January 10th: Proving American Greatness

This political season has been fascinating, more so because I have been spending mine out of the country. This year more than any in my voting lifetime (admittedly short voting lifetime), the country is facing a fundamental decision as to what sort of country we want to be, and how the future of America should look.

Living abroad for much of this year, it has been fascinating to see how the landscape has been shaped. While my Facebook newsfeed tells a story of a dominant Bernie Sanders sweeping across the nation, the polls still see Hillary as a frontrunner. We have 13 Republican candidates running, and yet we only seem to be able to talk about two at a time, and one of them has to be Donald Trump. Trump is causing a cataclysmic backlash from most of the country, or so it seems, leaving many to scratch their heads at how this loud-mouthed bigot ever got his name on a ballot in the first place.

Sitting in my apartment in Jerusalem, I found myself asking the question: how did we get here? How did we, as a country, become so divided, so polarized? How did we turn our elections process into a grudge match, in many cases begging politicians to offend and create news, rather than actually forcing them to tell us how they will make the country better?

As I returned home for a two week winter break, I discovered something discomforting: I don’t know the answer to these questions, but those in America don’t either. From only 13 days in the country, I could feel a profound sense of bewilderment across the nation, nobody quite sure how we got ourselves into the situation in which we find ourselves, and even less sure of what we can do to get ourselves out.

The greatest obstacle to a well-functioning political system is confusion. When we, as American voters, don’t know which direction to turn, we often will find ourselves following the voices that play off of our fears and doubts, rather than the ones who can lead us in the truest direction. Fear is, after all, what has gotten us into this situation in the first place. We are afraid for the safety, security, and success of the future of this country, and we want to make sure that our elected official is going to be able to do what it takes to fix it.

As the primaries inch closer, it’s time to turn our backs on the fear and turn off the voices that try to inspire us with false senses of security. We have to stop talking about how, if the election doesn’t go our way, we are moving to Canada. We have to stop looking for reasons to hate one another, and to start looking for places where we can actually govern, and look for the candidates who will be able to do just that. We have to stop allowing politicians to run on platforms that are not only bigoted and wrong, but also unconstitutional and, in some cases, illegal.

We keep sitting around waiting for the Donald Trump situation to go away, but it looks like the sad reality is that we are going to have to take him seriously. If we, not only as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans want a government that will speak for our values and continue to prove to be worthy of the greatness of our country, then we need to work hard to encourage educated voting and allow easy access to information about what the future of our nation might look like.

Even from abroad, I feel a profound sense of love for my home. At a certain point, Americans need to stand up collectively and take ownership of the elections process, and to demand candidates who will not fear monger or spread hate, but will give true and valuable ways in which they hope to bring about peace and success for all Americans.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

June 16th: Getting College Bang For Your Buck

As we cross the 50 yard line in June, high school graduations settle into the rearview mirror, and families begin to turn their attention to the next big adventure. This fall, hundreds of thousands of freshmen will descend upon colleges and universities across the country to begin an academic journey that is just the beginning of a very exciting four (give or take) years.

Yet, as the excitement of admissions letters and new t-shirts with school names emblazoned across the front wears off, the reality sinks in: college is expensive. Like, REALLY expensive. In fact, college tuition costs are rising at alarming rates from year to year, leaving many scratching their heads as to how to make the finances work.

In-state costs for public schools are sitting squarely at or around the $10,000 mark, with costs rising from year to year. You want to go out of state? You should expect a doubling of that number.

At the same time that parents and teens begin to scramble to come up with lunch money, candidates for president have begun to discuss the possibility of education subsidies, giving help to those who are willing to take their education to the next level. As 2016 approaches, it appears as though this will be an issue both in the Obama administration as well as in the debate between the Republicans and Hillary...errr...I mean the Democrats.

One such candidate, Chris Christie, just gave his two cents on the subject (although two cents won’t cover much). In a response to a democratic push to create debt-free graduates, Christie said “if college graduates are going to reap the greater economic rewards and opportunities of earning a degree, then it seems fair for them to support the cost of the education they’re receiving.”

On this front, Christie makes a very sound argument. A college graduate is going to receive opportunities and experiences that those without an education could only dream of, and thus should have to pay the cost of such an experience. This combats the notion that the government should help students pay for college. In that regard, his view is quite reasonable.

A much better argument for all sides of the argument is to take one step back and reevaluate whether or not the cost of tuition is at an appropriate level to begin with. As an alumnus of Indiana University, I was responsible for over $30,000 per year (before scholarships). What exactly does $120,000 per student over the course of a four year degree get them? Where does that money go?

While there is some level of transparency, students generally have to work pretty hard to see a full breakdown of how their tuition dollars are allocated. It isn’t as simple as paying for a student’s own professors’ salaries and the dorms and food that they utilize. In most cases, that money is spent as a collective unit, going into a larger pool to work toward the university’s general upkeep.

Let’s look at an example. Student A lives in a dorm that was built in 1940, and has, over the last 75 years, maintained its status as a monument to college living, receiving updates periodically, but rarely seeing an overhaul of the amenities. Central air conditioning is laughable, while communal showers are old and dank. At the same time, across campus, Student B is living in the brand new dorm, with gorgeous new carpeting, clean and unused furniture, and a new cafeteria in the basement that serves kale and quinoa and all sorts of other hipster foods that liberal college students claim to enjoy. Yet, as a general rule, the two are paying the same tuition costs.

Let’s look at a more academic example: students in the Journalism program vs. students in the English department. Both are paying the same amount of money, and both are receiving the same degrees from the College of Arts and Sciences, but one is receiving top of the line resources and educators, while the other trails behind in the field. These two majors can be swapped out for any two programs, depending on the school and level of focus. The bottom line is: with standardize tuition costs, you aren’t paying for the cost of YOUR education so much as you’re paying for the cost of running the school as a whole, an idea that I think most Republicans will have trouble wrapping their heads around.

As we begin the process of reevaluating the cost of a college education, we need to look in a new direction. Rather than finding ways for students to come up with 10, 15, 20 thousand dollars, we should instead be looking at exactly where that money goes, and attempt to find ways that the government can help fund the upkeep of the school, leaving students to pay for the academic resources they actually use. While Governor Christie’s approach is valid, it is a sound opinion based on a failed model.

The high cost of college is, in and of itself, a learning opportunity. Students learn to budget, to make decisions about what they can and cannot afford, and to make smart choices about how to most responsibly attain their goals. Yet, when students are faced with no good options because the cost of an education has gotten so out of control, we are handicapping the future of America, failing to allow our next generation to reach it’s true potential.

Rather than finding ways to help students fund an education that costs too much to begin with, the government would get far more bang for their buck if they attempted to help pay for the actual infrastructure and amenities themselves, and let students cover their own cost-of-education, rather than forcing students to pay those top dollars and then struggle to figure out how to pay.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

January 21st: Strength of a Union

A transcript of the State of the Union Address can be found here.

Last night’s State of the Union was a social media explosion, as has become the case for most events of its size and nature. The resounding opinion was that this was Obama’s greatest one yet, and that his confidence and determination brought new hope to a presidency that has, in recent months, seen a dramatic decline in support.

As a nation, it is great to see our leader demonstrating such bold strength and confidence. It inspires those feelings within ourselves. What happens today, the day after such a declaration, though, is what defines its success.

The primary focus of last night’s speech was to highlight the progress the country has made in the past several years, and note areas where the president would like to see progress and, in some cases, where he refuses to accept decline. The speech’s thesis statement was that “the shadow of crisis has passed, and the state of the Union is strong.” Comforting words, no doubt, for a nation that needs a little hope, amid a world that continually looks to be falling apart.

The idealism was palpable. A strong focus was placed on the middle class, centered around the notion of equalling the playing field, not for the purpose of dragging down the elite, but for the chance to elevate those who do not get a fair chance. He said “That’s what middle class economics is -- the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” One country, striving together to lead the world is exactly the type of image that we all need to hear about. The challenge becomes making it a reality.

Now, as we review the materials, it will be easy to slip back into the partisanship that has plagued the last six years. We leave the shared goals of a strong, united nation because of the distraction of the details along the way. Yet, in President Obama’s speech, he speaks directly to this issue. The words that ring clearest today for me from last night are when the president addressed not only the possibility for disagreement, but rather the need for it.

He said “If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments -- but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.” Obama knows that he will not say some magic words and suddenly have Republicans and Democrats getting along. He knows that the gridlock will continue, and that the aisle will continue to divide us. But the point of a speech like this is to remind us that there IS an option, that we can find ways to disagree while also striving for the shared goals of a single nation.

We now need responses from two different groups to turn last night’s emotion into today’s action. We need President Obama to continue to play that role that he did last night. We need him to continue to be sassy, to be strong, to be willing to have meaningful debates and be ready to listen. We need a leader who will be willing to stand above the drama of Washington and steer the country as a whole where the people need and want it to go. We also need Congress to have listened. The time for crossed arms, grumpy faces, and fingers in our ears are gone. We can’t afford that anymore. Representatives of the people in the federal government owe it to this nation to continue to work for what is best for the country, not what is best for keeping one’s seat or pandering to a certain demographic.

Some might say that these are dreams, fun to talk about in a speech, but impossible to get done. This isn’t what real government looks like, they might say. The problem is, government ceases to look as it should, and we now have the ability AND the need to fix it.

Last night’s speech concluded with another powerful statement. In his conclusion, he said “We’ve laid a new foundation. A brighter future is ours to write. Let’s begin this new chapter -- together -- and let’s start the work right now.”

Last night’s speech brought with it a heavy dose of idealism. Idealism is nearly impossible to actually enact. There are pitfalls and there are challenges. Yet, that is why we set the bar so high: so that we know that this country can be the greatest in the world, if only we were willing to make it so.

Well, let’s get to work.

Nov. 25th: Not Even Politics

For the fourth time in a month, President Barack Obama will have to go back to the drawing board to come up with a nominee for the Federal Appeals Court. The Senate rejected Robert L. Wilkins’ nomination, marking the third time that they have turned down an Obama administration selection to fill one of the vacancies on the court. Republicans in the Senate were forthcoming about their reasoning for the rejection: Wilkins is a liberal which will skew the ideology of the court to the left.

One of the perks of being President is the ability to decide the ideological trajectory of various government agencies, the court being the most significant. Yet again, we see the G.O.P taking all of Obama’s power away, rendering him virtually impotent.

This is just another example from a presidency that, in the scope of history, will likely come to be known for its political conflict across party lines. The Republicans in both the Senate and the House have made the decision to make Obama’s presidency as difficult as possible, no matter what they have to block to accomplish it.

In the aftermath of the government shutdown debacle, you would think that Congress would be on its best behavior. That doesn't appear to be the case. There seems to be this notion that Barack Obama’s presidency is just a tough time and that we, as America, are going to “ride it out.”

That isn’t the way government works, or at least isn’t the way it SHOULD work. We cannot waste the next three years. With so many government officials focusing so heavily on their upcoming elections, we need to leave the off-years to actually allow those elected officials to do their jobs, to allow the governors to actually govern.

While Congress does have the technical power to deny a president the ability to install a candidate to a particular vacancy, it does not mean that it needs to be used early and often. The checks and balances set up by the Constitution are meant to prevent a specific group or individual from abusing their power, installing under-qualified or nepotistic candidates. It is not an example of nepotism to install an individual of similar ideological background, yet the Republicans feel as though they can use that as the only grounds for refusal to approve.

It is totally understandable for different political parties to get into conflict about issues. The actual substance of what is being debated, and the conceptual pieces that make up government deliberation. It is not, on the other hand, the right of the politicians, Republican or Democrat, to shut down the government simply because a politicians cannot find it within him or herself to find a way to get along with the other party.

While the government shutdown has technically ended, behavior like this from the Republicans proves that governing is not occurring. For the political system to think it is acceptable to bide their time until there can be some kind of shift based on elections is not only wasting their time in office, but also wasting my time, as a citizen.

This country is in desperate need of governing right now. It is no longer acceptable, then, for those trusted with that task to continue to use their positions for petty argument, rather than bold and significant social and political analysis and, in some cases, reform.