Born in the USA

As our class was talking about wars throughout the week, I kept on wondering why people from each side would for the most part blindly support their countries. While some nationalism has to do with propaganda and truncating free speech, I think it also has to do with simply being born. A country can bring back memories and emotions to its citizens that were born there, but should it cloud their judgement when criticizing their government? I love America because of our democratic process and the plethora of art we produce, but I have no qualms over criticizing the government. For some, critiquing the government is a sin, since they think it means you don't love your country.  I think that it's the exact opposite. People freely expressing their opinions, positive or negative, is why I love being an American, not because I feel locked here by being born in Illinois. What's more appalling is when people have such a burning passion for their country that they will hurt those from other countries, like we saw during the WW1 and 2 presentations.

One non-war example of this blind patriotism was when Reagan played the song "Born in the USA" by Bruce Springsteen at one of his rallies. Not only did Reagan think it was a patriotic song, but the audience did to, simply because the repeating lyrics were "Born in the USA". Springsteen was furious about this, since his intention was to write a Vietnam protest song, not a 4th of July get-together song.

The lyrics aren't very ambiguous, as long as you listen to them.

Got in a little hometown jam 
So they put a rifle in my hand 
Sent me off to a foreign land 
To go and kill the yellow man 

I think if anybody put thought into listening to this song they would think twice before playing it at a rally. Springsteen realized that simply being born in the USA does not make you blessed or set for life. He pointed out the underbelly of America, and how we forced our young men to go to Vietnam and kill. Is it our duty to love where we came from? I don't think so. But you can voice your opinion in the comments.

Selling an Image

The main goal of a political campaign is to get people to side with you, and eventually vote for you. Political campaigning has been a hot topic ever since Super Pacs started forming. Campaigns inevitably involve one form of advertisement or another, but when does advertising cross the line into the territory of being a sellout? Here is a video of Mitt Romney in Jacksonville Florida:

I have never seen such an awkward encounter in my life. Keep in mind this is a Harvard graduate. When I go outside of the Northshore bubble on the CTA, I don't suddenly start speaking differently because I'm in a different neighborhood. This was 4 years ago, and Romney wasn't the nominee yet, so it was easy to make mistakes. But what about now, only a month before the election? Paul Ryan made a little mistake while campaigning in Ohio. From the New York Times:

       "Afterward, Mr. Ryan stopped with his wife and children at a nearby soup kitchen. The family put on aprons and washed several large pans, though they did not appear to need washing, according to a pool reporter. There also was no one to serve at the soup kitchen, as breakfast had ended."

Here is a picture from the above event:

Why do candidates feel such a strong need to have embarrassing fake photo-ops and say slang which is clearly directed to a certain race or population? I know that the president isn't just in office to make decisions, he's also there to be a symbol for America. But what is the line between representing America and being just a shell that you sell to get votes?  Is it okay to sell an image of themselves for campaigning, even though it doesn't represent who they truly are?

Comparison of Two Debates

As many people know, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama went head to head in Denver this last week for a debate in Denver Colorado. Personally, I was more looking forward to another debate in Denver: Rumble 2012, between the political pundits Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart. I listened to both debates, and my consensus, as well as others' is that the debate between the candidates was boring and void of character, and the pundit battle was lively and entertaining. Here is the pundit debate...

And here is the Romney and Obama debate:

As I watched the presidential debate, a small globule of saliva dripped from my mouth. It was at this point I realized that this was the most boring live TV I had ever watched (even surpassing American Idol). Both candidates were repeating the same things they've said through their whole campaigns. All of their words homogenized into a single-toned rambling about various aspects of government. It's sad to see two aspiring presidents play it safe as millions of the people they will lead watch them. Part of a president's job is to emotionally represent the country. While Ronald Reagan's actual policies are debatable, the cowboy character he brought to the White House caused a boost of optimism in America. I believe America deserves a leader that is full of zeal and emotion. Here is Reagan during a presidential debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w. Although Jimmy Carter's point was well though out and important, the mere humor aspect of when Reagan says "There you go again" totally trumped his point. We had many more of these moments in the Stewart and O'reilly debate. Both candidates spoke with a lot of emotion and humor. Despite the the host constantly asking the audience to quiet down, they often responded to the debaters with laughs and cheers, opposed to the stoic audience of the other debate. We should be seeing more character from President Obama and Romney in the coming debates.