America—a nation once considered primarily Christian, or at least Judeo-Christian—is getting a taste of secular values. A fundamental challenge for Americans today is confronting our country’s modern religiosity. The National Day of Prayer, a day of turning to God for reflection and meditation, was instituted by Congress in 1952 and has since been challenged by a federal judge. LGBT teen suicides have many reconsidering their stance on homosexuality, and Muslims are struggling to erect Islamic centers near Ground Zero as well as in other locations. These examples illustrate a departure from the fundamentalist stances of religious America and a push towards pluralism, or the idea that a peaceful society depends on allowing all lifestyles to thrive. While fundamentalism threatens to divide members of various communities, pluralists seek to unite them in order to maintain civilized debate and inclusive cooperation.

All citizens, regardless of their origin, creed, or identity, hold equal positions as Americans. Traditionally, there have been few limitations on what or who is considered “American”—and this tradition is worth preserving. This basic principle, however, is under fire by religious exclusivists, who counter America’s growing religious diversity by denying outsiders the right to participate in America’s religious culture. This view has a consecrated history in everyday language, as demonstrated by the exclusivist concept of the “Christian nation.” Exclusivism creates unity at the expense of America’s minority opinions, and these opinions need protecting.

The progressive preservation of equality is a product of pluralism. Eboo Patel, Presi- dent and Founder of the Interfaith Youth Core and a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, explains that “pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus...Instead, religious pluralism is ‘energetic engagement’ that affirms the unique identity of each particular religious tradition and community, while recognizing that the well-being of each depends on the health of the whole.”

Pluralism is advanced through interfaith cooperation, the goal of which is to make knowledge of individual beliefs readily accessible through positive and productive interaction. Interestingly, nonbelievers are taking a leading role in this movement. Chris Stedman, Managing Director of State of Formation at the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, claims that “it is precisely because I am an atheist, and not in spite of it, that I am motivated to do interfaith work.” The popular conception that atheists are hostile towards religion is monstrously untrue. Even the aggressive Christopher Hitchens, a well known atheist, has said on record that given the chance, he would not end international religious belief.

As Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain for Harvard University, notes, “Would some atheists reject the concept of pluralism? Of course. But plenty of Christians reject it as well, and you’d hardly think of holding an interfaith meeting without Christians because of it.” Epstein believes that interfaith events that exclude the nonreligious are arbitrarily divisive and not truly pluralistic. Stedman agrees, and further argues that the religious should be willing to come to the defense of nonbelievers when individuals belittle nonreligious values. Progress is already being made in these areas; the Universal Society of Hinduism publicly defended atheists when Pope Benedict XVI compared atheists to Nazis, and even the conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly has recently admitted that atheists are not immoral. If we want to end prejudice in America, we must advocate pluralist practices.

Recent legislation has called exclusivist values into question. For almost 60 years, Americans have gathered yearly in honor of the National Day of Prayer, a government-sponsored celebration of faith and unity. However, federal judge Barbara Crabb has questioned the legality of this event. Does this event actually encourage equal participation among all Americans, or does it lend itself to an unconstitutional favoring of religion? Crabb subscribes to the latter viewpoint and states, “In this instance, the government has taken sides on an issue that must be left to individual conscience.” It is also clear that the event is not a celebration of all American religions, but instead caters exclusively to Christians. An Indiana celebration in 2003 split into two separate events: one for conservative Christians, and one for everyone else. In 2005, invitations to participate in the Day of Prayer in Plano, Texas were extended only to Christians. That same year, the National Day of Prayer Task Force objected to an American Hindu woman leading a prayer.

This string of events demonstrates the clash between exclusivism and pluralism. Americans who seek equal representation for all citizens, regardless of their religious stance, have to contend with this exclusivist tradition. Crabb is right to contest the National Day of Prayer’s government sponsorship. America is set apart by a distinct cohesiveness that unifies greatly varying beliefs, and this is absolutely something to celebrate—but the National Day of Prayer does not foster these pluralistic values. Instead, it exacerbates tensions between religions and between the religious and the nonreligious.

For example, the conflict between Christianity and homosexuality could desperately use an injection of pluralist values. The issues of gay marriage and LGBT teen suicides in the last few years have created a painfully divisive wedge between fundamentalist Christian values and those advocating for progressive equality. At many gay rights rallies, there are progressive Christians who vehemently oppose legal equality for all LGBT-identified people on religious or moral grounds. But if the focus is turned to today’s mainstream evangelicals, the new progressives are those who fully accept homosexuality, and the fundamentalists are those who advocate a stance similar to the “love the sinner, not the sin” approach. While secular culture overwhelmingly continues to favor gay rights, outspoken fundamentalists have ramped up their rhetoric in response to what they view as antagonism towards their religious values. This process results in their radicalization.

Consider the recent controversy over censorship of high school senior Sean Simonson’s article, in which he asked students to reach out in support of LGBT youth. Administrators of Benilde-St. Margaret’s School banned the publication of Simonson’s article, offering this explanation: “This particular discussion is not appropriate because the level of intensity has created an unsafe environment for students.” While the general response to LGBT youth suicides by the majority of Christians is one of compassion, this is merely one example of the widening gap of opinion on the morality of homosexuality. Both sides want to prevent mistreatment and suicides among LGBT youth. However, only one side accepts homosexual identity as morally valid, while the other continues to condemn it as intrinsically immoral.

Fundamentalist Christians must ask themselves the following: Do we really want to stop teen suicide, and does our condemnation of homosexuality help or hurt that commitment? These questions are vital to the reconciliation between traditional fundamentalists and liberals. Plurality must also be accepted in order to foster civilized debate between the traditionalist and progressive communities. If homosexuality is to cease being a point of societal contention, exclusivists must abandon their combative and hostile attitudes regarding fundamentalist tradition and become more open to other opinions and stances.

Islamophobia is another form of exclusivity that has gained widespread media attention due to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.” Ironically, when news of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York was first publicized, it was barely noticed. When The O’Reilly Factor interviewer Laura Ingraham spoke to Daisy Khan, wife of Feisal Abdul Rauf (the project leader of the Islamic Cultural Center), there was no indication of controversy. In the words of Ingraham, who has repeatedly spoken out against radicalized Islam on her radio show, “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it” and “I like what you’re trying to do.”

However, when Pamela Geller, an anti-Muslim blogger and the Executive Director of Stop Islamization of America, framed the issue as an offense to the victims of 9/11 and a ploy to spread extremism in America, exclusivists began to take notice. She pitched her position to the mainstream media through the New York Post almost half a year later, drawing the fear and prejudice of an impassioned constituency. By distorting Feisal Abdul Rauf ’s intentions, Geller was able to promulgate this needlessly divisive issue in order to advance the goals of Stop Islamization of America.

The damage of religious exclusivity and marginalization has been done: hostility, insensitivity, and mischaracterization of the Muslim minority in America have fanned the flames of extremism abroad. Feisal Abdul Rauf began the Islamic Cultural Center in an effort to promote moderate Islam and prevent violent extremism from creeping into American society, but the effort by mostly right-wing evangelicals to suppress a religious minority in order to preserve and extol their own religious identity over another has undermined a genuine effort towards advancing international peace. It is an affront to our principles of equality when Muslims so willingly meet Americans halfway, only to be cut off by exclusivist thinking.

As religion grows in America, exclusivist doctrine must be repudiated in favor of impartial pluralism. Members of all faiths—as well as those of no faith—should work together through the interfaith movement on an equal playing field, and we should not be surprised that nonbelievers are being included.

Americans should stand up to prejudice, even when they are not personally being marginalized. Only through pluralism can we defend universal equality, a principle that is simply not attainable through exclusivism. The pluralist movement, secular in principle, should be encouraged and developed as a catalyst of individual and communal growth in America. By these means, we can live up to our most progressive motto, E Pluribus Unum (from many, one), and leave the exclusionist motto, One Nation Under God, behind.

The balance of national politics has grown only more uncertain since the Republicans retook the House of Representatives last November, and it has become evident that every item on President Barack Obama’s agenda will prove to be a strenuous battle of its own. However, this is rarely expected in foreign policy, where politics is said to end at the water’s edge. For that reason, the White House did not anticipate the difficult Senate fight over the ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), a longtime high-priority goal for the Administration.

After the president and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the treaty in Prague last April, Obama had hoped that this START treaty, like those that came before it, could be readily accepted by both parties; even bitter enemies could come together on this. And yet, after months of negotiations and deals between the White House and Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), the GOP’s point man on START, the senator surprised everyone and announced after the midterm elections that the treaty was unlikely to receive his support.

New START received the overwhelming support from the U.S. military, allied governments in Western and Eastern Europe, and even from former Reagan and Bush senior administration officials. Few issues are as cut and dry as this one, and therefore the circumstances surrounding START were not those of a national security debate, but instead a most blatant game of partisan duplicity.

Still, the White House spent months working to convince any skeptics that the treaty deserved ratification. Unlike the START treaties that came before it, which were ratified quickly and nearly unanimously, New START carefully made its way through the Senate hearing process last summer. The Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee diligently questioned endless bipartisan commissions and panels of military and foreign policy experts, who responded to concerns about missile defense and treaty verification thoroughly and effectively.

Any legitimate doubt had long been removed by their testimony, which is why in September, the Committee voted 14-4 in support of the treaty. It earned the votes of Republican Sen- ators Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), hardly moderates in the Republican caucus.

The treaty had been embraced for many significant reasons. It implements a modest decrease in the American and Russian nuclear arsenals. Although this decrease is insufficient to shift the status quo of deterrence, it still acts as a powerful symbolic move toward securing the weapons from theft and terrorism and toward a faraway future safe from nuclear annihilation.

The treaty also returns weapons inspectors to nuclear sites after an entire year of their absence following the expiration of the first START treaty. Critics had claimed that the treaty lacks the verification methods necessary for proper implementation, but this accusation lacks credibility for two reasons. First, field experts confidently affirmed the strength of the treaty on these fronts in their testimonies. Second, without this treaty, we would have had no verification capabilities at all. We would lack any assured means to protect nuclear materials scattered across the Russian Federation, and we would be forced to focus all of our technical means on Russian facilities instead of where they belong: concentrated on real risks like North Korea or Iran.

This fundamental truth lies at the heart of the differences between START’s countless supporters and its few, confused opponents who harbor a Cold War unwillingness to accept Russia as a partner in any form. It is unsurprising that when discussing START, Republican opponents such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) don’t even notice when they warn against “missiles fired by the Soviet Union.” Clearly, they would acknowledge this wording as a slip of the tongue, that they are well aware of the fall of the Soviet Union nearly two decades ago. But it is more evident that they have failed to absorb the vast changes in global politics since that time.

They have ignorantly left their heads stuck in the sands of the Cold War—in a simplified narrative of evil empires—instead of acknowledging the good that can be achieved from cooperation. President Obama has made real progress over the past year in negotiations about the Russian opposition to Iranian nuclear ambitions, but these Republicans are more content to talk tough than to back rhetoric with action. Without START, they would see their Cold War dreams realized as Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had suggested that ratification failure would force Russia to build its nuclear stockpile.

The White House negotiated with Senate Republicans beyond all reasonable expectation. Sen. Kyl demanded a massive overhaul of the US nuclear arsenal, and President Obama delivered, thanks to an unprecedented reach into this year’s budget, assuring him nearly $85 billion for weapons modernization. Kyl also indicated that his support for the treaty depended on Democratic support for an extension of the Bush tax cuts, effectively tying vital national security priorities with unrelated and controversial political goals. Kyl managed to delay the vote until the new Senate could be seated in January, when the Democrats would have fewer assured votes.

Lugar, the ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Com-mittee, called Kyl’s bluff: “Every senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty. Maybe peo- ple would prefer not to do his or her duty right now. Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote,” he said. He called on his colleagues to stand up and be counted, to support the treaty as they should, or at least admit that they do not, instead of the illu- sion that they need more time for deliberation.

With Lugar’s help, President Obama and Vice President Biden waged a high-profile campaign against the skeptical senators, drawing attention to their indecision. On December 22, the Senate finally came to a vote, and remarkably, approved the treaty 71-26, including thirteen Republican “yea” votes. President Obama hailed the treaty as “the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades” as well as a victory for bipartisanship.

The historic nature of this victory cannot be understated. And yet, despite every reason to support it, START was never, until its final passage, a sure thing. Every Republican “yea” vote was won with immeasurable research, pressure and determination. Too often, the sort of partisan deception that nearly killed START dominates unnoticed, below the radar of most Americans. Until we start to pay attention, the Obama Administration should expect many more tough fights ahead. And that’s too bad. There are so many real debates to be had; we cannot afford to invent an imaginary one.

On April 29, 1861, James Madison Cutts traveled to Washington, D.C. to join the Union Army and help participate in the defense of the capital. He carried with him a letter for Abraham Lincoln that was from his brother-in-law, Stephen Douglas, the Democratic party nominee who had lost the 1860 presidential election to Lincoln. The letter introduced Cutts to Lincoln, vouched for his trustworthiness, and declared that Cutts could provide Lincoln with valuable information on the state of affairs in Illinois. But the surprising part of the letter, at least to modern readers, is the signature: “I am very respectfully your obedient servant, S.A. Douglas.”

In today’s climate of intense partisan warfare, such a closing statement in a letter to a presidential opponent seems almost im- possible. Sure, there is the traditional phone call from the election loser to the victorious candidate, and Senator John McCain’s concession speech in 2008 was quite conciliatory and effusively congratulated President-elect Barack Obama. But soon after the election, Senator McCain and both political parties resorted to the typical partisan rancor that has permeated our nation’s politics for several years. There is certainly nothing new about divisiveness in American party politics, and a certain level of disagreement and anger is to be expected among America’s representa- tives in Washington, D.C. In many respects, a vociferous debate between the two major parties on policy issues is healthy; it is a sign of a vibrant democracy that entertains opposition and encourages discussion. In recent years, however, the rhetorical battles between politicians and citizens have taken a dangerous turn.

What is currently in vogue in American politics is assaulting not only a political opponent’s stances and policies, but also his or her very legitimacy as an elected representative of the people. Rather than attacking the ideas of the opposing party’s standard-bearer, members of the media and the political elite are attempting to cast opponents as being legally or morally unfit to govern. This trend largely started in the 1990s with Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans’ indictment, and later impeachment, of President Bill Clinton. By focusing the nation’s attention on his sexual indiscretions and lies under oath, they turned the discussion from whether Clinton’s politics were good for America to whether Clinton should be permitted to be America’s executive. These types of attacks continued with the election of President George W. Bush in 2000, an election that was not concretely decided until the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore to stop the recount in Florida. Bumper stickers declaring that Bush was “not my president” abounded as Americans across the country reacted to what they considered a usurpation of the people’s will by the Supreme Court. Once again, the very legitimacy of the president was at stake.

In the last presidential election, issues of President Obama’s legal status played a prominent role. The group of right-wing advocates colloquially known as “birthers” continually argued that Obama must produce a valid Hawaiian birth certificate in order to prove that he was not born in Kenya, and a minority of Republican politicians today continue to question his validity as a citizen. Senator McCain was not immune to such scrutiny, either he was born on an American military base outside of U.S. borders and faced questions about his ability to run for office.

The latest attack on political legitimacy has not focused on the candidates themselves, but rather their sources of funding. In the wake of the Tea Party uprising and relative success in the 2010 midterm elections, a great deal of attention has been paid to the political donations of Charles and David Koch, billionaire brothers with libertarian ideologies who have contributed large quan- tities of money to Republican candidates and political action committees. Much of this attention and criticism has occurred in the media. The New York Times has run a series of articles devoted to the political machinations of the Koch brothers, attempting to expose the Tea Party movement as solely the result of influxes of cash from exceedingly wealthy donors. Most recently, Governor Scott Walker’s actions in Wisconsin have been singled out. Articles such as Paul Krugman’s column “Wisconsin Power Play” in the New York Times on February 20, 2011, as well as a Buffalo Beast reporter’s prank call to Walker pretending to be David Koch, have attempted to portray his anti-labor initiatives as purely the result of big- money politics.

It is certainly true that money has had a larger effect on politics of late, and the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision opened the door for more corporate influence in elections. However, as much as left-wing personalities like Krugman try to dress up their critiques in populist, anti-oligarchic garb, they are more properly viewed in the context of the de-legitimizing tactics of the last two decades. In fact, when liberal activist and billionaire George Soros contributed over 23 million dollars of his money to defeating President Bush in 2004, Krugman defended him rather than railing against the injustice of his exorbitant spending. It is clearly politics, not concern for our democracy, that are driving these criticisms.

Continued focus on our politicians’ legitimacy instead of their policies can be nothing but harmful to the American political atmosphere. Such a conversation discourages compromise and results in all-or-nothing political warfare, with each side convinced that only they truly represent the American people. True respect for the outcome of elections will do a great deal towards healing the partisan divide that ails America today.

The continued economic crisis has shaken the foundations and assumptions upon which we have based our entire American system. The United States does not have the luxury of being wasteful and inefficient any longer. If we are to begin cutting back, there is no better place to start tha n the futile War on Drugs.

Of the more than two million people currently imprisoned in the United States, approximately one quarter have been convicted of a drug offense. An often-used counterpoint claims that most of these drug offenders deserve to be behind bars because they are traffickers; “No one gets arrested for possession,” they say. But the facts seem to indicate otherwise. According to FBI data, 83 percent of drug arrests are for possession alone.

Tellingly, the growing number of drug arrests does not correspond to an increased rate of drug use. What, then, is driving this perpetual growth? Faced with a decline in violent and property crimes, law enforcement turns to drug offenses for its arrests. The law often targets the same neighborhoods it expects will produce the results it is looking for. This “hood profiling” leads to the grossly disproportionate imprisonment of people of color we see in the American prison system.

This system of never-ending quotas and incarceration requires a never-ending supply of drug offenders. Drug dealers have a consistent market in recreational users and addicts alike. Drug addicts are driven to use regardless of sanctions placed on them by society. That is the nature of addiction. No matter how expensive or taboo the drug becomes, addicts will continue to struggle with their drug abuse. It is worth noting that the artificially inflated price of illegal drugs may in fact be leading to additional crime. 16 percent of state inmates and 18 percent of federal inmates report having committed their crimes to pay for their drug addictions.

Life is a vicious cycle for these addicts: streets, jail, repeat. Once they are brought into the prison system, they do not receive the proper treatment that could help them manage their addiction. Not only is this mistreatment of addicts unjust, but it is also a waste of taxpayer money. Community treatment of addicts is one of the most cost-effective means of reducing drug-related crimes, and costs about $20,000 less annually than incarceration. Every dollar spent on drug treatment yields over $18 in crime-related costs savings while every dollar spent on prison yields only $0.37. It seems obvious that we would choose to pursue this cost-effective, pragmatic, and humane approach towards the public health problem of drug addiction. Sadly, the War on Drugs continues to blind policymakers and perpetuate this broken system.

Our rationale for imprisoning dealers and users alike is the assumption that the punitive measures imposed by the prison system will deter others from making similar decisions. This assumption is flawed and fails to take into account the market forces at play. Because the illegal drug trade is so lucrative as a result of prices artificially inflated by prohibition, incarcerated dealers are quickly replaced by younger recruits. At a time when the national unemployment rate floats stubbornly around 9.4 percent, the plentiful job openings for dealers encourage more people to become involved with this type of criminal activity. In economically depressed areas, joining the illegal drug business may seem like the best option for many young people.

The War on Drugs is unsustainable. With Congress deeply divided, it may seem unlikely that something as controversial and complex as drug policy reform could be achieved. However, there are many positive signs across the political spectrum that point to an achievable end to the War on Drugs. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) has long been the leading con- gressional voice against the War on Drugs. However, he is no longer alone. During the 111th Congress, Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia) introduced the National Criminal Justice Act of 2009, which would have “established a ‘National Criminal Justice Commission’ to hold public hearings and undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, including Federal, State, local, and tribal governments’ criminal justice costs, practices, and policies.” Despite bipartisan support, the bill never made it to the Senate floor for a vote. Still, it is clear that political consensus is developing, making an end to the War on Drugs a real possibility. It will require many more years of hard work, but empowering criminal justice experts rather than uninformed politicians to make policy is the best way to reform our prison system while simultaneously defeating the War on Drugs.

This article is adapted from an original blogpost on TRCommons.org. To read more of Greg’s work, visit his blog at http://www.trcommons.org/author/greg-beach/

This summer I had the rare opportunity to take an internship abroad. For two months I lived and worked in the Philippines, a country in which the elite are almost identical to American elites, and a vast amount of the provincial poor live without plumbing or electricity. I worked for a major corporation with a capitalization of approximately 25% of the country’s stock market in a finance division whose sole purpose was to build and develop outsourcing companies.

Since 2004, outsourcing has moved to the forefront of American political debate. The benefit strategic outsourcing provides to American companies is consistently weighed against the “they took our jobs” counterargument. It is true that general manufacturing and various levels of unskilled and skilled labor have all but disappeared from our shores and traveled to “somewhere over there.” The difficulty in this debate is separating the emotional and rational elements of the issue. Emotionally, we all know of someone who was laid off as a result of their job being outsourced to a domestic specialist or overseas. It hurts to imagine the difficulty Americans face in being unable to support their children, pay their mortgage, or, in extreme cases, pay for food. But no American company would choose to fire its employees if there wasn’t a significant upside. That upside is usually decreased costs or a strategic move that will allow a company to focus on its core competencies.

When people think of “cutting costs” they imagine a group of people in suits sitting in a well-lit room with a chart indicating success. What they don’t realize most of the time is that the same people in suits were looking at downward pointing arrows for the past two years. Firing some employees allows for the retention of hundreds more and the continuation of the company. In short, outsourcing allows companies to survive in the current hostile market. While this is probably the most common rational argument in favor or outsourcing, I would like to illuminate some lesser known factsThe United States benefits immensely from foreign outsourcing efforts. As the intellectual and service leader of the world, the United States receives work from companies all over the world because we can do “it” better, faster, or cheaper. In fact, the amount of foreign investment in the United States right now is approximately $2.397

trillion as of December 2009. European and Asian firms consistently outsource to the United States, which provides thousands of jobs at home. Revenue from the free marketplace across borders pours billions annually into American coffers. Software outsourcing to the USA is a large industry as well. Since 2008, odesk.com, a leading talent marketplace for IT services, has seen a near 500% increase in the number of assignments overseas companies outsourced to the United States (see figure 1, courtesy of oDesk.com).

The increased price of oil has also increased the cost of outsourcing to the point where domestic companies are increasingly turning to “nearsourcing” or “homesourcing” where they accept work from geographically nearer companies or companies at home. The American effort to reduce or regulate the outsourcing industry has generally been one-sided. In other words, legislation is designed to keep American jobs here. But what happens if regulation or increased tariffs interfere with the outsourcing that brings jobs into the United States? Having worked at a company that actively promoted the export of jobs like accounting, medical billing, and the well-known customer care call centers, I can say that I have seen where those jobs go and the benefits we promise and deliver to American companies to ensure their long-term health and competitiveness. What happens to companies that are currently reliant on outsourcing for survival viability? Can we really say that the jobs “we bring home” through regulation will result in higher employment since it will definitely cause some existing companies to fail?

In short, we are made to feel like America is being hurt by outsourcing. In the 2004 presidential election, Senator John Kerry criticized American businesses that hide profits and taxes through international business. While this does hurt America greatly, these practices have nothing to do with outsourcing. The misinterpretation of his comments launched an unwarranted national outsourcing paranoia, which has skewed the facts and allowed passion to override reason. But outsourcing is good for America and allows many companies to retain employees they would otherwise have to fire.

The United States Congress has gotten far too good at its job. Before you break out the pitchforks and torches, understand that I do not mean this in a good way. Its job no longer seems to be passing constructive legislation, but instead getting elected and debating. Congress has obtained a mastery of merciless rhetorical attack, aimed at satisfying extremist interests, while ignoring calls for moderation.

No, Congress has never been a paragon of virtue. However, I can at least say that our current leaders’ tactics have become far more brilliant and refined than in the past, when violence on the floor of the Senate was not unheard of. Remember Preston Brooks, the South Carolina Congressman who famously bludgeoned Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a wooden cane on the Senate floor in 1856? While the above case may seem a bit extreme, the following bit of recent congressional history shows that Congress is so good at its job of politicking that it cannot seem to get anything done.

Last month, the Senate voted down the once-popular repeal of the military’s discriminatory policy against gay service members. A small number of Senate Republicans had originally agreed to support the measure, making a rare bipartisan showing in the chamber. This bipartisanship lasted until the Democratic leadership implemented aggressive procedural tactics, which were intended to attach less popular measures to the bill and, at the same time, stifle the number of amendments that Republicans could introduce. The key Republicans then refused to provide the “ayes,” and the once-promising bill failed. However, the bill did not meet defeat before Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid managed to save the bill for later debate by voting against the bill that he had just spent weeks working to pass. Amazingly, it turns out that by way of Senate administrative rules and procedures, a defeated bill may be saved for later debate if the Majority Leader votes against it, thus justifying Reid’s seemingly ridiculous maneuver.

Of course, such outlandish parliamentary drama is not exclusive to the Senate, particularly throughout the past year and a half. Democratic voices have long called for Reid to be as aggressive and politically effective as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Republicans, however, have lambasted these parliamentary tactics in both chambers as exclusionary and despotic. The Democratic counterargument is as follows: yes, Democratic tactics unfairly force members of Congress to vote for legislation they do not support, but Republican Congressional leadership used the exact same tactics during its tenure from 1997 to 2007.

Such disputes reflect the mood of most debates in the past legislative session: accusatory and completely irrelevant. Indeed, a majority wanted to see the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” bill passed, but the introduction of more extremist measures caused kneejerk reaction from the minority. The bill’s failure could only be partially salvaged through an outlandish and counterintuitive parliamentary maneuver. As with debates on the national debt and healthcare, each side is content to argue that the current policy is wrong, yet the policies remain unchanged because of the opposition’s intransigence and aggression. All of this ignores a central fact: our public officials have made and continue to make mindless policies out of electoral convenience, implementing mind-boggling tactics for the sake of either painting opponents as practically satanic or selling policies that, while unpopular, are favored by interest groups that are essential to primary elections and fund-raising.

Ultimately, the political melodrama we see unfolding each day in Washington is not about creating moderate, sensible policies that the moderate majority of Americans see as plausible, but about the maintenance of power by incumbent legislators. Currently, the majority of congressional leadership is composed of career politicians. They direct extremist agendas and counter-productive electoral tactics, while building insurmountable nests of power that help them coerce freshmen representatives into voting for legislation they would otherwise oppose. A solution, then, must seek to eliminate or shift the sources of power that such politicians spend so much time pursuing. Term limits are a great start. Another useful reform would be an overhaul of the primary system, allowing all voters to participate in party elections, cutting the influence of the far ends of the spectrum and introducing a welcome voice of moderation into our government. The beauty of the American Constitution is that it is an amendable document, to be forever challenged and reborn by the necessities of our ever-changing republic.

On a side note, Senator Sumner, Brooks’ victim survived the beating and went on to fight vehemently for slave emancipation and civil rights until he was stripped of his committee chairmanship by the Grant Administration in 1871 after failing to support the president’s reelection bid. Which beating was more crushing, the physical or the political, is for you to decide.

As the first half of President Obama’s term draws to a close, the success or failure of his legislative agenda has appeared to hinge on the fickle positions of individual U.S. senators, who may choose to support or filibuster every individual motion proposed by the Democrats. Real change may now only be realized when sixty courageous senators step up and fight for what is right by forming a super majority that can prevent a filibuster. That was certainly the mentality that drove the year-long negotiations for health care reform: one by one, conservative Democrats like Evan Bayh and liberal Republicans like Susan Collins were courted to join the good guys.

When Congress transitioned to tackling climate change, The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza revealed that this sixty-centric strategy was again very much a driving force. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham had become convinced that capping carbon emissions was an imperative that had to be addressed by this Senate, but he also knew that he and his colleagues had to negotiate the details as quickly as he could because the media would soon find out what he and some of his fellow Republicans were up to, which he feared would “become just a disaster for me on the airwaves.” He should have realized that this strategy was doomed to fail from the beginning. The ultimate vote on major legislation is irrelevant if the public has already become convinced that they hate it.

On health care, Democrats hoped that if they could only pass the damn thing, they would be able to sell it later to the public, and all of the bill’s benefits would win over its skeptics. Unfortunately, at that point it was far too late, and they had already lost the battle in the shouting matches of last summer’s town halls. Had they better understood their priorities, the outcome could have been entirely different. New York Times blogger Nate Silver’s polling analyses have revealed that many Americans surveyed who claim to oppose the bill still do not fully understand it. Every individual component of the bill is popular, in some cases extremely so, but many respondents still do not know exactly what is in the bill. Like cap and trade, it polls much better when its details are explained beforehand. In the meantime, Republicans are positioning to regain a legislative majority owed entirely to their victory of misinformation and confusion.

Running just below the radar of most political discourse is the absolute failure of the Republican Party to address climate change. The cable news media has salivated over the emergence of Tea Party fringe candidates such as Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell, but it has neglected the out-of-touch and outdated insanity of the mainstream GOP. Of the thirty-seven Republican candidates for U.S. Senate this season, not a single one has a plan to combat climate change and transition our economy away from carbon-based fuels. Nearly all of them are in denial, or claim to doubt the science behind man-induced climate change. Using flimsy or non-existent evidence, they have abandoned a reasonable and vital problem and have resorted to fear mongering amid a recession.

Ron Brownstein of The National Journal observes that “the GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science.... It is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here.” And yet in today’s political atmosphere, many of these candidates are likely to win. It is also very likely, much more likely than these future senators and committee chairs realize, that they will mock or ignore this issue exactly when it is most dangerous to do so, as our planet reaches its point of no return. At the very least, these men and women are undeniably on the wrong side of history. Their grandchildren will read about them in their school textbooks as many Americans today read about their own grandparents: they will appear as stubborn and deluded then as the aging former segregationists of the present.

In their zeal to castigate the Democratic majority, Republican strategy has embraced intellectual dishonesty over a healthy war of ideas. Of course, this does not have to be the case. Generally, Republicans, who claim to be practical and debt-conscious, respect and revere the Congressional Budget Office—except when they don’t. Except when the CBO decides that the Democratic health care reform bill would lower costs and the national deficit. And except when it decides that the Democratic cap and trade system would limit carbon emissions without significantly raising utility bills or destroying the economy.

Instead, Republican Congressmen ignored these budget analyses, and turned to the few studies that reflected their worldview. Any high school student writing a research paper could tell them that they cannot singularly cite the conservative Heritage Foundation for data, just as Democrats cannot rely solely on The Center for American Progress for theirs. It is impossible to argue credibly using only biased, partisan sources, but too many politicians choose the easy way out.

The misinformation that has thrived under lazy or deceptive politicians must be combated vigorously in the media, but today too many cable hosts permit their guests to utter untruths on television and pass them off as opinion. Instead, rumor-debunking outlets like the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact.org, and the Annenberg Center’s Factcheck.org need to be emphasized. Like the CBO, these groups are cited selectively by politicians, but their impact has limitless potential.

We live in a world where accusations are highlighted in headlines, and retractions are squeezed in between ads. As a people, we need to seek out truth over drama, or we will continue to be manipulated and misled by those whose power thrives on such distractions. Therefore, in the pursuit of any legislative goal, the war of ideas cannot be taken for granted, and certainly cannot be relegated to any phase two. This current election proves that even when a major bill passes, if it is unpopular enough, its champions will soon be replaced by its opponents, who will waste their elected terms weakening and repealing it. Meanwhile, in the background, America’s true challenges are looming and growing larger.

At this time of year, in 2008, the cheers of Obama supporters were swelling in stadiums and community centers across the country, and independents and conservatives alike were casting their ballots in favor of what promised to be a new era of Democratic rule. Yet now the midterm elections are upon us, and Republicans’ increasing success in polls indicates that much of the country may be questioning its pledge of allegiance to the change promised by the blue wave. The American electorate can be fickle, often turning to whichever party will offer a more significant payoff in any given year; however, the color changes in this election may be indicative of a more deep-set discontent with the policies of Obama and Pelosi. Everyone has a different theory for how to restore our still-ailing economy to full strength, and fiscal conservatism is looking increasingly attractive to voters who worry about next year’s income tax. With the stimulus a neon dollar sign flashing in the minds of voters, the threat of the health care bill descending like a blimp, and more expensive legislature sure to come, many voters are finding it hard to keep their faith in traditionally spending-happy liberals.

Like the Republicans who gained power in the 1994 elections, GOP candidates are reaping the benefits of a disenchanted public that is disappointed by what it sees as a default on campaign promises. In 2008, frustrated by the failings of the previous administrations, many right-leaning independents and a handful of dedicated Republicans turned to Obama in the hopes that he would defy political convention and actually deliver on his promise to create change. The nation had high hopes for our first African-American president, yet as his term progressed, his electorate has watched with growing concern as his administration has added more and more numbers to the budget’s “debit” column. The fiscal conservatives who helped elect Obama are feeling the strain on their purse strings. Even liberals are apprehensive about the tax increases in their future. Obama walked into the Oval Office with an already exorbitant debt. His efforts to resuscitate the economy, while in many ways necessary and beneficial, have done nothing to alleviate these increasingly staggering numbers.

Having foreseen a party-stabilizing midterm election, the Obama administration acted quickly to take advantage of the Democratic majority in House and Senate by pushing through a slew of legislation to achieve more long-term party goals without Republican interference. Spending increased from $2.98 trillion in 2008 to this year’s $3.7 trillion (this might not look like much, but we’re talking trillions here) without significant decreases in unemployment rates to justify the decadence. Joblessness is still a national disease. This does make sense considering the small amount of time that has elapsed since the beginning of the recession; however, the unemployed are waiting for their situation to change, and the stimulus dollars haven’t done enough to fix the problem. Voters expect to see their administration working tirelessly to fix the problems they were elected to solve. Instead, we are faced with social reform legislation, much of it expensive and most of it viewed as unnecessary by the social conservatives who voted Democrat in 2008.

In 2008, the country experienced a massive party shift. Frustrated by eight years of irresponsible spending and inefficient tax cuts that resulted in an astronomical economic crisis, the electorate turned to the Democrats for a change. After all, they had provided us with a budget surplus in the nineties. Yet now two years have gone by and the question remains: how have things changed? The economy is more stable, but it is still a topic in the news and conversation; big businesses are getting help from the government while their smaller counterparts flounder; the nation is trillions of dollars in debt but spending has not decreased. Where is Bill Clinton when you need him? The American electorate lost some of its faith in Clinton in ’94 when he spent too much of his first two terms on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and other social reform projects; here, Obama appears to be headed for a similar fate. He was elected to bring about change, yet after two years, the public has labeled him an “insider.” While this term actually means very little, it does enough to convey American displeasure. The nation is not satisfied with the administration’s policies, not the stimulus, not the socialized medicine, and especially not the tax increases.

Much of this voter unrest began with the mammoth health care bill. Once again, in an attempt to avoid difficulties experienced by Clinton, the Obama administration moved quickly, attempting to force a liberal policy through Congress while the Democratic majority lasted. As a result, the ambitious bill is full of holes and pitfalls. Despite being universal, the system is far from universally affordable. The cost of premiums, co-pays, and deductibles will continue to keep up to 23 million people from getting the coverage they need. Access to specialists and certain services will still be restricted and the problems inherent in “pre-existing conditions” are not about to disappear. The market-based system, while benefiting those in 2011. Forty-seven Democrats in the House wrote a letter one creator of jobs in America. Where will those jobs goto Congress leaders in September, expressing their disapproval of the plan to let the tax breaks expire. Lack of support from the left is putting the plan in jeopardy; the last vote on the issue ended in a deadlock, with Pelosi intervening to postpone a final vote until after the election. Yet how much longer can conservatives rely on Democrats to balance the scale? Voters have the chance to get some insurance when it comes to fiscal policy, and they are going to take it.

The nation is on the brink of a major tax increase, one that is being hailed as the largest since World War II, and the majority of the tax burden is going to fall to people earning incomes of $200,000 and higher. This means small business owners, whose business profits are filed as personal income and are subject to the same taxes as individual wages, will be hit the hardest. Currently, small businesses are the number

when small business owners can no longer afford to hire new employees? Obama advocates putting power in the hands of small businesses, but right now, as small businesses are keep- ing our economy afloat, he is planning a tax increase to take that power right out of their hands.

As always in economic crises, there are no easy answers. We all want a solution and will do just about anything to get it. But we have tried things the liberal way and it’s time to rein back in the taxes and the spending. Voters are trying to send a message to the administration in power: the blue wave has crested, and come November 2, the legislative branch’s indigo is going to turn violet. This is not just voter caprice, not just a post-wave midterm election—this is serious business. The American electorate is concerned by the policies being put into place, and they are showing their dissatisfaction.