but rather, display a fatigue in voters that, instead of looking out for the interest of their country, look for handouts. 

In conclusion, Douglass Gibbs quoted Alexander Tytler who stated, "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Electoral College a Sham?

After Trump won the election and became our president, (yes, even your president if you are a United States citizen) cries from the left have been shouting out loud ever since. What are they fighting against exactly? Democracy, practicality, and reality.




An imminent uproar followed when citizens discovered Trump not 
only won the electoral college but, apparently, lost the popular vote. Shortly after this current understanding, an article was published by the New York Times titled "The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?"

Writers of the article, Jonathan and Steve Eder go on to claim that the electoral college is "forever tipping (in favor to) rural/conservative/'white'/older voters". 

My response to that non-credible statement is puzzlement. Do the writers know how the electoral college works? When it comes to presidential elections, American citizens go out to vote every four years. The electoral college consists of 538 electors. Essentially, when voters go to the polls, they will choose which candidate receives their state’s electors. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes (270) wins the Presidency.



With this system, everyone gets a say in who ends up in the white house. The only way so-called "privileged" people could have an advantage over others is if they are voting and others are not. Another instance in which an advantage could be displayed is if the population of a state consists mainly of "privileged white folk". If this is the case that the journalists of the New York Times are referring to, how would this be considered an injustice? 

Hillary Clinton herself stated, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people." Very well then, if the people out voting are made up of mostly conservatives, it only makes sense that our candidate is to come out a victor. It only makes sense that citizens exercising their voice in an election through voting are shown clearly in the election results. 

The seemingly ominous electoral college serves many practical purposes. It is in place to prevent the horror of constant recounts that would result in an election consisting of only the popular vote. It exists to prevent an overwhelming advantage to states with large populations. 


Imagine how simple it would be to rig an election if we only counted the popular vote. Warren Mass, a journalist for New American, wrote an article with indisputable proof that 3 million illegals voted in this 2016 election. Not only that; 4 million more people unknowing voted this year. They were not aware of this issue because they were dead!

With the electoral college we have in place, voter fraud such as this will not always count for enough to tip the scales in favor of a cheater in several states. However, the 7 million known cases of voter fraud this election could greatly influence the results in an election consisting of only the popular vote.

It is tragic that cheating has to be taken into account when considering the most practical form of democracy, however, it is still wise to consider that some candidates can and will do anything in order to get into office. 

Now What?

The world watched in complete awe the night of November 8th with the revealing of the United State's 45th president to come: Donald J. Trump. If I am to speak bluntly for a moment, this outcome was so incredibly shocking! I was so ready to accept Hillary Clinton as our next president that I was already learning to say "Please do not shoot me, I did not vote for Hillary" in Russian. Since "Пожалуйста, не стреляйте в меня, я не голосовал за Хиллари" (credit to Google Translate) is a mouthful, you can probably imagine how relieved I was when Trump was elected. 

I was so concentrated on not wanting Hillary to become president that I completely disregarded what would happen if the Trumpinator was to be elected. Alas, Trump gave his victorious speech in New York upon winning, Clinton gave her concessional speech and current president Obama is urging a "peaceful transition of power". 


The obvious question is- what happens in America now that all the mind-blowing events have taken 
place? Clearly much is already happening if one is to take into consideration all the riots in, most recognizably, New York. There are now plenty of news reports featuring rioters that chant "Not my president!" in front of Trump Tower as they blatantly ignore their preferred candidate Hillary when she says, "we need to give Trump a chance".  

Although protests are blasted on the media, America's focus should be on the inevitable Trump presidency that awaits our country. Capital Public Radio has researched and written an article on Donald's plan for his first 100 days in office. In Gettysburg Trump spoke about his 100-day plan describing is as "a contract between himself and the American voter" which "begins with restoring honesty, accountability, and change to Washington". 

A few highlights of "Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter" would include the following:

The cleaning-up of corruption in Washington, DC:

Trump proposes to minimize degeneracy with term limits. McConnel expressed his opposition to this idea stating "I would say we have term limits now — they're called elections." It is interesting, however, that McConnel, being a member of the senate (which does not have term limits) is against this movement.   

Trump also plans to put a freeze of the federal workforce (exempting military, public health, and public safety). A stop on hiring probably will not make the substantial difference to the economy that Trump wants. What would really affect the status quo is complete removal of corrupt departments. 

Another interesting policy he is proposing is "a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated" This may work wonders for citizen's liberties and be a minimization of government power assuming Trump can pull it off, only removing unnecessary bans.

Trump also plans to work with congress to introduce several border legislative measures which includes the "Middle-Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act". This is intended to simplify tax reduction by giving the middle class a 35% tax cut. At first glance, this seems impossible for our economy to afford. However, Trump may make this possible through repatriation. 
Repatriation is the process of returning something to its place of origin. The U.S. has trillions of dollars sitting in other countries, unused because it will be taxed if brought back to America. Trump's plan is to get that money back with a minimal tax. What happens then is the company to which the money belongs to invest the cash, hire more employees, and increase production. The whole economy can benefit from this. 

Trump seems to have incredible plans for our country- ones I hope the people and congress will support. Only time will tell whether or not he is capable of fulfilling such promises. For now, we must stand together and accept our new presidential elect who claims "if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people. Trump is certainly a fighter and i'd love to see him keep fighting with the nation by his side!

The Doggerel of Desecration

USA Today announced that on July 2016, seventeen protesters were arrested at a flag burning protest outside the Republican National Convention.  Almost immediately, the topic of flag burning became a hot-button issue with sides advocating flag burning as a form of free speech and others against flag burning as it is disrespectful towards a symbol of the United States.

Allow me to establish a brief timeline of the history of flag desecration. By 1932, the adoption of state flag desecration statutes was implemented by all states. Essentially, this was a flag protection movement which was established to prevent commercial and political misuse of the flag.

These laws prevented citizens from placing any kind of marking on the flag and using the flag in advertising. In these establishments, the flag was also protected from defiance, public mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling and contempt either by words or by an act.

Several cases of flag desecration were taken to court since then, most of which fell in favor of the defendants. Such cases include but are not limited to Halter v. Nebraska, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette and Stromberg v. California. What all the cases had in common was a disregard to what would be considered the established flag desecration restrictions.

It was not until 1989, however, when the most famous case regarding flag desecration took place. Texas v. Johnson, making history as the first time the Supreme Court had directly applied the First Amendment to flag burning, had ruled it unconstitutional to make it a crime to desecrate the flag as a form of free speech.


(right: Johnson, left: attorney)

The American flag is a symbol of liberty, freedom, and human rights. This is why I almost find it laughably ironic that Gregory Johnson, a Revolutionary Communist Representative, was relieved from prison after setting fire to the flag outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas on account of flag desecration being ruled "symbolic speech". It is painfully paradoxical that Johnson and other protesters chanted "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you!" The very fact that protesters have the freedom to dishonor the U.S. flag further illustrates what great liberty it represents. There is something agonizingly poetic about a symbol of freedom being defiled in the act of free choice itself.

Now, 27 years later, protesters stand outside the RNC chanting "five, six, seven, eight, America was never great!" The rioters continue to yell in protest as the flag goes up in flames. To all participants in that rally: America is so prominent in protecting human rights, in fact, that you have the right to informally complain about it.

The objective behind legalizing the desecration of the flag is for citizens to express themselves freely as long as no one is being harmed. In contradiction, almost every record of flag ruination, protesters have been violent, disturbing the peace and assaulting police officers. Are dissidents hiding behind the First Amendment to get away with more violent actions?  Whether it be aggression, derogatory speech or destruction, we the people should recognize that violence is less than ideal and there are more dignified ways to express our beautiful right to speech.



Former Texas Governor Rick Perry eloquently sums up flag desecration saying: "Sometimes, people have some pretty extraordinary ways in which they express their First Amendment right," he said. "That’s not one that I think is particularly thoughtful...Burning something down, whether it’s a flag, whether it’s a home, whether it’s a country, is a poor way to express yourself.”

Democracy or Idiocracy?

Is America's system of government under trial? Andrew Roberts, a concerned British historian, wrote for the New York Times in his article "1776- would you like to reconsider?" stating that "the American primary system, which has thrown up two presidential candidates who are despised by 60% of Americans, is broken and urgently needs to be reformed." 

How is it that 60% of Americans despise our two choices for president when it is those same citizens who took part in voting for them in the first place? Is this out of impracticality? Dismay? Failures in leadership? Democracy?

The United States is an entertainment-driven nation according to the Nielsen Company which states "more than half the homes in America have three or more TV's". As many of us have come to know, television can be an ineffective way to process news if not analyzed properly. A more shocking statistic comes from the Cable News Network which exclaims "Americans spend an average of $70 billion a year on lottery tickets!" It seems the states have become accustomed thrill, playing the lottery, a game of chance. As a result, oftentimes, we tend to choose exciting over practical. This may be a reason we have wound up with very flamboyant candidates for the presidency. 





Another reason that our country may have ended up with this 
unique pair could be out of fear of a specific candidate winning the election. "You do not want Hilla the Hun to win- vote Trump!" You would not want pumpkin Hitler to win- vote Hillary!" How many times have you heard, through word of mouth and figuratively every article on the internet, voting for a third party candidate is obsolete?



Are faulty leaders to blame for the less than ideal options we have to choose from or is it democracy itself that is in need of reform? I have stated before in my previous blog "Argument is the Answer" that our way of government is messy, yet liberating. 

China, on the other hand, appears to be doing extremely well in regards to business, investment, and workforce. Coincidentally, China's president Xi Jinping has been elevated to what they call a "core" leader. This does not give Xi Jinping new powers; it does, however, gives him the solitary authority of the Chinese Communist Party. Seeing that Xi Jinping is a dictatorial leader, the concern of him having too much power does arise. 



The New York Times shows that a Chinese document proclaims “for a country and for a party, a leading core is vitally important”. The autocratic government of China seems successful for the time being. The downfall of a single concentrated power is shown throughout all of history. Over time, an unchecked, unbalanced leader will become corrupt; not looking out for the interest of their people, but considering only their own interests. 

Are both forms of government not to be trusted? I would say that a democracy is essential for the people to be represented. Ironically, the people are very diverse and each individual has to compromise for any law to pass, any candidate to get chosen and any decision to get made. This is why it is important not to compromise too much by settling on matters or candidates we the people undervalue. 

Safe Spaces Not Safe for Education

The New York Times article "Can Cries of 'Free Speech be a Weapon? Students Say Yes" covers a response to “And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities"; which includes a plethora of hot-button topics including trigger warnings, microaggressions, safe spaces and controversial campus speakers.

The full article, "And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Free Speech at U.S. Universities" suggests solutions vouching for limits of  speech that could make students feel 'unsafe'. PEN, an organization which declares its purpose is to "promote literature and defend freedom of expression worldwide" claims to be a 'marketplace of ideas' and a 'guardian of intellectual integrity' yet it is pushing to restrict speakers off campuses that offer novelty into the shallow pool of mainstream media.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of petitioning the government, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. However, throughout the nation's history, the Supreme Court has ruled that these rights may be limited in the interest of the greater public good. 

Some restrictions on speech are understandable, necessary and constitutional. Scenarios in which free speech may be limited is when it is has a tendency to lead to illegal action, is lewd or indecent or evokes a danger which is false. This form of speech would be unlawful and potentially dangerous. 

This is when the very definition of "dangerous" is changed to accommodate those who are easily offended. Millennials, facing no real harm when a speaker would oppose their worldview, will redefine "unlawful". Students are now announcing that what they would consider an 'intolerant' speaker, hurtful when, in reality, the only thing getting hurt is their feelings. There is a fine line between potential harm and emotional disturbance just as there is a difference between a 'safe space' and a therapy session. 

The students addressed in the article above are in opposition to speech that would be considered intolerant or that would not affirm to everyone on campus. In essence, they are claiming to promote "inclusiveness and diversity" when, in reality, their intentions are to reestablish free speech rights as wrong unless these 'rights' are in total conform to their way of thinking.

Permitting what the majority considers 'non-offensive' speakers exclusively is not only an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, but also a limitation on education itself which requires conflict to thrive. Education, by definition of dictionary.com, is the process of "developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life." How, then, can these young adults strengthen their preparedness for a mature lifestyle when they are encouraged to sit in a padded room with puppies having heard anything they have been 'triggered' by.

This new form of 'free speech' only applies to those with the majority of the power for the time being and downsizes anyone who wishes to speak against the status quo. These Millennials are quite frankly, as Albert Molar put it, "in the name of inclusiveness and diversity (shutting) down exclusiveness and diversity, a diversity of opinions."

Argument is the Answer

Over the years, my eyes have been opened to increasing numbers of people who think negatively of debates. In fact, many characters I have come to know discourage controversy and, by default, critical thought. They tend to believe debating serves no purpose; always ending in both parties leaving with their opinions unchanged.

In Joseph J. Ellis's novel American Creation-Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic chapter three, he summarizes the authorization of our ever-compromising government.

After the Revolutionary War, George Washington, and his soldiers finally freed the colonies from the tyranny of Britain. Although Washington's men prompted him towards becoming the new nation's leader, he chastised them. He refused to repeat history by crowning himself king of the infant nation. However, being under the Articles of the Confederation during the battle, George understood all the shortcomings of them and saw they would not be fit for a successful nation, either.

The Articles of the Confederation, which is the first government of the newly born United States of America, was formed under the Constitutional Convention and informally followed from 1776 to 1781. The Constitutional Convention was a meeting of political pragmatists that knew protecting everyone's property and rights mean they can also secure their own.

Under the Articles of the Confederation, each state had its own central government. For the states, this posed many weaknesses. A decline in international ensued and the value of money dropped since each state printed its own currency. The threat of social disorder and foreign enemy attacks skyrocketed. The deficiency of the Articles became too much when the state of Massachusetts could not effectively deal with Shay's Rebellion. Joseph Ellis describes this as " a six-month rebellion in which more than 1,000 armed farmers attacked federal arsenal to protest the foreclosure of (their) farms".



The Articles of the Confederation, although liberating, left the 
federal government without enough power to properly govern the states. Under the articles, the federal government could not draft soldiers or tax citizens. Therefore, it could not pay off the Revolutionary War debt and had no national currency. It was around this time in which both Washington and Madison came to the conclusion that the Articles of Confederation needed to be replaced with a national government that possessed a clear mandate to equip the states in both foreign and domestic policy.


The first ten months of the Constitutional Convention is a period of time which Joseph Ellis describes as "the most far-ranging and consequential political debate in American history". In this moment of time, two primary parties in the great debate were assembled. The federalists, those who wanted to ratify a constitution consisting of guidelines for a strong central government and the anti-federalists, those opposed to what they perceived as a reestablishment of the oppression they have just been liberated from.



Federalists had the goal of establishing a system of government 
under which the national government and state governments share powers (federalism). The idea of an institutionalized Constitution is to have a unique form of shared sovereignty and division of power. Under federalism, delegated, expressed, or enumerated powers could print  money, regulate interstate and international trade, make treaties concerning foreign policy and declare war. Secondly, reserved powers could issue licenses and run federal elections. Finally, concurrent powers were permitted to collect taxes, build roads and operate courts of law.

On the other hand, anti-federalists were in disagreement with any form of government; believing them to be far removed from the citizens it would ostensibly represent. The anti-federalists, afraid to fall under yet another oppressive rule, anchored themselves in the revolutionary ideology that regarded any powerful central government as a domestic version of the British government they had been previously freed of.

James Madison proclaimed the chief goal of the federalists was to offer a Constitution that would be a rescue rather than a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution. Madison was so intelligent that if he worked diligently, he had the ability to convince the people.

Patrick Henry argued that he, along with the rest of the anti-federalists, were protecting Americans from a hostile takeover by an elite minority. Henry was an incredibly persuasive speaker. In fact, he was so prominent that Jefferson joked to Madison the only thing he could do when confronted by Henry is "devoutly pray for his imminent death". 

After the Henry-Madison debate finally concluded, the people concurred a new form of bureaucracy was needed. The Constitution was then sent to each individual state for ratification. 

The Constitution was established through a messy progress of 
compromise and debate that still continues to this day. Even when it may seem that bedlam ensues through this process, it is imperative to remember that a prosperous nation would be inconceivable without it. Seemingly tedious arguing is, in reality, the very foundation of America. 

In light of the groundwork of this great nation, don't groan at the next dispute you hear. Instead, remember that controversy is not about providing answers, but rather about providing a framework in which unanswered questions can be further discussed.

Swampy Shenanigans

The Clinton-Trump presidential candidate debate aired on CNN December 26, 2016, sparking the interest of Americans and others worldwide. The first presidential debate featured the only female presidential candidate who has made it this far-Hillary Clinton- and business a man who has previously not involved in politics-Donald Trump. Let us not forget Lester Holt, who may have played a little more than his part as host of this event.

I have noticed that many Americans do not prefer either candidate featured in this debate. This is when I started to ask myself how each nominee made it to where they are at. Hillary, being wedged in the political system for 30-some years now, appears to have the upper hand in swaying voters and pleasing crowds. She was a possible choice in the 2008 election and the 67th U.S. secretary of state. Clinton gathered much publicity through her positions and simply being a woman. Her policies ostensibly do not call for an immense change in the United State's status quo.



Trump's political background, or lack thereof, greatly contrasts Hillary's experience. Donald's 2016 presidential campaign is his first time personally running for a political position. Any other bureaucratic participation he may have branches from his involvement as a business man and citizen. Any viewer will find it nearly impossible to dismiss Trump's flamboyancy. He has accumulated popularity by means of his colorful personality and his passionate need to shake the state of affairs in America's economy.

Why are both options are seen as undesirable to the people? "Crooked Hillary" earned her nickname by carrying out the role of a dishonest politician willing to try anything to make it in the big leagues. Citizens are discovering her willingness to change policies and be a lenient are part of a ploy to please the undecided voters. Whereas Trump is presented as a man who firmly stands on his policies and ideas that will "make America great again". His unwillingness to budge on, for example, foreign policies and unpracticed skills on political correctness oftentimes leave Donald looking like a raging toddler.

Each successor, seemingly pedantic, made it this far for a reason. They are both very animated figures in government and did well hanging on the rickety roller-coaster of democracy long enough to ride up to the first presidential candidate debate. People seem fed up with the heated arguments of these two and often in the process forget that a nation without debates is not free. The American republic is open to messy, abstruse, discussions because we have liberty.

Who is the better choice? Essentially, it boils down to keeping the status quo or drastically changing it.

Picture America as the stagnant water in a swamp. Algae is continually collecting on this water. This water has been dirty for a while now and people are afraid to disturb it in fear that new problems will arise in removing the grime in the swamp. There are legitimate reasons for not wanting to change the water. After all, there could be unseen epidemics that could occur from changing the ecosystem of the marsh. However, the people are disgusted with swimming in the contaminated swamp and will not stand for it any longer.

United States citizens are fed up with the tired political policies of politicians that fail to better our economy. America is hungry for change.