Breaking the Party Lines

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Breaking the party line - Opinions

Last week, UNCG's PRIDE group held its annual PRIDE Week, a celebration of the GLBT movement in America. They featured a different event each night, including concerts, discussions, and special speakers. Although I was unable to attend all of the events, I did make it to a few of them, including Tuesday night's "LGBT Politics Panel" and Thursday night's "GLBTQQSA� Huh?!" both of which were extremely interesting and enlightening events.

Now here is where everyone gets confused. I did not attend these events to protest the so-called "homosexual agenda" or to cause any sort of trouble. I went because I support the GLBT movement, and I consider myself a straight ally. For many young Republicans looking to someday break into the world of real politics, you might think this is career suicide, but I don't see it that way. The times are changing, and the political parties are too.

A couple years ago, I worked for the Republican Party during the 2004 elections. I spent a great deal of my time volunteering with people who were about my age, and whose views, like my own, seemed a little more socially permissive than the average Republican's. However, whenever an older person would ask them how they felt about allowing gay marriage, they would always answer more conservatively than they had when they were around their peers. My answer never changed, however, and I like to think that I was respected, by both groups, for being firm in my beliefs.

I believe then as I believe now that marriage, of any sort, should not be defined by the government. Marriage is a religious sacrament, and by allowing the government to define and control it, we are violating the separation of church and state. Many people will tell you they oppose gay marriage because of religious reasons, but with so many religions now openly allowing gays and lesbians to participate in marriage ceremonies, how do we pick and choose which religion (or more appropriately, which denomination) to mandate the norm?

I certainly don't want the government telling churches what they can and cannot preach and practice, and along those same lines, I don't want the church to control the government. I realize that this nation was founded by Christian beliefs, but it was also founded by people who wanted the government to stay out of religion. But when you have an issue like that of marriage which is clearly a legal and religious conglomeration, you're going to have people getting pretty upset when the government suggests changing anything about it.

There's a solution here, and although it may not be simple, it makes sense. Take marriage out of the government's realm and keep it in the churches (synagogues, mosques, etc) where it belongs. In its place, the government should legalize civil unions for all couples consisting of two consenting adults. This way, each church can decide how it chooses to define marriage, and "married" couples can still receive legal benefits.

And if America refuses to take my idea seriously (President Bush rarely gives any feedback on my weekly columns), then people should at least open their eyes and realize that change is coming. This issue, like many others throughout history, seems to be generational, as I saw in my dealings with young Republicans in 2004. Our parents' generation may be vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage or even homosexuality in the same way that THEIR parents' generation was opposed to interracial marriage or feminist movements. The truth is, social norms and traditions change with each generation. Only forty years ago, there were still laws banning interracial marriages; do we really think gay marriage will never be a legal reality?

In a column last July, I wrote about how many gay Republicans I seem to come across, and since then, that number has grown. Former PRIDE President Chris Wood is not only openly gay, he's openly Republican, and religious as well. Wood recently told me about a local Catholic priest who referred to the New Testament as "the greatest love story of all time." Wood then stated that, "It's hard for me to believe these fundamentalists who are using [this] to justify hate and oppression."

And he's right. People use the Bible to both defend and attack homosexuality, but every passage used can be turned into a question of translation or historical connotation. However, the message of "love your neighbor" radiates loud and clear throughout the entire New Testament with little question as to perspective.

Even young conservatives who continue to oppose gay marriage seem to agree that civil unions (where homosexual couples are given similar rights as heterosexual married couples) are an acceptable alternative. And while this may not be true equality, it's much more than the current national parties are willing to give, and further proof that the times are changing.

There is no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will be legalized within our lifetimes. The question is how long will we continue to let the government hold us to certain (and possibly misconceived) religious standards? And how long will we continue to treat an entire group of people like second-class citizens?

How to Have a "Successful" Evening

THE RIGHT ANGLE: How to have a "successful" evening - Opinions

Last Tuesday, President Bush delivered his sixth State of the Union Address to the entire nation, during which he addressed many pertinent issues facing America over the next year or so. It's one of the few speeches the President gives that won't put you to sleep in less than five minutes, mostly thanks to the fact that the networks like to show the reactions of the audience members during the address. I swear I saw Ted Kennedy trying to hide his flask as the cameras panned around.

The State of the Union Address is not typically a feel-good bi-partisan love fest. The division between liberals and conservatives in the government was made quite visible every time President Bush paused for a breath (or dramatic effect) and the Republicans leapt to their feet with applause. At this time, the camera would usually pan to well-known Senator Hillary Clinton who, regardless of her recent self-claimed conversion to "Moderate-ism", seemed to have a constant sneer on her face throughout the entire hour. It seems my mother was right; your face really CAN freeze like that.

After the Address, the Democratic Party sent out Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to respond to the President's speech. Those Democrats never cease to amaze me. Time and time again, they continue to find and endorse those few politicians that make George W. Bush look good. Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and now Tim Kaine? Somehow, I don't think the Republican Party has a lot to worry about in 2008. Maybe it was that "The Rock" eyebrow thing, but I honestly thought I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit throughout Kaine's entire response.

Meanwhile, around the nation, thousands of protestors were banging drums, tambourines, and various kitchen utensils in an effort to "drown out Bush's lies." The infamous anti-Bush group "World Can't Wait" (tagline: Drive Out the Bush Regime) staged several marches and demonstrations all around the country during the State of the Union Address. Greensboro was lucky enough to have one of these marches in our very own downtown area. The group, about 300 strong (mostly teenyboppers who were VERY angry that American Idol wasn't going to be on) caused what the News and Record referred to as a "deafening sound." While I do hope they were being a bit hyperbolic about the noise level, if anyone really did lose their hearing as a result of this march, please let me know. I want a piece of that lawsuit.

What was supposed to be a peaceful protest ended up resulting in the arrests of at least seven local young adults. The problem? Apparently, a plainclothes officer was taking pictures of the license plates of protestors. Several of the protestors demanded to know what the man was doing, and whether or not he was a cop. Of course, it escalated from there, with a debate still raging over who hit whom first. The police officer was assaulted, kids were maced, and everyone is pointing fingers. The fact that interested me the most was that at least two of the suspects were found to be carrying concealed weapons. Concealed weapons at a peaceful protest? What's the reasoning there? And aren't these supposed to be the people who are against violence?

I have so much fun scanning blogs in the days after events like this occur. You can find accounts from protest attendees talking about how "those pigs broke up our peaceful protest!" Nevermind that the police officer was the one who was assaulted, and that the police had actually been very reasonable about the whole event. Interestingly enough, when the protestors began their march down Elm Street, they were already in violation of state law, which requires a parade permit for such events. Rather than try to stop the march, police blocked and redirected traffic for them. If the police had wanted to simply end the march, they could have; they wouldn't have needed to start a fistfight, as the protestors are claiming.

The WCW website claims, "The evening concluded by 11:00 pm, and was hugely successful and peaceful as well as noisy. We succeeded in drowning out Bush's lies." I would think that in order for any event to be considered "successful", some good would have had to come from it. Did the WCW march succeed in making Bush resign? Not that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, 300 people wasted their Tuesday night banging on their pots and pans. Could they really find nothing functional to do, or have the standards of "successful" just changed that drastically?

Don't Fall Prey to the Partisan Monster

(I hope it's painfully obvious to everyone that I did NOT title this column... I'm guessing my editor is to blame for this gem.)

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions

Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.

Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.

I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".

I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?

What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.

Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.

And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.

I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.

Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.

Getting More For Your Money

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Getting more for your money - Opinions

I'm a big girl. I can admit when I'm wrong - fortunately, now is not one of those times. No, this time I'm merely not 100% right. Let me explain: a week ago, I set out to prove that students who are paying their own way through college are more likely to want challenging classes than those whose parents were footing the bill. That theory was wrong. However, in realizing the flaws in my original theory, I eventually came to an even better conclusion.

Let me start at the beginning. In Spring 2005, I took an economics course. As a political science major, this course wasn't required, but I figured it would be applicable. Several people had joked that after taking an economics course I would quickly change my political affiliation. Eager to be a sheep like everyone else, I was excited at the prospect of joining the Democratic Party upon my completion of the course.

I never got that chance. In May, I left that class knowing just as much about economics as I had in January. Simply put, I was cheated out of an economics education by a teacher who just didn't care.

Had I realized how lax the professor was during the first week of school, I would have changed courses immediately. I never had a chance: that first Tuesday class lasted fifteen minutes and the professor was sick that Thursday.

As the semester wore on, I began to realize that I was learning very little, and it had nothing to do with me being a poor student. This professor spent a good 20-30 minutes a day talking about his personal life. I'll never forget the day he saw me putting on my iPod after class and remarked, "Hey, I hope you weren't listening to that during class." I smiled politely, but I really wanted to tell him that it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

Sometime last April, I ran into a girl who recognized me from that class. I lamented to her that I felt we had the worst professor in the department. She replied with a puzzled look and told me that she thought he was great because he was "so much fun in class."

Obviously, the same traits that caused me to despise this man are what made this fellow student love him. The only way I could rationalize this was by assuming that she was not paying for her own college tuition and therefore did not care that she was sacrificing her education for a "fun" teacher.

This led to my aforementioned theory. In order to test this theory, I signed on to the UNCG LiveJournal community and asked for volunteers. Technology is a beautiful thing, and within days I had dozens of students willing to take my survey. I asked several random questions, including a hypothetical situation involving a lenient and a hard professor, how they were paying for college, what (if anything) their parents were helping them pay for, and, just for good measure, how they leaned politically in regards to fiscal matters.

I surveyed several random volunteers, including my own suitemates (my own captive audience), making sure to get a good mixture of different types of students. The outcome was a disaster. There was absolutely no truth to my theory. Instead, half of all paying students chose the lenient professor, and half of all students living on their parents' dime also chose the lenient professor. So I was wrong. And even the one fraternity member that I was able to convince to take the survey crushed my theory that only rich kids "go Greek."

At second glance, however, I was able to find an interesting connection. With very few exceptions, the students who had chosen the harder professor leaned Republican when it came to fiscal matters, and vice versa. This gives all new meaning to my favorite bumper sticker: "Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy."

Although it's not what I wanted to prove, it worked. Furthermore, upon asking why certain students chose the harder professor, I was relieved to receive answers such as "I want to be prepared for harder classes and graduate school," and "I don't expect to be spoon fed my entire life." These kids don't realize it, but they just renewed my faith in humankind.

As for the professor, the best I could do was to give him a bad evaluation. And as I recall, I wrote the equivalent of a short novel on his evaluation form. It obviously didn't help too much of anything - he's still teaching in the economics department. Meanwhile, I guess I'll never get those three course hours of my life back.

Republican Oxymorons

Republican Oxymorons - Opinions

A black female, a gay man, and a Jewish rabbi walk into a polling place. They all vote for George W. Bush.

Funny? It shouldn't be. It happens a lot more often than the Democratic Party would have you believe. For years now, they've been making the Republican Party seem like the party that is against diversity of any kind. If you're not a straight white male and you're a Republican, you must be some kind of freak.

Even as a white female, I've picked up all kinds of grief from liberals about my political affiliation. I've been told that by taking a pro-life stance, the Republican Party is trying to keep women pregnant to cut down on the percentage of females in the workforce. Being pro-life, I found this theory amusing, especially since I am all for getting MORE women in the workforce.

I have recently stumbled onto a group of people that make the Democrats tremble in fear: gay Republicans. Throughout the past few months, I have encountered more openly homosexual men that describe themselves as Republicans than I ever have before. To the Democrats, these people are an urban myth. In their naive, misguided world of tunnel vision, gay Republicans are an oxymoron. I mean, after all, Republicans are "anti-gay", right?

Leonard Pitts Jr, a liberal columnist for the Miami Herald, writes a good percentage of his columns on why it is ridiculous for homosexuals and African-Americans to align themselves with the Republican Party. Most of his reasoning comes from the stereotype that all Republicans are anti-gay racists. Like him, many Democrats have fallen into the belief that all Republicans think exactly alike on every single issue. By their line of reasoning, gays, blacks, and women are fighting against their own personal freedoms by voting Republican.

The reason Democrats refuse to believe these people can be Republicans is that they refuse to let go of their stereotype that all Republicans are hardcore right-wing religious nut bags. But both of America's major political parties are just as diverse as the country itself. Within the Republican Party, there are people who are pro-choice, anti-war, and even pro-gay marriage.

So why do these people continue to support the Republican Party? What people often forget is that there is more to politics than just these few issues. Suppose a gay man would really like to see the Social Security system replaced with personal savings accounts. What should we expect him to do? Float around between parties? Very few Republicans or Democrats agree with their party 100% on all issues, and yet you very rarely see people running to third parties that may be a better match for their beliefs.

A lot of people within the Republican Party find themselves agreeing with many aspects of the Libertarian Party. The reason they don't switch is because they realize America is, for the most part, a two-party system. There is a much better chance of changing the world through the Republican or Democratic Party than through a third party. Republicans who do not agree with their party on every single issue should then work within the party to create change.

And yes, there are racists and sexists and bigots in the Republican Party. But I dare say there are just as many in the Democratic Party. Some of the most homophobic men I've ever met in my life were extremely liberal. People fear what they do not understand, and both parties have their share of ignorant members.

Several of these gay men I've talked to say they voted for Bush because they trusted him more with our national security, even if they didn't like his stance on gay marriages. Even John Kerry was in favor of civil unions rather than gay marriage. The way these men see it, why sacrifice one thing you believe in for something that might or might not end up going in your favor?

The battle for equality is far from over in America. Homosexuals, minorities, and women still battle bigotry every day. But when you try to characterize someone based on their political party, well, you're no better than those sexist, racist, ignorant bigots you claim to hate.

John Who?

THE RIGHT ANGLE: John Who? - Opinions

A beautiful thing happened on November 2nd. People of all ages, all races, all backgrounds, put their differences aside and stood in line to cast their vote. And those Americans, or at least the informed ones, voted to keep George W. Bush in office for four more years.

My mother told me to be nice in my "victory" column. She reminded me that both Bush and Kerry were pressing for the healing of our nation. I considered it for almost an entire minute before I realized I couldn't be nice. I say this because not sixty seconds after I got off the phone with my mother, I walked past a young man who said to me, and I quote: "I should light you on fire for that," as he pointed to my Bush pin. I smiled in support of his right to free speech and suppressed mine in the name of dignity.

But he's not the only reason I can't be "nice" in this column. I'm still hearing people rant about how Bush stole the election, or how we have an idiot in the White House for another four years. In fact, all I'm hearing around campus is name-calling and excuses, and it's getting old. Because of this childishness and stupidity, this week's column is dedicated to all the sore losers out there.

First of all, anyone that has to refer to Bush as an "idiot" is clearly feeling insecure about their own intelligence level, and probably with good reason. Bush is a smart man, and there is no way he could have won re-election if he wasn't. Do you really think his supporters consist solely of rednecks and religious right-wingers? What about us average Americans who are just worried about losing too much of our hard-earned money to the government? Where do I fit in? Maybe you should try watching a news channel sometime; you'd be shocked to find that plenty of people who are probably better educated than you actually support Bush.

Oh, and then there's the people that say Bush "stole" the election. Okay, in 2000, I could understand the concern. Had the roles been flipped, I would have been just as angry as most of you were about the outcome. But to say he stole an election in which he won the popular vote AND the Electoral College? Not only did Bush win by 3.5 million votes, he won with the largest popular vote of any President in history!

Although I guess I really shouldn't be so harsh. After all, this must have been a huge let down. I mean, you guys had everyone on your side: MTV, the media, Hollywood, rock stars. But you forgot to court the people who really mattered. The average American really couldn't care less about who Jon Bon Jovi or Ben Affleck is voting for, and your average American young person was simply annoyed every time Puff Daddy interrupted "The Real World" to scare people into voting.

The movie stars and rockers made for a great show, but it was little more than that. Bruce Springsteen put on a concert for Kerry that drew a huge crowd, but as soon as he stepped aside to let the Democratic candidate speak, the concertgoers started leaving. It seemed that the large majority of America didn't care to mix their entertainment and politics.

So you guys went to all that hard work. You rallied together beautiful, talented people, you spammed the popular television networks, you threatened VOTE OR DIE! And it worked. It got the people out in masses. Record numbers all over the country turned out at the polls. And yet, Bush still won by 3.5 millions votes.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the Democratic Party is not the party of the average American. All over the country, average, hard-working Americans decided that national security, tax cuts, and strong values were much more important than anything Kerry or his beautiful band of Hollywood stars could offer. For the past few months, we have been told which issues we're supposed to care about. We've had gay marriage and stem cell research and abortion rights crammed down our throats for too long. Last Tuesday, we made known what are the most important issues in this country right now, and we were heard. We voted to keep our Republican president for four more years, and we voted to add more Republicans to the House and Senate. Last Tuesday, the Republican Party proved that it is indeed the party of the average American.

So I guess I can understand what all the bitterness is about. I just wish some of you would show a little maturity. I think if you're old enough to vote, you ought to be old enough not to throw a temper tantrum over the outcome. I think even I could have kept my composure had Kerry won by 3.5 million votes. And don't worry: in four more years, you'll all have a new hero, and even the most loyal of you will be saying, "John who?"

Oh No! A Republican!

Guest Column: Oh No! A Republican! - Letters to the Editor

I am a rarity on UNCG's campus. My binder is covered in (gasp) Pro-Bush bumper stickers. I have your basic Bush/Cheney stickers, some anti-Kerry stickers, and even a few stickers supporting Republicans in local elections.

I'm merely stating my opinions, something other students do everyday, something we have been encouraged to do for as long as I can remember, but apparently my opinions are WRONG. I know this by some of the looks and comments I have received. I had one student get in my face and call me a "white racist bitch." Until that moment, I was unaware that political affiliation determined whether or not you were racist.

I understand that there are people out there who feel that Bush has personally attacked them in one way or another. In the past year, I've been accused of being racist, homophobic, and closed-minded.

But in reality, which of us is more closed-minded? None of these people actually asked me about my views. They don't know that I don't support Bush's marriage amendment, or that I was rooting for John McCain in the 2000 primaries. The only thing they know for sure is that they don't like my binder.

In a lot of ways, I feel that my political affiliation is no different than race and/or sexual orientation. Honestly, I WISH I were a liberal at times. I've tried to get into that kind of mindset, but I just can't do it. This is how I am, and you are judging me for something I have no control over.

I want to take this moment to thank the few people who have commented positively on my Bush gear. Thank you for being different, for respecting and sharing my views. Thank you for letting me know that I'm not alone.

I also want to thank the people who don't necessarily agree with my views, but who commented on my "bravery". Even though you don't share my point of view, it's nice to hear words of encouragement every now and then.

Maybe you've seen my binder, my pins, or my Bush visor. Maybe you have an opinion on them, maybe you don't. Maybe you've wanted to tell me that you share my support, but you're too shy. If you agree with me, please let me know. Tell me you like my pins, ask me where I got my stickers, anything.

If you disagree with me, let me know that you support my right to freedom of speech. Tell me that you think it takes guts to tote my right-wing propaganda around this campus. Tell me why you disagree with Bush's policies, and ask me what I think of the controversial issues.

And if you really hate me with a passion the second you see my Bush gear, please try to keep it in. Yelling obscenities at me will not make me change my mind, and calling me hurtful names will only make me NOT want to support whomever you do.

I'm not trying to convert you. I just want a little respect.