US Presidential Electoral Race --- with DNC and RNC, who will make it home to Washington?

In the recently concluded Democratic National Convention and the Republic National Convention, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain battled it out for the votes of Americans. Obama performed an unprecedented feat in speaking to 80,000 people outdoors and appearing larger-than-life. McCain on the other hand, was well aware of his oratorical limitations when compared to Obama. He wisely chose to speak to only a 20,000 audience in Xcel Energy Centre.

McCain offered himself as the US’ best shot at change. He outlined the many outdated policies: “from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children,” which were designed before the rise of the global economy, IT revolution the end of the Cold War.

Indeed, very bold and brave words, albeit somewhat similar to Obama’s campaign theme of “change we can believe in”. The question that lingers, though, is: was it effective?

I see a great difference in the objectives of Obama and McCain. McCain needs to unite his party behind him and get the support of independents too since his party base is smaller than Obama’s. Obama though needs to use his oratorical prowess to convince Americans to overlook his lack of experience in congress. It is according to these objectives that we should rate their speeches respectively.

Obama obviously lived up to his reputation as one of the greatest orator in American history. Throughout his nearly hour-long speech, the 80,000 strong audience got to their feet and cheered. The speech definitely did not lack eloquence and Obama got the huge crowd revved up several times. He also moved away from the famous rhetorical style that was widely criticized to be inspiring but without substance. This, together with pillars softly lit to recall Martin Luther King speech exactly 45 years ago earned his points with the voters across America.

Yet Obama glossed over many controversial subjects in his speech. In the words of David Freddoso, writing for National Review, “America did not see the real Barack Obama.” For example, although he holds extreme views on the issue of abortion, he sought to downplay it by expressing hope on “reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.”

Will voters pick these details up? That is unlikely. Freddoso agrees, saying, “Many voters will be fooled by [his] speech.” So Obama was considerably successful, since he managed to cover-up unpleasant issues with his natural flair for public speaking which revved up the crowd. Opinion polls prove that, with many voters expressing that they were more likely to vote for Obama after his speech. So, how did McCain fair?

Did McCain introduce himself to the nation? He did. Did he clearly tell people what he planned to do as president in real terms, not just in dreamy lyrical poetry (as compared to the way Obama is described)? Yes he did. And he also made clear why Americans must finally make real change in government rather than merely talk about change to get votes.

He managed to even up with Obama after his speech in the opinion polls. Is that a measure of his success? Definitely. Despite being inferior to Obama in terms of public speaking, McCain portrayed himself as the down-to-earth man with concrete policies to change Washington. And that obviously struck home with the voters.

At the end of the day, I think McCain achieved his objectives. He did not achieve any unprecedented feats, but he claimed the support of 89% of Republican compared to Obama’s 81% of Democrats. He also pulled 15% Democrats to support him. His speech definitely emphasized his advantage in experience over rival Obama, with carefully outlined policies, of which those on improving the education system received the most cheers.

So is McCain now closer to being sworn into office than Obama? It’s still too early to say, for opinion polls often do not accurately reflect voters’ choices in the end.

Democracy creates stability in society --- Argumentative essay

Democracy was defined by Abraham Lincoln as the government, of the people, for the people and by the people. We see democracies frequently today in developed countries, but does this really mean that what is generally accepted as the most common form of government is the best?

For the purposes of this essay, we assess the advantages and disadvantages only in terms of stability of the society.

Democracy works on the assumption that the population as a whole is mature, thus the transfer of power to the people is workable. Yet, for many, self-interest remains the guiding force of our decisions. If we were to be able to vote on every policy including tax collections, as in Switzerland, undoubtedly the majority would vote in favour of lower taxes. Insufficient tax revenues lead to bad maintenance of public facilities, possibly bringing about resentment towards the government and therefore social instability.

In a general election, the most popular and charismatic leader may win, but this does not necessarily mean he is the most capable. Thus the country as a whole will suffer from a lack of effective leadership. Policies on all aspects eventually affect social stability. For example, bad economic policies lead to a stagnant economy. When unemployment rises, the people cannot afford basic necessities. The obvious result is either increase in thef cases or riots, both threatening social stability.

Another problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have rational ignorance regarding certain political issues. This may allow special interest groups, who supply funds to campaigning parties, to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society, eventually leading to social instability.

Tyranny of the majority presents yet another flaw of democracy. This implies that a government reflecting the majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. It might decide that a certain minority should be criminalised. For example, several European countries have introduced bans on personal religious symbols, aimed at those considered symbolic of Islamism - the hijab or 'Islamic headscarf', in France, under the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols. Left unchecked, this would result in violent protestations which undermine social stability.

Nonetheless we cannot ignore the glaring fact that democracy provides a check and balance for rulers. Since support of the majority is required, no ruler can ever hope to introduce laws which oppress the people and benefit themselves. With the old monarchy done away with, the poor now have their rights and stand equal before the law.

At the same time, even though voters may sway in favour of an undesirable law, for example legalising vandalism, people can vote against it in time to come once they witness the problems society face when people are free to vandalize. Thus public opinion is generally self-correcting, that is, the population will change their opinion to maintain social stability.

Considering all the above, I think that democracy is still the best form of government for stability in society, albeit one with the minority having grievances, as the benefits far outweigh its harms and when compared to a monarchy where the minority can rule. I think a good solution, which is already in place in some parts of the world, is a higher set of rules, like the constitution, to protect the rights of the minority. As of today, the great majority of countries are democratic, and this allows capitalism to flourish, bringing economic and social development. Many countries including Singapore, Japan, Australia, and America prove this point beyond doubt.

Democracy

“Democracy creates stability in a society.”

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the definition of "democracy" is:

• government by the people; especially a) rule of the majority b) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

The merits of democracy have been hotly debated since its inception. Lately, we see citezens of countries like Myanmar suffer during the recent cyclone which ravaged the land. Yet, its government refuses to allow foreign aid to enter the country for fear of losing its sovereignty.

In this backdrop, is there cause for us to reinstate or question the merits of democracy? What are your takes on democracy?

My Take on Smoking

Smoking has been a contentious issue for a long time. My personal take is that smoking should be banned in all public areas. Currently, the government has taken a step closer to banning smoking. There are signs in most places that read “no smoking”. However, in places like coffee shops, there are still many smokers.

First and foremost, I must state the many ill effects smoking has on the smoker and second hand smokers. Most commonly known are the increased chances of heart attacks and lung cancer. The smoker is not only putting himself at risk, he is also endangering others around him. Second hand smokers have equally high risks of developing these diseases.

I believe it is very unfair for the innocent bystander to inhale smoke even though he himself does not smoke. If smoking were to be allowed in public areas, then non-smoking citizens would be deprived of a choice. Smokers, on the other hand, are still free to exercise their right to smoke, as long as their actions do not infringe on others’ rights. This would then create an ideal situation where both smokers and non-smokers enjoy their rights.

However, problems arise when smokers are unhappy about the restrictions placed on the areas where they can smoke. Some even write into online forums to criticize the government’s ban on smoking in public areas. Most are met with strong disagreements from others but the fact that they even thought to openly criticize that policy shows up their selfishness. For the ease of convenience, they are more than willing to inflict harm upon others. Of course, some are uneducated and are unaware of the health risks posed to others.

Another problem posed by smoking in public areas is the bad influence to young children. If children can see many adults smoking on the streets, then they would inevitably follow these examples. Students will not believe that smoking is bad for health if they can see for themselves large numbers of people smoking even if schools preach about the benefits of not smoking.

At the same time, there are little known health benefits to smoking. Evidence suggests that non-smokers are up to twice as likely as smokers to develop Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease. These may be cited by smokers as good reasons for smoking.

In so far, I have presented my argument from the non-smoker’s point of view. However, prohibiting smoking in public areas can be seen as an infringement on the smoker’s rights too. The government’s policy takes into account the benefit of the majority non-smokers, but the smokers as minority feel that all actions taken by the government are against their interests and restricting their freedom.

Yet, we must remember that no policy can ever fulfill everyone. Most times, some people will have to sacrifice for the greater good.