George Scoville
RAR Staff Writer Rachel Baily Talks GOP Re-Branding at CRNC Annual Convention
By George Scoville
Rising Belmont University senior Rachel Baily (Political Science) recently told CBS News at the College Republican National Committee’s annual convention in Washington, DC that she’s hopeful that new blood will refresh the GOP for years to come (read the full story with embedded video on CBS News‘ “Political Hotsheet” by clicking here). Baily, a Hershey, PA native and campaign staffer at Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s (R-TN 7th) District Office in Franklin, TN, understands the importance of using new methods for reaching out to young voters. She also understands that the GOP must broaden its base if it is to survive another barrage of electoral misfortune like that of November 2008.
“Obama was able to personalize things for people on the campaign trail (and since assuming office) by using daily emails, text alerts, and other things of that nature. People feel like they have a real connection with him. Republicans are beginning to use e-campaign strategies like this, and I think this is key for Republicans. The GOP needs to find ways and create new venues for young people to get involved in party activities,” said Baily. It is difficult, though, to estimate how successful these strategies are, or will be. Will success be measured only in electoral returns? Or will we look to thinks like participation in political campaigns or civic groups?
Rachel Baily, campaign staffer for Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN 7th)
The nation-wide Tax Day Tea Party protests on April 15 of this year evidence the effective online organizational capacity of the Right. But before Republicans claim e-campaign success, they must remember that they are competing with a Libertarian Party that has gained considerable traction with voters in the oft-coveted 18-29 age group. There seems to be a gaping divide, both in message and mechanism, between top-down, big-money, Old Guard Republicans, and a vibrant, young online activist community, known as the Rightroots, which doesn’t have the means to reshape electoral strategy or platform messaging. The GOP rewards its members for service to the party – not for the quality of innovative solutions proposed or the achievement of national (as opposed to party) goals.
When asked whether the GOP should consider re-branding its platform, Baily said she has had trouble deciding what to do about the content of GOP messaging. “Republicans might need to consider moving the party’s platform to the center if they want to include moderate Democrats, and they need to work across the aisle,” she said. “Everybody is calling us the ‘Party of No’ right now. [Republicans] don’t need to give up on their values, but they need to appear like they’re working in bipartisan fashion.”
Rachel Baily is a Staff Writer for the Right Aisle Review and an active member of the Belmont College Republicans. You can view her editorials by clicking here.
George Scoville is an alumnus of Belmont University (‘09) with degrees in Philosophy and Political Science. He is pursuing a Master of Public Policy at American University’s School of Public Affairs.
On Steroids, Character, and Heroes
By Mark Noth
A few months ago I wrote an op-ed about steroids in baseball. I noted that it seemed that Major League Baseball was finally moving past the “lost years” of the steroid age. New stars, I said, have begun to replace the fallen names of the past. I didn’t know if I was right, but I hoped I was because baseball and America, I explained, are “inextricably linked.”
Today, the league announced that yet another of its mighty stars has fallen victim to the steroid plague—Manny Ramirez.
Ramirez, a twelve-time all-star and the 2004 World Series MVP, entered his fifteenth season on the senior circuit in 2009. He has hit 533 career home runs and won two World Series. He is, or was, a shoe-in for the Baseball Hall of Fame at Cooperstown, NY.
Like the players caught before him, like the players who have yet to test positive, who are doing whatever they can to avoid being caught, Manny Ramirez disgusts me.
Ramirez earned close to $19 million dollars last season. His cumulative earnings—not including bonuses or endorsements—are $162 million dollars. I doubt that I am the only one repulsed.
Do I wish I could make $19 million dollars to play a season with Los Angeles Dodgers? Hell yes! I would do it for free. But that’s not why he disgusts me. He disgusts me because he and his fellow roid-rats are dream killers. Honest, hardworking players will never even get a shot because they have too much dignity to cheat — players I know.
Derek Wiley is a senior baseball player here at Belmont University. Along with being one of the Bruin’s emotional leaders, Wiley is also one of the team’s top performers on the field. For the second straight season, he leads the Bruins in home runs, with 16. Wiley is also the Atlantic-Sun Conference’s all-time career leader in home runs–the Hank Aaron of Atlantic-Sun baseball, if you will. I have had the privilege of playing with Wiley for three years. I have seen him launch balls so far you can’t even see them land. Last year he hit a 450-foot bomb clear over the batters-eye at Vanderbilt—into the wind. Wiley drops bombs, but he also steps up when the game is one the line. Last May, he hit three home runs in just four games at the A-Sun tournament in Deland, Florida.
Wiley stands 6′3” and weighs 235 pounds. His power and size are a rare commodity in college baseball. Fifty years ago, no, twenty years ago, they might have been a commodity in Major League Baseball too, but not anymore. Today he is a dime a dozen.
Last year the Oakland A’s drafted Wiley in the 50th round of the June Major League Baseball players draft. If you do the math, you note that around 1500 players were drafted before him. I’m sure another team will draft Wiley this June, but I doubt he will go significantly higher. Why? It’s definitely not because he doesn’t have the talent; he does. It isn’t because he doesn’t work hard enough; he arguably works harder than any player on the Bruins. Then why? Why won’t he be drafted higher? Why isn’t Wiley a shoe-in for the pros?
Wiley won’t go higher because he has character. If Derek took steroids he’d probably have a much better shot at making it to the Major Leagues. I bet he’d make it and be a hero; but twenty years from now, he wouldn’t be able to look himself in the mirror.
Disgust doesn’t even seem like a strong enough word. Repulsed? No. Hate. Precisely.
I hate Manny Ramirez. I hate him because five years from now I’ll run into Derek somewhere–maybe at a reunion or a wedding–and we’ll talk. We’ll talk about his wife and kids. We’ll reminisce about games long passed. Then we’ll talk about our jobs.
When that day comes, if I have to hear all about his job at some corporate accounting firm, I know I am going to vomit. I know this because he has the talent to play professionally. The scientists, managers, commissioners, and players who haven’t had the guts to put a stop to steroids will have killed his dream.
Ramirez will serve a fifty game suspension and all will probably be forgotten because America doesn’t really seem to care anymore. The degradation of morals marks our time. Success is ill defined. Our heroes have no character. Our corporate executives have no stomach. Our politicians are self-serving. Our hearts are corrupt.
I take it back. Wiley doesn’t have to make it to the Major Leagues; he’s already a hero. Ramirez doesn’t deserve to lick the dirt off Derek’s spikes.
Mark Noth is junior Political Science major.
On Propaganda and the Future of American Society
By George Scoville
O-BA-MA!
The nation was plagued by civil unrest, a discomfort propelled by a weakened economy and the policy failures of the incumbent government. Unemployment levels soared to record heights. The standard of living could not plummet quickly enough to match income disparities between the working class and the elite. Labor unions across all sectors of industry went on strike, thus increasing the cost of importing goods.
O-BA-MA!
Leftists thought their representatives in the legislature had not done enough to divvy up the national pie. Right-wingers blamed the nation’s ills on the rise of an intangible, unidentifiable threat. The prevention of harm from this threat required an authoritarian institutional structure – a vast expansion of government power. Some thought the nation’s involvement in foreign wars had been foolish; the ends, they argued, had not justified the means.
O-BA-MA!
The nation owed money all over the world. It became increasingly difficult to encourage foreign investment. Many feared that, at any moment, foreign creditors would come to collect – what would the government do then? The treasury was printing currency so quickly that the value of currency was in a free-falling tailspin.
O-BA-MA!
A charismatic young leader emerged, gifted in oratory, community organizing, and promotion, who outlined his plan for a revival of society in a book – a book that reached thousands among the nation’s population. The young man had substance abuse issues in his youth, but he was loyal to his party and garnered support from his colleagues. As his popularity increased, he became emboldened on the campaign trail and began blaming all the nation’s ills on an entire cross-section of society.
O-BA-MA!
The tired masses united under a common banner – an easily-recognizable symbol that stood for change, reorganization, and revival. It was not long before the average citizen saw the symbol everywhere he went. The viral nature of the grassroots movement inspired by the young man – in conjunction with a very-well-coordinated ground game – helped him gain inroads into regions which his minority out-party had struggled to attain.
O-BA-MA!
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. The nation was the Weimar Republic; the time was the early twentieth century; the unpopular war was World War I; the people blamed for the world’s ills were German Jews; the symbol was the swastika; the book outlining reform plans was Mein Kampf; the young charismatic leader was Adolf Hitler.
No, not a drop of blood was shed while Barack Obama made his ascent to the highest office in the free world. No, Barack Obama is not a Nazi. No, America is nowhere close to suffering what early 20th century Germany suffered during the days of the Weimar Republic. But does the comparison infuriate you? Make you feel nauseated? I have deliberately oversimplified the past to demonstrate a media phenomenon that ought to give pause to any thinking American.
The Arianna Huffingtons and Markos Moulitsases of the world (founders of The Huffington Post and The DailyKos, respectively) served as primary message dissemination points for the Obama campaign, and continue to be the leading culprits in a propaganda-laden drive to smear anyone right-of-center. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are now candidly marching in lock-step with the President’s partisan drum-banging. Their brash, innuendo-filled characterization of conservative protestors as “teabaggers” is repulsive. CNN’s Susan Rosen boldly berated (on camera) an ordinary citizen attending the Tax Day Tea Party in Chicago.
Blaming conservatives and the Republican Party for the nation’s ills – when there are equally culpable liberals and Democrats – is as reprehensible as it was for Hitler to blame the world’s ills on German Jews.
Media bias exists on both sides of the ideological spectrum; to defend FOX News’s claim to be “fair and balanced” would not only be fruitless – it would be hypocritical. What I fear is a Congress and a president – with an army of willing lapdog journalist accomplices – who obfuscate the truth about American politics and who insulate themselves from criticism of any kind.
I listened patiently on November 4, 2008 as President Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech. “I know that there are many of you out there who did not vote for me,” he said. “I promise to be your president too.” It was a small concession – but even I gave the man the benefit of the doubt. Call me “cautiously optimistic.”
Some of Obama’s hopeful campaign rhetoric was intoxicatingly idealistic. But any critiques of President Obama offered by the Right are met with allegations that we are selfish, xenophobic, hegemonic racists. The federal government has deemed us threats to national security. None of these characterizations could be further from the truth.
Yes, we should be worried. From the provisions of the GIVE Act to the institutional implications of a Department of Homeland Security memo issued earlier this month suggesting that “radical right-wing extremists” and “domestic terrorists” would overtake the nation-wide Tax Day Tea Party protest, I fear for myself as a conservative and for my unborn children. I fear for those of you who have bought in to this runaway Democratic train just because you don’t like war, Wall Street, or W.
I am not your scapegoat.
Adolf Hitler once quipped, “How fortunate for those in power that people do not think.” For Mr. Obama, this is fortunate indeed. Please heed this call, Mr. President: do not repeat the same mistakes that America – or any other nation – has made.
George Scoville is a senior Philosophy and Political Science double major. He will attend American University’s School of Public Affairs in pursuit of a Master of Public Policy beginning this fall.
By Claire Cunningham
Why has Belmont banned plastic water bottle sales on campus? Has the removal of trashcans from classrooms not have been enough to fulfill the “Going Green” initiative? However grateful I may be that the school has added recycling bins everywhere, I am infuriated with the recent decision to ban the sale of plastic water bottles on campus.
I understand that an enormous uproar has occurred around the country regarding how plastic water bottles rot in landfills and harm the environment. But don’t plastic soda bottles do the same? Where is the uproar there? If this campus is truly committed to bettering its environment, wouldn’t it be more consistent and less hypocritical to ban all plastic bottles? We will not make much impact on the environment by banning water bottles but continuing to sell soda bottles.
Perhaps banning bottled water is the first step in banning all plastic bottles on campus. But that raises another question: has Belmont even considered how these decisions will affect student consumption patterns?
Students value convenience and accessibility. Banning the sale water bottles on campus is likely to lead to more soft drink consumption, as students will prefer a quick alternative to standing in re-hydration lines. Students are also likely to gravitate to Circle K and other local businesses to buy their water. Even if we are able to assume that re-hydration areas offer healthier options than our current arrangements, what is to guarantee that students will use them?
But what about SoBE bottles? If we need to ban the sale of anything because it’s harmful to the environment, ban glass bottle sales! There are few recycle containers for glass on campus. Most bottles end up thrown into the garbage. Those bottles end up rotting in landfills as well, but Belmont turns a blind eye to the glass we are not recycling and allows us to throw it away. How about providing the easy alternative—another recycling container?
My biggest concern centers on the lack of student input in this decision. If we are to ban the sale of disposable water bottles on campus, it should come from students lobbying for it, not from the administration mandating it. I see many students recycling their plastic and reusing their bottles. Belmont should continue to encourage us to be environmentally responsible citizens, instead of attempting to dictate what we can and cannot buy on campus. At least we know Circle K just got paid.
Claire Cunningham in a sophomore Music Business major.
By Shirah Foy
As I sat down to write this article—supposedly summarizing ‘right aisle’ perspectives on major historical events since the creation of this country—I could not help but lament my lack of familiarity with many of the events that needed to be included: 1820’s Populist Rise, Great Depression, Women’s Suffrage, Cold War, etc. What’s worse –the whole motivation behind writing a historical piece was an attempt to cache my lack of familiarity with current events. It is embarrassing to admit that I currently have only a vague idea of what is going on beyond my immediate environs, yet I sense that I am not alone.
With the rise of the Information Age, gaining access to breaking news is now effortless, but it seems that people, like me, are less and less informed. How has this happened?
There are several reasons why we rest blatantly oblivious to the world around us.
For one, we are inundated and intimidated by news everywhere. “Thai Army Chief Vows to End ‘Chaos’ as Protests Widen” (NY Times), “Lebanon’s Hezbollah savors increasing legitimacy” (LA Times), “Lucky to Be Alive: Attacked By a Polar Bear” (ABC News), “Bullies Drive Boy to Suicide” (ABC News), “Madagascar: Cyclone Kills 9″ (NY Times). These are only a few of today’s headlines from major news publications across the country. Couple that with hectic mornings—finishing that last minute research paper, getting in some exercise, maybe grabbing a bite to eat before heading out the door—the news can be a lot for students to tackle. So we opt out.
It becomes increasingly difficult for students to stay informed because many issues not seem relevant to our individual lives. We do not want to be bothered with information that is not essential to the task at hand; it takes up space in our working memory—space that many of us are reluctant to proffer. We are even more reluctant because it is difficult to see how many of the headlines affect our families, jobs—our lives.
We also have a variety of entertaining distractions at our disposal. Have you ever spent an entire evening on Facebook or Twitter? Although these interfaces have great didactic potential, little of the transpiring information could honestly be called objective and informative. Add in TV, iPods, and video games, and it becomes clear that intelligent, thought-provoking news has many competitors for our attention.
I have come to several conclusions: (1) Informing oneself is a conscious choice and must be self-motivated. An authority teacher, or professor, cannot enforce it. (2) Maintaining my status as an informed individual will require a time commitment. Personally, I plan to block out 30 minutes a day to read a newspaper or informative online source. (3) Getting started is the hardest part.
The only remaining question is “why?” Why sacrifice the simplicity of an uninformed life? Why break through the societal bubble?
There are superficial reasons. Knowing something makes it easier to join conversations, learn new perspectives, and formulate opinions. Being informative is also a confidence booster and contributes to one’s preparedness.
It is most important for all to break through the bubble and inform themselves because current events matter. Daily events that might seem trivial have the potential to drastically change individual lives. The economic crisis, for example, seems to be leading to the end of classic American political values like small government.
Only individual citizens, vocalizing their opinions, can stop the trend. The people’s will delegates power to the government. A disengaged populace allows government to run rampant and infringe liberty. The choice is yours.
Shirah Foy is a sophomore International Entrepreneurship major.
