Have you decided who you’re going to vote for on November 4th? If you have, what are the reasons for your choice?

I am no social statistician, but even from my limited interactions with voters I am continually amazed at the seeming lack of thought that goes into their decision on whom to support. Howard Stern, in all his cultural punditry, recently aired a very insightful clip [www.youtube.com] where his associate Sal walked around New York City asking people who they supported for President. Instead of simply moving on to the next person after receiving an answer, Sal then listed a few “policies” of the chosen candidate, and asked if the interviewee supported those policies as well. Invariably, the individual said yes. The only problem is that every single “policy” Sal mentioned was a position taken by the opposing candidate, the one the interviewee did not choose.

Obviously, this begs the question whether the American people vote for the personality or the issue. Framed in that manner, I’m afraid that a vast portion of American voters decide whom to vote for based on some calculus that has nothing at all to do with the positions each candidate supports. But is that a bad thing? A point that came out in the second presidential debate is very relevant here. One of the biggest challenges that face a presidential candidate is the unknown. No one knows what will happen tomorrow, let alone a year, two years, four years from now. We entrust our Chief Executive with the authority of the office not only because of their campaign platform, but because of their judgment. In that sense, personality [www.slate.com] is just as much an issue as the economy and the war. And why shouldn’t it be? While it may seem less “intellectual” to discuss personality over policy, both are just as important.

In my opinion, the problem comes when American voters move beyond personality and start voting merely by identity. My fear is that many African-Americans will vote for Obama because he is African-American, not because they think his policies are better for them. My fear is that many veterans will vote for McCain because he is a veteran, not because they believe his position on national security is stronger. Voters have to be informed. They have to think about the ramifications of their actions.

Thankfully, there are groups out there that are trying to increase awareness and informed social responsibility. Glass Booth [glassbooth.org] is a great website that lets you choose which positions you support and lets you weight their importance. Then, the site breaks down your positions and which candidate aligns most with what you believe. The concept is not entirely novel, but the site provides an accessible medium that accurately reflects your personal ideologies. Obviously, this site omits personality considerations, but it is still a step in the right direction, helping conscientious citizens make responsible decisions.

Historically, what we are seeing right now is nothing new. From the Jacksonian populists and the earliest days of our nation’s history, to the FDR years, to the Reagan Administration, Americans have always voted for the personality as often as they vote for the issues that personality supports. Nevertheless, just because identity politics have been part of our national experience from day one, that does not mean we can just sit back and vote willy nilly with no method to our madness. American voters owe it to themselves to be informed. Whether they vote for the personality or the policy, they have a social duty to know why they are voting.

I remember sitting in my presidential theory class during my junior year of college… the discussions were lively, the materials stimulating, and the jokes acerbic (is there any other way?). Aside from analyzing Machiavelli and paying homage to Lincoln, I started thinking hard about our current presidential system, and years later, I still haven’t been able to stop. One part of our political structure that has always fascinated me is our system of elections. I’d like to pose a question that I’ve thought about a lot, and then offer some thoughts. (Admittedly, this post will not come close to answering this query—that would take volumes. See James Ceaser’s Presidential Selection if you’d like a taste…)

Does our current electoral process and the manner in which our presidential candidates campaign accurately represent their abilities to make a good Commander in Chief?

In one sense, I believe that the way our modern elections are run may be an accurate indication of a particular candidate’s abilities. Presidential campaigns tax the candidate’s mental, emotional, and physical abilities like few other occupations can. The candidate is always in the public eye, always has to have an answer, and always has to look the part. Presidential candidates are subjected to the minutest examination and criticism from all segments of society.

What is more, the campaign itself plays a big role in training the candidate for an executive role. Constantly being forced to think about and formulate policy positions on current events requires the development of an executive mindset. A huge reason Obama has much more experience than Palin (a comparison that was made from day one), is because he’s been campaigning for the past year and a half. His two years in the U.S. Senate are not drastically more qualitative than Palin’s years as the governor of a small state—both offices offer unique challenges and responsibilities. Yet, the fact that Obama has campaigned for so long has given him an air of authority and a confidence not offered by his qualifications alone.

On the other hand, however, the modern campaigning process is so different from actually being President that it’s almost hard to make a comparison between the two. Presidential candidates have no real policy authority. The wellbeing of the country does not rest on their shoulders. (I suppose you could make the same statement about the President, but no matter what your executive theory may be, there is no denying that the President plays a major—perhaps even, defining—role in shaping American policy.)

Furthermore, the end goal of a campaign is to convince as many voters as possible that their candidate is better than the other. There is a fundamental difference between vote-garnering and policy-making. Campaigns are weaponized on sound bytes and emotionalism. At the risk of sounding un-American (which I am not), “patriotism” can be just as effective a tool at seducing voters’ emotions as “hope and change.” As I alluded in my previous post [www.sundancechannel.com], a major frustration of mine this election season is the abject refusal of the candidates to actually answer questions and talk about real issues. Instead, Obama and McCain have spit campaign rhetoric and banalities like it’s going out of style.

To be fair, in Wednesday night’s debate, there were a few brief moments where I thought the candidates opened up and actually addressed the issues. Obama’s first response to Bob Schieffer’s education question was refreshingly genuine and up front. McCain had his moment of truth when discussing his criteria for SCOTUS nominees, where he eloquently and candidly explained his thought process and his record. Unfortunately, these instances are few and far between.

While we can discuss these pros and cons until the Bluths resolve their family issues, at the end of the day, the pragmatist in me has to point out that this system is what we’ve got, and the best way for us to appreciate its role is to try to understand it.

Everybody hates a nitpicker. On October 6th, following the Vice-Presidential debate, Foxnews.com ran an opinion piece by John R. Lott, Jr., entitled "Did Biden Get it Wrong? You Betcha," [www.foxnews.com] in which Lott points out a laundry list of little mistakes Biden made during the debate and expresses his opinion that the media gave Biden a pass. He then proceeds to go over all the mistakes Sarah Palin has made that have been widely publicized by the "fact check" media.

The debate over the existence of media bias (or its nature) is not really what I want to deal with here. What I do want to look at is this idea of a "fact check" media and its role in the public's perception of this election.

Personally, I think this obsession really began with Bush and his comical little verbal slip ups. Let's face it people have a lot of fun making fun of their president and President Bush really gave people plenty of opportunity. Some, however, obsessed over his penchant for verbal missteps, viewing it as an embarrassment and liability for the United States. How many times have you heard someone on television say "I'm tired of having a president who sounds like an idiot" when discussing the election? Often its not that the people think Bush is actually an idiot but they are extremely disturbed that he sounds like one.

This frustration has matured into this new election. Many Democrats will praise Barack Obama because he sounds so distinguished. In the Republican primary one of the most talked about issues was the candidates' presentation. A national "pet peeve" has seemingly developed regarding presidents who can't speak correctly or who make "gaffes."

I find this funny when I think back to the audio recordings of presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, which reveal a man with what can only be described as a comically high and squeaky voice. Teddy would probably have never made it past a congressional district if he ran for office today. Yet even now, one hundred years later, Teddy Roosevelt is still recognized as one of our great presidents. He's probably the most recent President that both sides can refer to as a great leader without crossing party lines (apparently there is some sort of statute of limitations on partisanship.)

So I want to make a radical claim here and I know I'm going to raise a lot of ire but here I go. I think that a candidate's ability to present himself or herself and speak without slip ups should be the least significant factor in determining their suitability for office. I think that the MTV generation has flipped its priorities and there is now an inordinate amount of attention focused on the audio and visual presentation of our leaders instead of on how (and where) they will lead our country. I'll respect anyone who wants to make well though out criticisms of George Bush and his handling of the Iraq War or the War on Terror or the Patriot Act. I will not respect someone who says, "That George Bush is such an idiot. He can't even say 'nuclear' right!"

Our priorities have become seriously muddled. We've confused American politics with American Idol and come November 4th we're all going to pull out our cell-phones to text in our selection for President, only to remember we actually have to get in our cars and drive to the polls.

How old fashioned, right?

We've been tricked. We've been tricked into thinking this is just some sort of game, that ultimately it's not really going to make a difference to our lives who becomes the next president, because "they're all the same" and it's just a matter of preference. Oh sure, the die-hards don't think so, the Rush Limbaugh's and the Oliver Stone's, but the average ordinary American who knows his TV schedule better than his founding fathers? Let's be real here. These two men, Barack Obama and John McCain could not be more different. Their decisions are going to change, and in some cases end, lives. This is not about form and presentation. This is about life. This is about America, her people and her future. So stop nitpicking these people and let's get serious. In less than a month we all have to hunker down and make a choice. You better be damn sure it's the right one.

-Daniel Noa

The name Sarah Palin instantly triggers an emotional response in anyone who hears it. To Christian conservatives, it usually includes a big smile and something along the lines of "I love her!" With educated liberals, it's usually something like "the thought that she could be a 'heartbeat from the presidency' makes me ill." On September 30th, while a guest on "The Daily Show," Bill Maher commented that "I think people should be very frightened at that. That this person that is going to be perhaps the Vice-President believes in the Bible literally." Why these two extremes? Part of it may be that Sarah Palin is the most explicitly conservative candidate to be nominated to that high of an office since perhaps the Reagan administration. Even then, I cannot recall any candidate as blatantly and as openly conservative and religious as she seems.

But I don't think that's really the problem.

I think when liberals think she's unqualified they mean it. I think the fact that she is as accomplished as she is while still being, in their view, unqualified, only makes her more irritating and unacceptable and not less. Liberal philosophy emphasizes equality and fairness above all else, and so when someone is successful when they don't deserve to be (again, in their view), it's just not fair. In fact, it's not right. And, let's be frank, there is a little sense of "if she wasn't so good looking she wouldn't be as successful." Some would scream "sexism!" but the fact is that Palin is very good looking and to deny the fact that sometimes beautiful women do have an advantage in a competitive situation would be foolishness. However, I think it's fair to say that the conservatives in this country who love Sarah Palin do not like her just for her good looks. After all, many of these people would not allow their children to watch "American's Next Top Model" because of its "inappropriateness." Christian conservatives, Palin's strongest base, tend to deemphasizes physical beauty, not prize it.

So why, then, do these Christian conservatives love Sarah Palin so much? I would say that it is not her looks or her brains but her beliefs. I am not referring specifically to her faith in Jesus Christ, because, undoubtedly, many Christians in this country would not completely agree with her specific theological positions, so to say that they support her purely out of a sense of religious unity would be a misunderstanding of how Christians think. By beliefs, I mean her espoused views on morality and how morality impacts policy and governing. Similar to Obama supporters, Christian conservatives see Sarah Palin as a figure of hope and change. She brings a fresh morality to a morally bankrupt system in Washington D.C. that everyone knows about and sometimes even talks about but won't do anything about.

Earlier in this election cycle, supporters of Governor Mike Huckabee felt similar about their candidate. When he was effectively eliminated from the race, the conservatives lost their "Obama-esque" figure and were faced with the choice of Mitt "the Android" Romney or John "the old Maverick" McCain. Enthusiasm dropped rapidly. The desire for fresh blood and change was felt universally by the American people, but the Republicans didn't have "change" to vote for until John McCain made the brilliant political move of nominating Sarah Palin. She became the figure of hope for conservatives, a North Star they could follow across the sea of politics until she led them home to peace of mind. Many Christian conservatives do not hide the fact that they would rather see Sarah Palin's name on top of the ticket.

There is a major divide here! One side thinks Palin is a disgrace to American politics while the other wishes she was running for President of the United States! If this were a lecture hall I'd ask everyone to look at their neighbor, imagine that the other person supported the candidate you disdain, and then shake their hand and make nice. If there is anybody left in America that does not realize that our differences are so deep and defined and polarizing, they need to open their eyes. If we want to survive as a nation we need to stop talking about how we disagree, and start figuring out why we disagree. Otherwise within twenty or so years we'll be eating each other alive and decency and respect in politics or anything else will be nothing but a distant memory.

-Daniel Noa

We are now in the most intense part of the most intense campaign season I have ever seen in my short 23-year long lifespan. In January, people were saying that Hillary Clinton would be the democratic nominee, and that John McCain's campaign was dead in the water. In March, while Obama's star was rising fast, Clinton supporters were still adamant that Obama's best hope was the Vice-Presidential nomination. Meanwhile, Republicans hailed Fred Thompson as the last best hope for the party. Come summer time, up is down, left is right (figuratively, of course), McCain is the Republican nominee, and Barack Obama the hope of the Democrats.

Man, it's been a really long year.

It's no wonder people are so frustrated. If there is one thing the Bush years hammered into Americans on both sides of the isle, it's that the President really does determine the direction America travels. Just look at the changes in the structure of our government since 2001. While the 9/11 attacks were certainly the impetus for most of those changes, there were a thousand different ways to respond to those attacks. Is there national consensus on whether the Department of Homeland Security was a bad idea? Certainly the words, "the Patriot Act" have become synonymous with tyranny in certain social circles (and on television, just watch an episode of Law & Order), but does that qualify for national consensus?

I think not.

Which is why everyone is so frustrated.

You know that feeling you get when you know you're right about something and the person you're disagreeing with refuses to acknowledge it? That slow building frustration you experience as you explain the issue to them from every possible perspective and know in your heart that the answer should be clearer to them than the alphabet - but they still refuse to acknowledge you are correct?

Now magnify that to half the country. Imagine that half the country felt that the other half were all "complete idiots" and all that frustration was just building up, maybe over, say, an eight year period.

And to make it even worse, those "complete idiots" that are "causing all the problems" feel just as frustrated about the first half, because from their point of view, those "smart guys" are the real "complete idiots."

Wow. How in the world are we going to get through this?

Maybe the politicians can save us!

Ha! I think not.
In 2000, conservatives were extremely excited to get one of their own into office. While he certainly did enact many of their policies (particularly in his early years), how many conservatives do you know that are coming off the Bush years totally satisfied and happy with their government?

Democrats were chomping at the bit in 2006 to retake the congress, which they did. Yet what has changed? Even from their perspective, what has improved? They still curse the Bush administration, and they still claim an inability to enact the policies they believe to be absolutely necessary.

The politicians cannot save us. The American people themselves need to decide which direction they want the country take. Sadly, people have begun to view the candidates not in terms of what positions they take, but on their "public persona." Obama is the young lion who will come into Washington bringing sweeping change. McCain is the aged warrior who no one listens to but should because he has the wisdom of experience. It was clear in the primaries that Americans wanted new blood, and since John McCain is anything but, he's attempted to use the rhetoric that the press created for him in 2000, referring to himself as a "maverick."

In reality, this is just a race between a one-term senator from Illinois and one of the oldest (and most boring) members of the Senate. Ironic that such a high-stakes race should come down to two very unlikely candidates. Can McCain beat Obama? Either way, I really do not think it will bring an end to America's frustration. No matter the outcome, it will only be intensified.

-Daniel Noa

You could make a strong argument that the presidential candidate with the greatest influence on the current tone of the election is the one who is no longer running. Hillary Clinton, despite her faults, courted the middle class more effectively than either ticket is currently doing. Don't get me wrong—both the Republicans and the Democrats are trying their hardest to secure the market on middle class voters. Both campaigns are doing a lot to attract the middle class, but neither campaign is truly engaging the middle class and telling them what they need to hear.

McCain proved just how mavericky he can be when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Back in August, that choice appeared to be extremely astute. Obama had just chosen Biden as his running mate, and the Palin choice was clearly intended to cut into Biden's draw on the middle class voting block. The secondary purpose for Sarah Palin was to energize the conservative base, some members of which were reticent to actively support McCain and his truly bipartisan record.

There were two results, neither of which was entirely expected. First, Palin excited the base and solidified McCain's grasp on conservatives to an extent that has been compared to Reagan's administration and the Republican Revolution of '94. On the other hand, Palin has had a much more marginal draw with moderates than I'm sure the McCain campaign had hoped she would.

In David Brooks' column, he astutely summarized Palin's usefulness thus [www.nytimes.com]: "Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin." In my opinion, Sarah Palin has tried too hard to remind everyone that she's average. While she is arguably the most "average" of all the candidates (in terms of education, family roots, and income), her incessant appeal to Joe Sixpack and hockey moms was tiresome after the first or second use.

The main reason Obama/Biden are absolutely crushing McCain/Palin in the polls is that they have convinced the middle class that they are best prepared to deal with the economic crisis. Obvious electioneering aside, while Obama was talking about how he was going to handle the economic failure two weeks ago, McCain actually went to Washington and tried to do something about it. Yet, in an era of pop tarts and TV dinners, that is simply not enough. You have to tell the public what you are going to do, then do it. Or, at least just tell them what you are going to do.

John McCain finally made the smart move and announced [thehill.com] a real plan that is aimed directly at the middle class and their economic interests. This is the first real effort the Republicans have made, and a much better effort than the Democrats have made, at actually engaging the middle class and burning the cue-cards. As Christopher Hitchens recently noted [www.slate.com], neither candidate has actually engaged the middle class and told them what they need to hear. It has been an endless source of frustration for me to see both Presidential candidates stick to their talking points even after being pressed for a real answer by Jim Lehrer and Tom Brokaw (who are both fantastic moderators).

As we approach the final presidential debate before the election, both candidates have a final chance to court Joe Sixpack. Neither candidate can win the election without him. While it seems unlikely that John McCain and Sarah Palin will be able to turn their campaign around now, the only chance they have to do so is by convincing the middle-class that Republicans have the nitty-gritty answers. John McCain needs to come out swinging, and give us a glimpse of the fighter he once was. Sarah Palin needs to focus on energizing the conservatives and focus less on reminding everyone how average she is.

- Shant Boyajian

Daniel Noa



Daniel Noa is a 23 yr-old independent filmmaker who obtained a degree in government from Patrick Henry College in 2007. In 2008, Cloud Ten Pictures and Koch Entertainment released his film, SMUGGLER'S RANSOM, on DVD throughout the United States and Canada. While at Patrick Henry, Daniel received recognition for papers on the U.S.'s diplomatic history with the People's Republic of China and on the international crime of human trafficking. In 2007, he also participated in the National Model United Nations program. He now resides in the Los Angeles area and is in the middle of producing a new short film about two Americans caught up in the War on Terror entitled SCORPION 5.

Shant Boyajian



Shant is currently a second-year law student at The Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C. He received his BA in government public policy from Patrick Henry College in 2007. After his graduation, Shant served as an independent campaign consultant for various local politicians in Northern Virginia. Shant is actively involved with the Federalist Society and the Association for Public Interest Law. He spent the last general election and the Spring primary working on a voters' rights protection initiative in inner-city Camden, NJ. Over his spring break in March, 2008, he volunteered with the New Orleans Public Defender. Shant plans to pursue a career in government policy upon his graduation from law school.