My Political Manifesto

Hey all,

The following is an e-mail I wrote to members of my family in response to a set of exchanged e-mails. I wrote it mostly for myself in order to help me define my political platform and determine where I stand between the two major party candidates. It was a great exercise that I encourage EVERYONE to do. I have decided to share it online to have my views be heard to whoever will hear them. I don't expect everyone to agree with all that I have written and I encourage dissenting opinions.

Without further adieu...


Hey Guys!


God Bless America!

As most of you know the Italians love a good argument and seeing as I am recently returned from over there I couldn't help but join in on the fun.

I want to start off by saying that these are MY views and how my experiences thus far have shaped how I view the world. I am not anticipating changing anyone's opinion; however I do sincerely hope that I can bring something new to the table that maybe NO ONE has thought of. If I can do this, I will be happy. I also realize that in order for me to put myself out there fully, I'll need to write a lot. Grab a drink, and I encourage you to read to the end and respond at your leisure.

Also, I love the fact that we can talk about this and I think e-mails are a great forum for us to communicate our thought-out beliefs and share with our family for whom we all want the best.

I ask you all to keep in mind the fact that I have been abroad for a greater part of the last two years while I have studied political systems and their impact on the world stage. I have been able to see how our great country has effected a substantial portion of the world from Padova to Casablanca. I have read about, studied, and experienced how people from abroad view America and Americans in particular. These are all issues I would love to talk about and these are the issues which I, Steve Schrage, see as most pressing to our present state of the State.

I am going to try and be as objective as possible, but I know that we are all trying to be and in discussions such as this there are NEVER clear right or wrong answers. The duality of our political system oftentimes deceives us into believing that there is ONE candidate or party that has all of the right answers. I do not believe this, nor do I think that you all do. The reason I bring this up is because I believe by taking a stand on any issue, we can only do so utilizing the knowledge that we posses. This goes the same with the current political candidates. I want to stress that no matter at what point one may be politically, educationally, or spiritually, everyone is capable of making informed decisions and it is very important to realize that views, opinions, and even what is considered "Right" and "Wrong" can and often does CHANGE. Time and again has history proven this to us and time and again have non-reformed beliefs, ideas, and cultures succumbed to their own demise simply by refusing to reconcile change with the current status-quo.

I believe that is what you will see this year with Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan football program. There was a generally accepted consensus that change was needed and the decision to hire RichRod was an extreme remodeling of the previous system. Seeing as Mr. Rodriguez refuses to reconcile his system with the resources and players that he has NOW the team and the program will suffer this year. Due to the fact that the players circulate through the system every four years it might not be for another four years until any progress can be seen within his new program.

Transferring this idea to the political stage I think it is easy to agree that:
1. Change is needed. And fast. Our current state of the economy and the general animosity of the rest of the world towards our current administration convinces me of this.
2. Change MUST be reconciled with current administrative practices. Not doing so would be irresponsible and unproductive in the immediate and distant futures. An elected official need assess the situation at hand BEFORE making decisions.

That being said, both major party candidates appear on the surface to be capable of change though it would appear that McCain and the Republican party would have the advantage: Since Republicans are already in office, it would be easy to transfer people, departments, objectives over to the same people without much hassle. HOWEVER, I contend that the changes McCain suggests AND the persona that he has portrayed to ME via his website, RNC appearances, and through the mainstream media are not strong enough to bring about a sufficient CHANGE that can be readily and accessibly felt by the average American in the next four years.

This brings us to an ideological debate. One must first assess their own philosophical beliefs on the role of the government in any society BEFORE they make a decision on how to vote. I, personally and ideologically, desire a government to be an entity created by the people and for the people. In practice, this is not and cannot be the case and I realize this. Our government was created by an ELITE group of men, "The Founding Fathers", who wrote numerous letters to each other and drafts of the constitution(s) and in the end it was THEM (the elite electoral college) who were able to vote in the presidential elections (with the interests of the average American in mind, of course).
Through time this ideology has been downplayed, some of it lost, and in the real life many don't quite understand it. Our nation was built on the principle that the needs of the people and the needs of the nation undoubtedly change and so must the government. The Founding Fathers also accounted for the fact that the general population was incapable of making a truly informed decision. Not because of their stupidity or ignorance, but simply due to the fact that Americans have a work ethic unlike any other country. The average American, whether due to improper schooling, disinterest, or simply the fact that they have too much to do cannot possibly take the time to understand all of the issues and make well-rounded decisions. The electoral college was implemented for this precise purpose.
As time has told, no government is perfect and the perversion of the system by money through the political parties has caused the corruption of those ideals once held by the elite American men in the late 1700s. However tainted the system may be, I still believe that the objective of the government should be to strive to obtain those goals of being run by the People and for the People: with People meaning the average American.

It is here where ideals separate and the system (along with the parties) perverse the average American thought. The political parties, family allegiances, MONEY, and the media convince the average American that there are two trains of thought and that a good and well informed American must be on one side or the other. I can tell you with 100% confidence that this is not and never will be true. As long as our fingerprints are different, so will our thoughts and beliefs be different. It is possible, however to find similarities between fingerprints and beliefs and it is important in our social atmosphere to align ourselves with the right set according to our knowledge and what we know of the other sets. There is definitely strength in numbers and our political system rewards this rather handsomely.

I, in turn, find myself in accordance with what I believe to be the views of Barack Obama. Never in my life have I seen a major party candidate with such an innate grasp of the task that potentially lies before them or (more importantly to me) with the audacity AND THE KNOWLEDGE to successfully challenge the system and change it to benefit the average American as intended by the Founding Fathers.

To emphasize this I will bring up three points that are intrinsic only to Barack that might help to understand this:
1. His name. Barack Hussein Obama. Are you kidding? The mere fact that a man without a common name as George, Bill, or John actually has a shot at this thing already starts to challenge the way things are working. But to add references to THE TOP TWO of the U.S.'s most wanted list in the past decade to a major party candidate's name? Well that's just absurd. But wait, there's more...
2. He's black. So wait, you're telling me that there is a black man, running for office, with the name of Barack Hussein Obama and he still has a shot at this? His resume must be EXTRA impressive...
3. Umm... Well, he was in the Illinois State legislature for a while, was in the Senate for a couple of years, oh AND he graduated from Columbia and Havard Law. That's gotta count for something right?

I would argue yes. In my opinion the lack of political "experience" could only help a politician seeking true reform due to the lack of monetary and political ties one would have when entering office. Not only this, Obama is a smart man. Anyone who has heard him speak or graduated from Harvard Law could probably attest to that. He is so smart, in fact, that he chose the 6th longest running member of the senate to be his running mate (McCain is 24th). Biden, I believe, will be an excellent source for Obama to tap when the expert advice is needed in passing a bill. Also, when it comes down to it, it will be the PRESIDENT who signs the bill. Having an informed, rational-thinking, and intelligent president WHO IS NOT INDEBTED monetarily or politically to other institutions can effectively make a decision with the least amount of biases.

Furthermore, my experiences have led me into contact with a number of international viewpoints drastically different from those of the majority of Americans. No matter where I have traveled, I have found that biases and commitments due to culture and life experiences consistently affect the views of the average citizen. Moreover, I have found that listening to and thinking about all of the different viewpoints can lead one to challenge their own and question whether or not their previously held beliefs take into account all of the possibilities. This is not a bad thing.
It is my assessment that the majority of people in the international community (and one could argue also at home) have a strong opposition to the current practices of our government. It is my understanding that foreign communities will begin to put more pressure on the US and it's policies in order to accommodate a more globalized market not governed by America and it's corporations. For me, this is an issue of utmost importance that must be dealt with extreme care and tact. A thorough understanding of the international system and the interests of America's corporations MUST be at the forefront of a newly elected presidents' mind.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, is of Kenyan and Kansas descent, lived in India and graduated from Columbia with a Political Science degree specializing in International Relations. He worked with the Business International Corporation - "a publishing and advisory firm dedicated to assisting American companies in operating abroad" (Wikipedia). John McCain's international experience involves traveling with his family through naval bases through his youth and culminates in 23 separate bombing missions followed by 5 and a half years of imprisonment in a North Vietnamese prison.

I believe that these experiences are BOTH invaluable to each individual and will affect their policies abroad. It is my preference to have the former set of experiences when dealing with diplomatic situations.

But those aren't the only issues, Steve! Ahh yes, I know. I have given the other issues a thought, too. I don't expect you all to agree with me, but again I would like to put myself out there. Again, most of my beliefs are reinforced by an ideology that believes a government should exist on behalf of the people with an emphasis on the average American.

That being said, my mom and Kevin have each touched on some of them already and since Kevin's e-mail was clearly organized into sections I'd like to address my opinions on those issues first:

Abortion:

First and fore-most I think that the term "Pro-Life" is deceiving. One who is "Pro-Choice" can also be "Pro-Life" and vice-versa. Like you, Kevin, and I'm sure the rest of us, I am Pro-Life. Though I have never been faced with the situation (knock on wood) I would like to think that I would have no problem choosing Life over Abortion. The important part, however, is the choice. Though I concede that perhaps this current constitutional right can be taken advantage of, I can't help but think that in some situations it might be for the better. In order for a human to become a productive member of society, one must be raised under the right conditions. If a dysfunctional family sees that a baby is going to have Fetal Alcohol Sydrome or a rape victim decides that it is probably in the baby's best interest not to be born for fear of what might happen to him or her, I don't see it has the ultimate sin.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a sin and I believe that one will have to answer to a higher authority than the US government when their time is through, BUT I personally feel less responsible when a mother makes the decision to have an abortion as opposed to the government telling her it must live and then have it die 7 months later out of neglect or encounter a similar fate.

Furthermore, I still consider myself Pro-Life when dealing with Capitol Punishment. I do not believe the government should kill a man on behalf of the people of which I am a member. I want no part in that whatsoever. I do, however, believe that some people are beyond rational thought and incapable of being "cured" by current medical practices. I do not disapprove of these people being separated from the general population.

Which leads us to...

National Security:

This is a topic which I find very abstract and unavailable to the general public in most areas. One can argue that McCain has more knowledge in "serving to protect our country", but no one person can claim past experience as executive in chief other than previous Presidents. The President of the United States, I believe, comes into the know of national security threats on a need-to-know basis and intervenes only when he (or she) sees necessary. The chief executives of the many governmental agencies (CIA, FBI, all the Armed Forces, etc) all report to the Pentagon (a physically separate entity from the White House), though in the end they all report to the President. A Commander-in-Chief, therefore, in my opinion, must synthesize all reports and intelligence rationally before making extreme decisions such as war. From what I have seen of the two politicians, I believe Obama and his diplomatic tendencies will have an easier time at this than McCain would with the tradition of war hawks in the Republican Party.

I must remind you that I am of the mindset that intelligent political leaders can interact with foreign officials to find solutions and avoid war. It has been done in the past and needs to be done in the future in order to preserve our national economic security. We cannot and must not continue to spend money we do not have on a war that most likely cannot be won nor directly benefits us. In fact, many foreigners believe that the entire reason we went to war with Iraq was because Saddam wanted to change the oil trade from trade in US Dollars to Euro. Which leads me to...

Energy:
This one I like. Currently I support the drilling for oil in Alaska. I think the only way our energy crisis will be solved is if there ACTUALLY is a crisis. Though I do not believe that complete independence from foreign energy and governments is healthy for an ever-increasing globalized economy, I do feel that it is a resource that could be tapped. An option that a President and his staff should consider.
In quick response to Kevin's e-mail, I do not believe foreign governments are all evil or that we as Americans are entitled to anything (including oil). I think it's important to recognize the abundance of natural resources that we possess in America and rather than exploit it as our God-given right, learn to cultivate it so that it can be used most efficiently and keep us running the longest. Pressure MUST be put on the automotive industry OF AMERICA to find more efficient energy resources for use in their cars and I still believe that Obama has an awareness of this crisis that is parallel to McCain's.

Free-Enterprise

The Industrial Revolution paved way for capitalism. America helped invent the ways to regulate it in order to produce desired effects.
> From what I have studied, I deduce that a complete and unregulated
capitalistic system would produce extreme instances of severe and massive poverty while at the same time producing a minute group of insanely wealthy individuals. This is the case today in many third world countries where a government plays an ineffective or insignificant role in the regulation of industry.
The American and French Revolutions however played an important role in the assurance of a regulatory government to help lessen the blow for the average citizen. Americans still receive the money that they earn, however the government plays a role evening out the disparity between the extremes as well as aiding the incapable (be they handicap or unemployed) in finding decent and humane living situations.

Similarly, the government allows the American Dream to become a reality for many more people. By providing tax incentives for business owners, the regulation of the government helps to promote and encourage free-enterprise. These programs help ensure that businesses are run responsibly and effectively.
This must also be the case with the government. I have taken several macro-economic classes at the university level and have a decent understanding of the effects of taxes and government interference on the macro-scale. The government effects the economy and the GDP and GNP under it's borders significantly. Taxes undoubtedly hinder a free-enterprise system.
But is this a bad thing? I agrue no, so long as it is done responsibly.
The government MUST have some form of income in order to pay for national security, social security, education, etc. These are commitments that the government has taken on at the request of the People. In order for these programs to successfully run with minimal interference in the every-day workings of the free-enterprise system, they must be paid for with real money from that system - not borrowed or non-existent money.
The effects of the national debt on the average American and the capitalistic economy can be seen by the devaluation of the US Currency compared with foreign currencies. This effects our pocketbooks tremendously as previous goods become more expensive.
There is one positive aspect of a falling US dollar that I can think of that works to promote our economy, and that is our trade. Since our Declaration of Independence, Americans have always bought more from overseas than what we have sold. This leads to money directly leaving the US and it's economy. With a falling USD, our goods become more attractive to foreign buyers (as they are cheaper) and our trade deficit begins to even out. The more currency we have flowing into our country, the more the American dollar buys, the better off we are.
The problem now lies within the government to protect the American dollar from falling in the first place. Spending money that it doesn't have to support a war that is costing TRILLIONS of dollars is not only irresponsible, it is economically hindering each and every American when they go to the store.
Enter:

The Iraq War

This a topic that could be debated for years and already has been. My assessment of the situation in Iraq is a naive one, as I would I assume is most of ours. In order to have a proper discussion and form an opinion about it one must seek to understand what they know and then realize their knowledge is incomplete and distorted. This is not because one is ignorant, but due to the fact that the current administration has been misinformed and perhaps has misguided the American public in order to produce various ends.
That being said, I agree with Kevin that the decision to enter Iraq is irrelevant today. I also agree that immediate withdrawal from Iraq is unacceptable. I do believe, however, that a re-assessment must be made by the "powers at be" who are privy to information that the general population does not have access to.
My understanding of the situation is as follows (with obvious neglect to the situation prior to George W.'s presidency):

- The Bush Administration, following the Sept. 11 attacks, receives intelligence that Iraqi officials have begun to pursue WMD's and that this posses an imminent threat to the American population.

- Support for military action is gathered from allies in England and a few smaller countries but is never really accepted worldwide. The United Nations cannot confirm the US Intelligence, and therefore does not support military action.

- President Bush, under heavy pressure by war mongering leaders in his Cabinet, decides that action is necessary.
- Here it is my belief that very little connection was established between Saddam's government and the terrorist group Al Qaeda. I also believe that Saddam's interest in trading oil in Euro instead of USD caused panic in the White House about the potential economic impact it could have in the US.
- Invasion of Iraq by coalition forces led to a quick and utter destruction of the Saddam government. The Commander-in-Chief then commits our troops to the rebuilding of a nation under the assumption that democratic and capitalistic ideals will prevail.
Since then, the US has had advances and setbacks with no clear objective other than a "stable Iraq". Al-Qaeda continues to grow despite (and many argue BECAUSE) of our presence in the Middle East.

I don't believe in the possibility of a stable Iraq led by American forces can exist any time soon. The situation calls for a close look at the culture of Islam which MANY Americans (especially the "Mavericks" in office) have no chance of understanding for various reasons- lack of interest, religious beliefs, indifference. I was fortunate enough to take a course in Italy on the sociology of Islam, and then travel to an Islamic country in Morocco. I can testify that the very basis of the Islamic culture is DIRECTLY contradictory to a capitalistic society.

Under the Koran, the merging of church, state, and even monetary system is essential. In fact, the term "Islam" means "submission" and the idea is that Muslims submit themselves to the Islamic community and God. The difference from capitalism can be seen within this sense of community. Under Capitalism, a person is expected to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and make capital for themselves. In Islam, however, one "works" in order to benefit the community as a whole. One of the Five Pillars is alms-giving which is controlled by an Islamic bank. The idea with the central bank is that those who can give to the bank, give, and those who are in need are able to take.
To an American this idea sounds absurd, but the faith of the Muslim people makes this system just as real in their mind as our faith in our system makes ours real. The important thing to take away from all of this is that theirs is a system drastically different from ours with little desire to change. No amount of bombs is going to change this.
What needs to occur is a reassessment of what the US is capable of doing in Iraq. If diplomacy is still an option, I think that should be of utmost urgency. If this is not the case, the US should work with a true coalition of forces from around the world in order to determine the best course of action and maybe be willing to relinquish the objective of a free and capitalistic country in Iraq. I do not consider this a "surrender" nor do I believe it will jeopardize our national security any more than staying there would. I also do not see this as an international humiliation for our country any further than what the current administration has warranted.

Again, I believe that Barack Obama understands this situation and is knowledgeable enough to rationally sort out a situation before choosing a course of action.
My faith in Obama is not unfounded, I have read his book "The Audacity of Hope" and have heard him speak. His calm and insightful demeanor encourages my beliefs that he deep down understands the issues and seeks to reconcile them in the best and most efficient way possible regardless of party lines.

McCain has not convinced me of this. The Republican Party machine is so strong and well-rooted in the current system that it would be nearly impossible (and politically suicidal) for him to part ways with it, despite the fact that it is this precise machine that has driven our country into the economic and political lows. I do not fault President George Bush for everything that has happened during his administration, though I do fault him for failing to think about the actions that members in his party were telling him were the best for the nation as a whole. While I do, ambitiously, believe that McCain will be perhaps more critical of the tasks put before him than his predecessor, I do not believe that he will be able to rid himself of the ghosts of Republican past enough for any real change to occur and quickly.
I want to stress that I have no allegiance to the Democratic Party and consider myself an independent, despite the political candidate I endorse.
I do not know of either candidates' health care plans - this is an issue that only recently has come into my consciousness. I can tell you that I was truly amazed by the ease of the socialist health care system I experienced while in Italy, though I am not convinced that a total revamp of our system is a good idea - especially for our economy. I also am not afraid of it.
I want to highlight one important thing that my mom brought up in her e-mail and that is the importance of financial responsibility. I agree with Kevin that McCain is not a mirror image of the current administration, though as I said before, I do not think McCain has the youthfulness or knowledge to substantially challenge the machine that is already set in motion.

In conclusion, I want to simply bring into light a couple of observations that I have had about the election process and the way we, as Americans, treat it. The amount of money raised by presidential candidates this year is over $1 Billion. Despite the amount of money that goes into it (or perhaps because of it) the process is still flawed and many people only receive or seek out the news that they want to hear. I would encourage everyone to pay attention very critically when listening in the next couple of weeks. If you watch closely the media spreads rumors in all directions. Watch the debate on Friday and make a decision on your own. Base it as best you can on the issues as well as the perceived capacities of the candidates.
Be aware of political bullying and realize that terms such as "NObama" have a psychological effect on you as well as your audience. Similarly, beware of unjust and inappropriate associations. Even as a joke, a comparison between Kwame and Obama reeks of racism.

I have enjoyed writing this and want to thank any of you who have read this all the way through. I appreciate that you value my opinions and I would love to discuss them with whoever (I think grandpa would approve as long as there was a beer involved).
Voice your opinion. Listen. Vote.

Much Love,

Steve