The problem lies in what the party platform looks like and what it translates to in reality. When reading the platform, both of the above elements are represented, couched in terms like “ushering an ownership era” and “building an innovative, globally competitive economy” that includes the Republican commitment to cutting taxes while at the same time strengthening social security. At every turn, you encounter a commitment to small government amounts of government interference, backed by confidence in the American people to take care of themselves and to take care of the economy, thus taking care of each other. As we investigate the tag on the end of the platform regarding moral issues, we find that the Republican Party does stand conservatively in regards to protecting marriage between one man and one woman, in relation to the sanctity of life and in relation to family privacy and stability. This is a brief summary, but the wording of the official platform is no less vague. So far, we see consistency in what the Republican Party officially stands for.

Now, what does this look like in reality? How does the Republican Party intend to achieve “building an innovative, globally competitive economy,” and protect the moral interests of the silent majority? As we peer into the pages of legislation passed and spending bills vetoed, we find a disturbing amount of dirt that has settled into the cracks. For example, taxes have been cut, cut, cut, while social safety net programs have been funded, funded, funded. Federal funding for everything from affirmative action to military expansion to education has been approved while taxes have continued to be cut, all resulting in the undermining of local governments and strengthening the federal government. Additionally, nothing has been accomplished in the way of overturning Roe vs. Wade, funding has been approved for embryonic stem cell research, and one man, one woman as a definition for marriage has yet to become constitutional.

And why should marriage be constitutionalized? That would be a further encroachment of the Federal Government on the lives of the individual. But it goes squarely against the notion that the Republicans are the party that stands for what is moral. Certainly they give lip service to that platform, but aside from narrowly escaping the legislation of infanticide when partial birth abortion was banned, not much has really, soundly been accomplished on the front of the culture war. And the middle class who have so doggedly worked for the success of that war are being left behind in post-industrial waste lands, where local government can hardly get a toe hold and power is ever more centralized in Washington. After so much time, and seemingly wasted effort, its no wonder the electorate is beginning to abandon ship in favor of a more moderate approach to politics. This primary season has made it glaringly obvious where the hearts of the people lie, and the majority is not with the noble, but empty rhetoric of old. The party was long overdue for a significant realignment because these two ideas about restoring cultural morality and maintaining minimal government interference are fundamentally incompatible. Minimal government interference will always rule the day, however poorly it is accomplished.

All eyes have turned towards the epic race between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with the trophy of the Democratic nomination. Who will it be, the adopted son of the Kennedys or the Clinton Dynasty? The fresh face or the tried and true? With minute policy differences, I’m rooting for Barrack Obama.

To begin with, as I watch my peers flock to him in droves, I can’t help but be impressed with his ability to inspire an otherwise apathetic generation. People who used to be interested in nothing more than Halo, crappy beer and celebrity gossip- depending on gender- now have “Change” bumper stickers and can explain articulately the ramifications of the separation of powers in the United States and the originations of the Electoral College. They know how to locate their precinct Caucus and are above all, are engaged in the world around them.  

Additionally, although “Change” is somewhat of a vague slogan, much like the rest of Obama’s campaign, the man has been a gentleman throughout the entire process, only nearly losing his cool in a couple of debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. We have not seen the mud fly out of his camp with the same ferocity that we have from the Clinton camp. He hasn’t played the minority card once. He has left that in the capable hands of the Clintons and the free press. He has spoken to the issues and to his electorate, letting Hillary discredit herself. On the surface this speaks to his character, but more importantly it speaks to his intelligence.

Finally, I am acutely aware of the level of disgust and fear that the name “Hillary Clinton” invokes in right wing conservatives. Actually, in most conservatives. Not even Sisterhood brings out sympathy. If Hillary Clinton is elected the nominee against John McCain, whose candidacy also has a stink about it, all those “I’m staying home on election day in protest” members of the republican electorate will hold their noses and troop to the polls. McCain will win due to sheer hate of Hillary. Obama has not had the opportunity to cultivate so much ill feeling amongst the common man. What fun would that be, to top off a singularly thrilling election season thus far with a landslide win? No, as a sideline observer, I’d rather be on the edge of my seat until the very end. Plus, Obama is just so good looking and I made a bet Hillary wouldn’t make it through the primaries.