Climbing up the political food chain
In the late hours of last Tuesday’s post-election news
programs, pundits from several news networks made their
“declaration” that the 2008 presidential campaign cycle
had begun.
They proceeded to focus on about 10 senators from both parties
who they believed could run for their party’s nomination.
While this sort of “horse-race” reporting might be
good for ratings, it lacks any true insight into the upcoming
presidential campaigns.
To give the voting public a good historical context, one point
that should be made is the improbability of a senator being elected
to the nation’s highest political office.
The last senator to be directly elected to the office was
charismatic John F. Kennedy.
The general pattern is that state governors and vice presidents,
who have “executive experience,” become presidents.
Senators usually first serve as vice presidents and thereafter may
be elected to the presidency.
Merely communicating this historical observation to the American
people would offer significant insight into the last presidential
election ““ history was against Sen. John Kerry.
Both Democrats and Republicans should be conscious of this as
several ambitious and well-known senators will be vying for
nomination.
When the American news media chooses to analyze a current event,
it must recognize its responsibility to offer enlightening details
““ such as the historical context ““ that will facilitate
a more rigorous dialogue within our democracy.
Kyle Gilde Fourth-year, history
U.S.: Set an example, abolish death penalty
It is unfortunate that Rashmi Joshi seems to think that plain
and simple murder should be “taken off the political
agenda” (Nov. 8).
In her opinion piece, Joshi makes the case that Europe’s
strong moral objections to the execution of Saddam Hussein are
purely political ““ the implication being that a reasonable
person cannot disagree with the death sentence of a former
dictator.
It apparently matters little that most liberal democracies
consider the death penalty to be a petty form of antiquated
barbarism.
The case for the abolishment of the death penalty in Iraq is
even more important, as the government of Iraq previously exerted
almost limitless authoritarian rule over its populace.
Would it not be an incredibly potent symbol to ban such sadistic
exercises outright in Iraq today?
Some death penalty abolitionists may object that the execution
of a ruthless tyrant should be an exception, but this does not
stand to reason either.
It is precisely in such cases that the commitment of a society
to its core principles is tested most strictly.
If Hussein were instead sentenced to life in prison, Iraqis
would know that they now live in a profoundly different Iraq that
does not recognize the right of the state to kill people who kill
people.
It is this profoundly circular logic, already understood in much
of Western Europe, that does not befit the ideals of a modern
liberal democracy and is certain to fan the flames of sectarian
violence in Iraq.
Ian Shoemaker Graduate student, physics