As a student who is highly invested in a well-rounded liberal arts education, I am disgusted by the overwhelming “liberal” (Democratic, Democrats are not the only liberals) bias at the university and everywhere else regarding the upcoming presidential election. It is almost as if we forgot there are other candidates besides Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Because of the lack of Republicans on the campus, I will not dwell upon McCain’s shortcomings and instead shine some light upon the more popular options.
As a registered and proud member of a third party, I support advocates for change, yet I do not find such an advocate in any of the two major parties’ candidates. What never ceases to annoy me is how both Democratic hopefuls are campaigning to become “champions of change.” However, the same two political parties have been running American government for almost 200 years. If Obama or Clinton really intended to make changes, they would not run Democratic campaigns. Because our country has become so politically polarized, it is far easier for candidates to run with major party (and federal) support.
The truth is, both Obama and Clinton fit the ideal Democrat mold almost perfectly, which actually means they do not intend to change much at all. Obama is for an increase in minimum wage, which in turn raises inflation and decreases the number of entry-level jobs; leaving Iraq – we all want it, now please show us a feasible and fair exit plan that does not cripple Iraq with our failed attempt at Westernization; universal health care – a nice dream, but, in the end, it will damage the economy and benefit the pharmaceutical companies more than our middle-class citizens; saving Darfur – which is a humanitarian issue and should not be used as a piece of political propaganda; and supports a tax credit to help cut the cost of college education – yes, the price is skyrocketing, but if the recession is dealt with properly, inflation should go down and the cost of education with it. Which Democratic candidate isn’t for all these wonderful ideals?
Our founding fathers warned about the problems of party politics. According to Wikipedia, a political machine is “an unofficial system of a political organization based on patronage, the spoils system, ‘behind-the-scenes’ control and long-standing political ties within the structure of a representative democracy.” It is clear the Democratic political machine is still alive and kicking. Its control over the media is apparent, the majority of news outlets are biased toward the Democratic candidates, and yet the only non-Democratic news station is constantly labeled as biased.
There is a lack of media attention on third party candidates and even Ron Paul (the closest thing to a third party candidate) is completely ignored. The true face of the media is shown by their blatantly obvious political agenda and their unfair coverage of “the underdog,” also known as the third party. Two parties cannot possibly represent the political beliefs of a country with over 300 million citizens.
Recently, on my way through Tydings Hall, I saw many posters asking me to join the “Grassroots Effort to put a Democrat in the White House.” Democrats already control the House, the Senate, the media and almost every college campus (and it is almost guaranteed a Democrat will win the White House at this point). What we really need is a grassroots effort to change the course of our country’s future.
We should not leave it up to Clinton or Obama to change America; it is up to us to make a well informed decision at the polls. If people were to vote based on their beliefs and not on their parents’ ties or an image portrayed by a biased media, perhaps America could actually change for the better.
It seems many people are blinded by new faces, rhetoric and lyrical speeches and do not see they are choosing between the same old candidates with the same old political ideas.
Gregory Schlein is a freshman French major. He can be reached at gschlein@umd.edu.
