Monthly Archives: July 2012

Intervention in the World’s Most Closed Society

31 Tuesday Jul 2012

Posted by in Asia/ Pacific, Regime Change

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,


Image

Kim Jong-un’s continuation of his father’s cruel policies can be seen through his allocation of great resources to Olympic athletes while letting most citizens in North Korea starve.

It is amazing that North Korea has even participated in this year’s London 2012 Olympics. The Olympics are the only time in the year when citizens outside of the Kim family aristocracy are allowed to leave the nation because of Kim Jong-un’s irrational fear of his citizens’ ideological corruption from the West. Even once the Olympic team had come all the way to London, doubt remained over whether North Korea would participate. After mistakenly displaying the South Korean flag (the flag of the nation that North Korea has officially been at war with since 1950) instead of the North Korean flag before a women’s soccer game last Wednesday, North Korea protested and refused to start the match for over an hour until the International Olympics Committee formally apologized for the mishap.

More amazing than North Korea’s mere participation in the Games, though, is the nation’s performance. With more medals than even host nation Britain thus far, North Korea has shocked the world with its Olympic performance of late. The performance of the isolationist ‘Hermit Kingdom,’ however, is not something to look upon with awe, but rather disgust. It is well known and documented that North Koreans’ daily caloric consumption less than ½ of that of America or Western European nations. Much of this caloric intake is from grass and insects, as food rations from the Communist regime are infrequent and unsubstantial. Yet, somehow, the North Korean Olympic athletes are able to acquire the proper nutrition and caloric requirements to perform at par with internationally recognized weightlifters and judo fighters.

Much like the Soviet nations in the late 1900s, North Korea is prioritizing sport over the welfare of its citizens. Threatened by the lack of influence that its Communist ideology has had since the collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korea aims to promote the strength of its Communist society in other ways, most notably through sport. As the international community has few glimpses into the closed nation he rules, Kim Jong-un hopes to portray North Korean society very differently than it truly is. By showcasing to the world only the ‘best’ of North Korea (i.e. the strongest, best fed citizens), he aims to create the illusion that all Western views of the DPRK are flawed and that, in actuality, North Korea is prosperous enough to devote extensive resources to training athletes for the Olympics.

The North Korean Olympic performance highlights one of the issues that have plagued North Korea since Kim Il-sung imposed Stalinist Communism on the nation in 1948. Despite being a self-declared Communist state, economic inequality in the nation is extremely high. The Kim regime, currently led by Kim Jong-un, devotes welfare and resources that a Communist State would ideally devote to the lower class to the ruling elite and a selected few conservative nationalist allies of the regime. It is estimated that the Kim family dynasty is worth tens of billions of dollars gained from the nation’s collectivized agriculture meant to redistribute profits to the poor. Instead though, the rich ironically are the only ones benefitting from the Communist society.

The Kim regimes tyrannical rule has progressed for far too long. The stance of the international community has largely been to let the regime die a natural death; after all, most nations figured that the isolationism and repression of North Korean dictators was unsustainable. However, the time for waiting has elapsed. It is time for the international community to lead a charge to overthrow the illegitimate ruler Kim Jong-un. Much as they did in Libya, NATO or the UN Security Council should decide on definitive action aiming at applying political pressure on the regime. This action could include but not be limited to more stringent sanctions, or even military action. Granted, the Arab Springs protests have shown that often times the political vacuum following the fall of an oppressive regime is filled by an equally repressive regime (e.g. Egypt). However, there have been successful regime topples, such as Libya’s. Libya is currently transitioning into democracy. With international support in toppling the Kim regime and replacing it with a more enlightened government, the international community has the potential to make North Korea a success story just like Libya.

About these ads

The Economics of Olympics Advertising

30 Monday Jul 2012

Posted by in Economy, Europe

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , ,


In discussion on the London 2012 Olympics, one recurring theme is financing. Many question whether or not London has the financial strength to host a costly international sporting event like the London 2012 Olympics, which has already seen a 300% cost overrun. Almost certainly, despite UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s predictions of an unprecedented US $5 billion profit, the UK will face a sizeable deficit from the Olympics. Advertising companies’ financing, though, is more interesting than Britain’s financing of the Games.

Advertising in the Olympics is very different from many other sporting events. Quite unlike NASCAR and English Premier League soccer, uniform sponsorship and advertising is banned in the Olympic Games. Additionally, unlike many other sporting events that see advertising from hundreds of companies, the Olympics only permits 11 companies to advertise in the Olympics. Additionally, advertising contracts are not short term for just one Olympic sporting event. Advertising contracts generally last a minimum of 8 years, or 4 Olympic Games.

The limited advertising opportunities offered in the Olympics make the competition for advertising and sponsoring Olympics stiff, especially amongst Fortune 500 Companies that have the potential to spend up to US $1 billion in advertising for just one Olympic Games. The great advertising cost of the Olympics, a result of the limited but large scale advertising deals available at the Olympics, have led to 5 of the 11 Olympic sponsors in 2012 being one of the top 20 global brands, according to consulting firm Interbrand.

While most of the Olympics sponsors tend to be larger corporations looking to solidify their brand name, some historically have actually been smaller companies seeking a place on a global stage. For example, in the 1988 Seoul Olympics, Samsung was able to leverage its advertisements to shape the company from a company unheard of outside of Korea to the presently second largest Asian company behind Toyota.

Olympic sponsorships, though, are extremely risky. The benefit of advertising a brand through the Olympics is the same as the detriment: being projected on a world stage. British security company G4S saw its stock price free fall after it failed to uphold its part of the bargain under its Olympic deal, failing to provide enough security personnel to the Games.

It is also extremely interesting to study the finances of broadcasting companies covering the Olympics. In the Olympics, broadcasting companies essentially work like advertising companies. Broadcasting companies such as NBC consistently run deficits of hundreds of millions of dollars in their Olympic coverage, but aim to make long term profits. Like advertising companies, the goal of broadcasting companies is to invest in a better brand name to help run huge profits in the future by solidifying more expensive advertisers for their broadcasting station.

The Olympics provide a unique stage for global marketing. The advertising system in the Olympics is one that benefits the host nation, advertising companies, and the spectators. The unobtrusive advertising, made possible by restricting the number of corporations that can advertise in a single Games and the prohibition of advertising on uniforms, makes the viewing experience a more enjoyable one for spectators and television viewers around the world. The revenue generated from advertising also helps the Olympics host nation, who is able to feasibly run a profit or at least break even from the Games through expensive sponsorship agreements. And, finally, the companies advertising are able to improve their brand name and generate huge profits in the long run from this mutually beneficial partnership.

Romney’s Regression to Bush

29 Sunday Jul 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


Image

Mitt Romney’s constantly changing policy stances makes it difficult to determine for sure his foreign policy if elected president. However, all evidence points to an antagonistic foreign policy under Romney.

Recent developments in his campaign indicate that if elected as president, Mitt Romney’s foreign policy stance and actions will likely mirror those of George W. Bush. Like Bush, Romney appears likely to improve relations with Israel at the expense of souring relations with Europe, the Middle East, and China.

Europe seems likely to be a battleground for Romney, as he seems to be a hardliner regarding austerity. He has already, before even assuming presidency, managed to ruin relations with Britain by deeming the nation unable to host the Olympics due to high debt. Romney’s feeble attempts to retract his statement and instead endorse the London 2012 Olympics failed to rectify the damage. While this will likely help him to gain German support under the pro-austerity chancellor Angela Merkel, it comes at the expense of souring relations with anti-austerity, pro-growth Mediterranean models. These nations have seen economic woes beginning with the financial crisis of 2008, problems which have only been exacerbated by the ECB’s hardline austerity programs designed at balancing the PIIGS nations’ budget.

While Europe will likely be an ideological battleground for Romney, the Middle East has the potential to be a physical battleground; already heated tensions between the United States and the Middle East seem likely to reach a boiling point under Romney’s conservative leadership. Romney’s alleged unwavering support of Israel is quite believable considering his close friendship with Israeli leader Benyamin Netanyahu. Romney’s plan to support Israel in any course of action against Iran in light of Ahmadinejad’s nuclear program is quite risky considering Israel’s earlier plan to engage Iran militarily. Heated Israeli-Iranian tensions over a Bulgarian bomb that killed 5 Israeli tourists, allegedly an Iranian terrorist operation according to Israel, indicate a likely American backed Israeli military operation in Iran aimed at disarming the nation militarily.

China seems to be quite contentious for Romney. While Obama has sought to improve relations with China, hoping to double trade with China in just 5 years, Romney seems keen to disengage with China in light of its political developments. Romney seems keen to punish China for unconfirmed intellectual property stealing, computer hacking, and currency manipulation. China is a key ally to the US economically, though the political alliance between the nations is constantly strained. Attempting to break off ties with China for political reasons will undeniably have consequences on a grand scale for the struggling American economy.

As a Republican candidate, Romney’s conservative military policy of engagement is to be expected. If Romney gets his way, though, he will likely end Obama’s peaceful diplomatic relations in favor of gunboat diplomacy, or an antagonistic foreign policy. As an ostensible mimic of the Bush Administration, Romney will likely even reverse Obama’s foreign policy progress. It seems quite feasible that Romney would reverse Obama’s decision to pull all US troops out of Afghanistan by 2014 in the longest and most unpopular war in US history, barring the Vietnam War. In my mind, Obama wins hands down in terms of foreign policy and the extent of military. However, economic policy will be equally important. If Romney hopes to win this election, he will need to convince the American voters of the benefits of either his foreign policy or economic policies, the former of which does not seem possible. As such, Romney should focus in the coming months on solidifying in the minds of the American people his ideas that of the superiority of the private sector and how his business experience will be an asset in the White House.

Icelandic Lessons in Policymaking

27 Friday Jul 2012

Posted by in Economy, Europe

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


Iceland’s GDP is around US $13 billion. When the recession hit, Iceland’s banks were in debt US $100 billion. What is more interesting than the financial collapse itself, though, is how Iceland rebuilt itself. Iceland today is one of the stronger economies in Europe with a 6% unemployment rate in contrast to Spain’s 25% unemployment rate or Greece’s 21% rate. Iceland’s rebound from the worst financial collapse relative to GDP in history to a stable economy in such a short period is quite honestly astounding.

At the turn of the millennia, in 2000, Iceland’s long history of nationalized banking drew to a close in one of the most telling experiments in privatization and deregulation. With the onset of the global financial crisis, Icelandic banks’ subprime loans and massive foreign debt caused them to declare bankruptcy in 2008, thereby threatening to bankrupt the entire nation. Contrary to the United States, Iceland did not bail out its ‘too big to fail’ banks; its 3 largest banks, producing 14% of GDP, were allowed to fall. Iceland nationalized and bailed out smaller banks in the nation that did not fall. Iceland additionally borrowed money from the IMF, which it used to invest in infrastructure to create jobs. Iceland also held an immediate referendum to revise its constitution. In this way, Iceland has increased private sector regulation in order to prevent another recession due to market deregulation. Most of the West has thus far been content with keeping in place its deregulation policies. While deregulation does invariably lead to greater economic progress in the short term, it has many detriments. Most notably, it can allow corporations to act with impunity with no policies in place to prevent them from sending markets into turmoil through internal decisions. Investment banks’ exploitation of the unregulated derivatives and credit default swaps markets is a prime example of this theory. Iceland, though, now has the legislative power to prevent such dangerous corporate activities.

Quite amazingly, at no point following the financial collapse in 2008 did Iceland’s unemployment rate pass 10%. Iceland is a success story. Perhaps the greatest mark of this assertion is that the Icelandic president Olafur Grimsson, in power since 1996, has been re-elected for a record 5th strait term. It is almost unheard of for a policymaker who was in power during an economic recession, especially when it was the biggest recession relative to GDP in history, to be re-elected. Yet, the Icelandic people re-elected the leader because of his commitment to rebuilding Iceland’s economy into a balanced economy that could prosper and be a European economic stronghold in the future.

Obama, the Federal Government, and Taxes: The Terrible Trio

26 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


Even with deregulation and tax cuts since the Reagan administration, Americans have been complaining that taxes are too high. Yet, they also complain that income inequality is too high. In essence, they want a Socialist welfare state without the burden of having to finance it. Interestingly, though, Americans have it better than most of the world. American taxes are actually extremely low. As of 2011, federal taxes, at 14.8% of GDP, were the lowest in the US since 1950. Of 40 developing countries in OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), taxes in the US were the fifth lowest. Additionally, the United States has great public institutions. Its public education system is tied with Switzerland as the best in the world.

Romney’s allegations that Obama believed in excessive power of the federal government were taken completely out of context.

Obama has recently come under fire form Republicans for proposing higher taxes on the upper class. Romney took out a selected quote from the speech Obama made and overplayed it in the media. Out of context, Romney has continually reminded voters that Obama said, “If you’ve got a business-you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” This quote struck discord with the America, a country that has always believed in the power of the individual and limiting the power of the federal government in order to keep it in check. The “American Dream,” a key feature of American history, especially from the 1950s- 1970s, was based on this principle of the individual. The American Dream focused on the potential for each American to achieve upper socioeconomic mobility and for each successive generation to be more economically prosperous than the last. In fact, though, Obama’s quote was taken out of context by Romney. Below is an excerpt of Obama’s speech in which he explains his basis for increasing taxes on the rich.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. 

 

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet.

 

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president—because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

 

In context, Obama’s quote is much more logical and appealing to voters. His point is not to limit the idea of personal power but rather to bring light to the Obama’s argument that the rich deserve to pay higher tax rates in his election has centered on the idea that the rich benefitted more from the social institutions, such as infrastructure and education, than did the poor. However, Obama’s idea is flawed. Granted, it sounds more logical than Romney would have portrayed it. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that the poor benefit from tax-financed public goods more than the rich do. After all, the middle and lower classes are much more likely to attend public schools and state universities, both of which are financed through tax money. On the other hand, the rich are far more likely to attend prestigious private schools and private universities. The fact of the matter is that the rich pay far more than their fair share of taxes. In fact, while the top 5% of Americans by economic might generated roughly 32% of GDP, they paid nearly 60% of total income tax.

The principle of incremental income tax and successively increasing tax brackets is an old institution in the United States based on the idea that the rich can afford to give up a greater share of their wealth for common good. While this type economic model would fit a Social Democracy like Sweden or Denmark, it has no place in a capitalist society like the United States. In fact, the United States should impose a flat income tax in order to maintain fairness and the favorable business climate for the rich that makes a capitalist society thrive.

Schengen Agreement Guarantees Long Term European Economic Paralysis

25 Wednesday Jul 2012

Posted by in Economy, Europe

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,


One of the key aspects of the European Union is the Schengen free movement zone. The Schengen Agreement was created in 1985 and has now expanded to encompass nearly the entire European Union as well as some non-EU countries. The Schengen Agreement and subsequent Schengen Convention abolished immigration and border control checks among participating nations. The Schengen Zone proved practical in a financially stable market by reducing the amount of money spent in border controls for tourists and immigrants from these selected nations. The principle of the theory was that the nations in this Agreement all had strict enough weapon control laws, so no danger could arise from a porous border. The Euro crisis, though, undermines the strength of the policy.

The issue lies for certain nations, such as France and Germany, who have more or less escaped the brunt of the financial storm. These nations have unemployment rates well below the European Union average of 10.5%. The Schengen free movement zone allows citizens of any other nation in the zone to reside permanently in these nations. Citizens from many of the nations within the Agreement, especially Spain (25% unemployment rate) and Greece (21% unemployment rate), have been exploiting the Schengen Agreement. Many of these citizens have left their home countries and effortlessly migrated to France, Germany, and Scandinavia in order to secure jobs and escape jobless markets in their home countries. As proof of this assertion, Germany’s immigration rate in 2011 was the highest in 15 years. From 2007 till present, France’s net immigration rate has increased form about 0.7 to 1.43. The Agreement actually serves detrimental to both parties. Nations with struggling economies such as Spain, Greece, and Portugal will lack competition in their markets once the economy recovers; while the job market in these nations is currently too competitive due to high unemployment, competition is one of the key foundations of capitalism that drives economic growth. In the future, once the job market recovers, unemployment in these nations will be too low to drive economic growth. In fact, historically, an unemployment rate of 5-10% appears to be the most conducive to economic growth and socioeconomic development. Nations with an unemployment rate hamper citizens’ work ethic. Conversely, nations with an unemployment rate above 10% tend to experience issues in socioeconomic development, namely that the quality of life for its citizens stagnates or actually decreases. This is the problem set to arise in strong European economies like France and Germany; the great influx of immigrants will deny jobs for natives, and will thus exacerbate already high unemployment across the board in these nations.

Financial stability in the Eurozone does not seem likely to improve; to the contrary, many economic analysts project that financial stability and unemployment in the Eurozone will get worse before it gets better. Nations such as France and Germany will only have their fiscal problems and unemployment rates rise in the near future due to the Schengen free movement zone. At the same time, larger numbers of citizens will emigrate from Mediterranean nations. While in the short term this will reduce unemployment and improve the quality of life of the nations’ citizens, it will actually prove uneconomical in the long term. Once the nations recover economically, their markets will face a job vacuum that employers will be forced to fill with incompetent or undeserving employees. This, in the long term, will hamper economic growth and, consequently, socioeconomic development. The only effective way to prevent these disastrous scenarios would be to abolish the Schengen free movement zone. By tightening immigration laws, European nations will be able to prosper economically in the long run by assuring the golden 5-10% unemployment rate in the future.

Generation (Wh)Y Go to College?

24 Tuesday Jul 2012

Posted by in Education, The Americas

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


Image

While once viewed as all-important to future success, Ivy League educations offer the same opportunities of those at second-tier colleges and, as such, are quite cost ineffective.

An article in this week’s edition of Newsweek refers to the generation of 18-35 year olds as ‘generation screwed.’ This title is in fact deserved, especially in America and most European nations, because of the education and work crises plaguing youth and young adults. The question of whether or not to go to college, even for the wealthy, is no longer a question based solely on academic interest and talent; money is now plays a huge role. Including room and board, tuition, and living expenses, attending a top private university in the United States will likely come out to roughly  $250,000 over four years. Including interest on student loans, college students are left with astronomical amounts of student debt following graduation. To make matters worse, many companies are no longer hiring recent college graduates at the same level positions that they would have perhaps a decade ago. Many college students now have the same employment and salary options that they would have with only a high school diploma under their belt.  As such, the question of whether or not a college degree is worth its value arises. After all, for many a college degree is little more than an investment into the future. Some would argue that a college degree is much more than that, namely that the academic passion and lifelong experiences of an undergraduate education justify the cost. This may be the case for the privileged elite, but for the vast majority of Americans, a college education is only worthwhile if the cost of attending college, employment opportunities lost during college (4 potential working years), and interest on student loans are eventually made up. This value can total over $500,000 simply for an undergraduate education.

The only students benefiting economically from an Ivy League education are students from families with a household income of less than $100,000 who earn full or substantial financial aid supplements. For all others, the cost of an Ivy League education does not currently merit the cost. The best option for high achieving students is to apply to public universities at in-state fees. Alternatively, top students can apply to slightly lower ranked private or state universities in order to hopefully secure merit-based scholarships. Undoubtedly, today’s skyrocketing university prices and the worrying job prospects render an Ivy League education uneconomical. After all, according to Paul Krueger, an economist and professor at Princeton University, the only reason that Ivy League students are more successful than students of other universities is because they must inherently be talented to enter the universities; Krueger argues that a student able academically to attend an Ivy League who decides instead to attend a second-tier college would be able to earn the same salary following graduation while having saved a considerable amount during college. After all, for those truly seeking to be in the top of their field, a graduate degree is almost always necessary. My advice is to save on an undergraduate degree, but not to skimp on a graduate degree education in order to have the most profitable college experience.

Separation of Church (Synagogue) and State in the US and Israel

23 Monday Jul 2012

Posted by in Government, Middle East, The Americas

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , ,


In principle, the United States and its ally Israel are both secular democracies. Practice, though, often proves different from principle. In fact, despite their claims to be secular, the United States and Israel are both guided by religion. Recent political developments in each nation have raised this sensitive issue once again. Upcoming presidential debates in both Israel and the United States will surely focus on the level of influence, if any, that religion should have.

In the United States, outrage from devout Christians erupted just a couple of years ago regarding a certain clause in the Affordable Care Act, dubbed ‘Obamacare.’ The controversial clause entitled all women, regardless of their employer, access to preventative healthcare, including but not limited to contraception. Eventually, Obama was forced to acquiesce to protests from evangelicals and the Church and eliminate these entitlements for employees of parochial schools and religious institutions. However, Obama stood his ground despite these protests and maintained entitlements to contraception for employees of religious affiliated organizations such as NGOs and schools. The question of secularism reappears now with the upcoming presidential election; 20% of American voters said that they would not vote for Romney simply because he is Mormon. In fact, in the history of the United States, every president has been Protestant barring John F. Kennedy, who was a Catholic. So, although the Church officially has no power in the United States, its excessive influence in the nation’s politics defies American secular ideals.

Israel has recently been debating on special rights for its privileged ultra-conservative haredi class. Israel is one of the most militaristic societies in the world; it is the only nation where all men and women are required to participate in national service, or military duty. However, the haredi class, comprising 13% of the population and an even greater proportion of youth, have been exempt from military service for decades. Despite the ‘equalization’ aspect of National Service (i.e. everyone, regardless of race or economic class, is required to partake in National military service), the haredi are exempted from partaking in military service. This issue is extremely sensitive because requiring the group to participate in military service, while just, could prove disastrous politically. Any presidential candidate advocating such a policy would surely face criticism and a sharp drop in popularity due to the great political influence that the haredi have as a result of sheer numbers. In Israel, breaches of secularism are more prominent than in the United States. Religion in Israel not only has influence in politics as in the United States, but directly impacts lawmakers and their policies.

It is interesting that although pure secularism was intended upon the establishment of both Israel and the United States, religion has consistently had undue influence in both nations. Given the high prevalence of evangelism and the impact of religion on conservatives in both nations, it will be extremely difficult to entirely eliminate religious aspects and influences from American and Israeli politics. However, the extent of secularism in both nations will be important in the future. As both nations, particularly the United States, become increasingly liberal, Israeli and American leaders will need to work to extend the separation of Church and State.

Neo-Nazism in Germany

22 Sunday Jul 2012

Posted by in Europe, Government

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,


Could Germany soon see a revival of the Nazi Party? It would appear so. The People’s Union Party (NPD) is a German political party that has recently gained support due to its populist platforms. The rise of radical governments in Europe is no new trend; Hollande’s strongly left-wing party won the French presidential election. Greece’s strongly liberal Syriza party nearly won the Greek elections. Totalitarian rule now seems likely to engulf Romania. However, the neo-Nazi NPD party is much more radical and potentially detrimental to German interest and international peace and stability than any of the other parties that have risen to power recently. After all, the NPD hopes to regain all of the European territories controlled by Hitler prior to World War 2, including the Czech Republic, Austria, and Poland. Support of the NPD’s populist movements is a disturbing recent trend in German politics.

One key example of this is its anti-immigration policies. One of the party leaders explained that he felt that Germany’s culture was based around its ethnic composition. In vulgar language, he asserted that German culture would essentially be destroyed if the nation were inundated with immigrants from Africa. Xenophobic, and, particularly, anti-Muslim sentiment in Germany has skyrocketed in recent years due to the rise of terrorism from Islamic terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, which has increased support for the NPD. As a result of these populist policies, the NPD has been granted a seat in parliament in the German state of Saxony in 2004 and 2009 and in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in 2006 and 2011.

Image

Germany’s NPD Party has gained more support in the East as a result of the economic injustice felt by East Germans and radicalism fostered under the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The government now seeks to ban the NPD because many of its platforms and potential policies are unconstitutional. Additionally, there is evidence that the NPD has ties with extremist Nazi organizations such as National Socialist Underground (NSU). The German government made a similar attempt in 2003, but failed because the government felt that suppressing a party would violate freedom of expression. Now, though, the government must take a definitive stance to quell the nationalistic group. After all, Germany’s government dismissed Hitler’s Nazi Party in the 1930s as a minority radical movement that would never gain widespread political support. However, the Nazi party’s populist economic platforms soon gained popularity when the Great Depression deepened in Germany. A similar sequence of events is hitting Germany presently. The government doubts that the NPD will ever gain enough support to have a candidate elected as Chancellor. Yet, a double dip recession now threatens Europe. While Germany managed to escape most of the brunt of the first recession, it will likely not fare so well this time. Its unemployment rate has increased from about 6% to nearly 7% from May to present. The anti-immigration policies will likely gain support as foreign talent takes German jobs amidst high unemployment rates. With more support, it will be difficult for the government to crush the NPD. Now, then, is the time. The government has ample evidence of the party’s unconstitutional policy promises and its illegal indoctrination of youth with Nazi ideology to destroy the neo-Nazi party once and for all.

America’s Electoral College: Eroding the Foundations of Democracy

21 Saturday Jul 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


The white, male, landowners who framed the constitution aimed to create an elitist voting system in the United States by devising the Electoral College system. As they saw it, common Americans were too uninformed of politics to have the power to decide the most important political figure in the nation. They also sought to give individual states more voting power. As such, they felt it important to give each state Electoral votes to be decided by an Electoral College made up of educated men. Recent shifts in the Electoral College system, however, make the system counterproductive. The Electoral College system now grants states less power and leaves the presidential vote largely up to chance instead of the will of the American people.

When the Electoral College system was devised, there were more political parties and swing voters. Ergo, each state was up for grabs in the electoral system. However, now there are only two main parties and certain states have strong left wing or right wing pulls. States such as California, New York, and Illinois are bound to be Democratic and vote Obama in the upcoming election while right-wing states such as Texas and Alabama are almost guaranteed to vote Romney. In these states, votes and voters simply do not matter. This is because in 48 of the 50 states, all of the Electoral votes go to the candidate with a simple majority. Hence, in states where a majority for one party is guaranteed, voting becomes an almost unimportant practice. After all, whether Obama receives a 60% majority or a 65% majority in New York, the number of electoral votes he will gain will remain the same. In his Newsweek article this week, political consultant Paul Begala argues that the election this year will boil down to just 916,643 people, of whom likely less than half will actually vote. His reasoning is that 44 of the 50 states have already essentially decided their candidate due to strong left or right wing leaning. He says that Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado are the 6 swing states whose Electoral votes will decide the outcome of the election. Bengan argues that in these states, 96% of the voters have already decided which candidate they are voting for based on party affiliation. So, he asserts, Obama and Romney are contending for a minuscule 4% of the popular vote in 6 states, which boils down to 916,643 voters.

Image

This graphic projects the Electoral College votes in the upcoming 2012 presidential election much as Begala did. This graphic, though projects that North Carolina would be a swing state, while Bengala asserted that it would not.

The flaws in the Electoral College system, which essentially fail to give voting power to voters in 44 of the 50 states, have not gone unnoticed. Each election, the Electoral College debate reignites, yet each election the system continues. Florida challenged the electoral system in the 2000 elections in which Al Gore trumped Bush by over 500,000 popular votes but lost the election. Once again, in 2012, Florida is challenging the electoral system. Ironically, though, Florida actually benefits greatly form this system. As one of the 6 swing states, its voters get a much larger say in the outcome of the presidential election than if the vote were simply left up to popular vote. However, Florida, unlike the other 5 swing states, is not looking to exploit the system; it seeks to fix it.

In this issue, I must agree with Florida. The US should now seek to abolish the Electoral College system and replace it with a popular vote to determine future presidential elections. While the system had merit when it was created, times and circumstances have changed. The US population is now far more educated and informed about politics than it was in 1789. Additionally, the two-party system and the political polarity of states serves to grant voters in 44 of the 50 states far less voice and power in shaping their government than they would with a popular vote system, while giving just 916,643 citizens in 6 states virtually full power to decide the president. The economy and foreign policy will be key issues for the winner of the 2012 presidential election to tackle, but perhaps an even more important challenge will be reforming the political system to replace the Electoral College system with a popular vote system in order to ensure a more enlightened and fair voting system for American politics in the future.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers