Voter Suppression and Political Polls by Charles M. Blow

Polls are used to determine the trend which voters are most likely to follow during an election but these polls are becoming insignificant due to the new voter registration laws which are being put in place especially in vote swinging states such as Pennsylvania. Many likely voters in the swing states intend to vote for President Obama but it is these who are most likely to be excluded from the voting roles due to their ineligibility to vote under the new laws. Both presidential candidates have made numerous visits to swing states in an attempt to get a larger share of votes within these states than their opponents. Moreover, some governors, especially in Florida, have made it harder for former felons to vote and since most of these ex-felons are either of Latino or African American descent who tend to vote Democrat, it means that Obama will most likely lose crucial votes in these states. It is not known exactly how many voters are aware of these new electoral rules due to the fact that not many people follow news about the upcoming elections and the changes which have been made to electoral laws. It is suspected that many people who are expected to vote for their preferred candidates (in this case President Obama) might be turned away due to the fact of their ineligibility. The new election laws have been pushed by Republicans in order to suppress the ability of Democratic voters to vote in large numbers, thus ensuring Republican victories in these states.

 http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/voter-suppression-and-political-polls/

From Victim to Vicious by Charles M. Blow

Charles Blow states that the Mitt Romney campaign had adopted the stance of being victims of vicious attacks from the Obama campaign team. This is despite the fact that the Romney team has continuously led a smear campaign against Obama stating his weakness in matters of policy as well as attacking him personally concerning deviant events in his past which he has confessed to and regrets. Furthermore, it is ironical that the Romney campaign is making such claims and is behaving like a victim when in fact, it is they who have made vicious attacks against Obama and his administration. This has been a new attempt to discredit the Obama campaign by playing the victim because all other attacks against Obama, whether personal or political, seem to have failed so far. It is quite possible that Romney is attempting to divert attention from the weak points of his campaign such as his unwillingness to make information about his tax returns public, among others. These claims by Romney may just work against his favor especially considering that he is accusing a relatively popular president of making vicious attacks against him. This might not go very well with the public because of the fact that Obama’s controversial issues have already been dealt with and accepted by the public during the previous elections and raising these issues further will only help the Obama campaign. Recent polls asking who had better personal character to assume the presidency showed that Obama would more likely be elected than Romney. Furthermore, Romney’s complete refusal to reveal his income tax returns may lead to the continued distrust of the electorate and ruin his chances of getting elected.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/from-victim-to-vicious/

Democracy is not always the best form of government

The end of the Cold War ushered a new political era in the world – that of the liberal political order. While this movement began in Eastern Europe, it quickly spread, in part, to every continent. The result was that it ended up leading to a situation where Western liberal democratic ideals were adopted, at least in part. A consequence was that the United States, and its liberal democratic allies, took it upon themselves to ensure that the whole world became a part of the democratic order. They sought to make sure that those countries that had previously been dictatorships ended up adopting democratic systems of government.

One of the most important events to take place in the twenty first century is the American invasion of Iraq under the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction. The result was that a relatively stable government under Saddam Hussein that had been in power for decades was overthrown. Later evidence showed that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and in fact, had ended its chemical and biological weapons programs after the end of the First Gulf War. Since the overthrow of Hussein, Iraq has never known peace because it has not only faced considerable sectarian government, but it has also had to endure an American occupation, and the rise of terrorism. Under Hussein, such groups as al Qaeda had no way of getting into the country because of the powerful security apparatus that had been in place. However, with the overthrow of the secular Baathist regime, the situation changed with first the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq, and its later incarnation, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Iraq has since then been mired in conflict with the country being effectively divided into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions; showing that Iraq as a nation might be doomed.

Another instance of an attempt to bring about democracy that has turned sour is the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Despite being an autocrat, Gaddafi had been at the helm of Libya for over forty years, and during this time, he had ensured that the country’s oil wealth was used for its development. Libya had risen from being one of the poorest countries in Africa to one of its most prosperous with its people having a high standard of living that people in some Western countries would have envied. However, the events that are called the Arab Spring took place and in Libya, the rebellion was based in the city of Benghazi. Gaddafi’s swift attempt to crush a rebellion that had the potential of destabilizing the whole of Libya was met with Western condemnation and active action, through NATO, to overthrow him. The success of the NATO operation created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled because since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has essentially been a failed state. It is divided between two main factions based in Tripoli and Tobruk, in addition to the presence of ISIS and largely autonomous tribal entities that have ensured the continued conflict in the country.

The promotion of Western liberal ideals had a direct influence on the development of the Arab Spring and the destabilization of Egypt, formerly one of the most successful states in the MENA region. Hosni Mubarak, the long-time Egyptian president who had been in power for three decades and had been a force of stability in the country ended up being forced to step down. He was replaced by Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood candidate who actively sought to make sure that Egypt became an Islamic state. This highly divisive figure was overthrown one year later by the military under Fatah el Sisi. El Sisi, the current president, has returned Egypt to a semblance of stability despite being accused of repression. However, by the time he took power, the damage - following the chaos that had taken place in the aftermath of the fall of Mubarak in the form of continuous protest, and ISIS-affiliated groups taking root in the Sinai Peninsula - had already been done.

Therefore, imposed democracy is not always the best form of government within the various cultures, and countries across the world. Instead, it has to be allowed to evolve on its own because it will more likely gain wide acceptance, and institutions aimed at protecting minorities from oppression will be put in place. Overthrowing autocratic regimes that are a force for stability in many countries is an exercise in futility because it does not take into account the need to promote conditions aimed at bringing about the evolution of egalitarian systems of government.