OPINION
wame's
orner
Can the
Democrats
Win in '92?
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE
YES
55
55
KWAME MANLEY
JENNIFER TROUBLEFIELD
columnist
There has been much talk around the
country that incumbant President George Bush
will undoubtably remain in office for a second
term. Some polls have even shown Arkansas
Governor Bill Clinton, the labeled “most
electable Democrat,” too far behind Bush to be
a real challenger. Yet, despite a couple of polls
or the assumptions of a few Americans, the
Democrats have an excellent chance of
winning the presidency in 1992.
As our country’s problems continue to
worsen, the Democrats have an opportunity
both to address the issues and to emphisize the
failures of the current administration. The
Democrats are asking Americans, “Exactly
what did the Bush Administration accomplish
during the last four years?” Americans see that
the overglorified Gulf War accomplished little.
Our enemy, Saddam Hussein, is still in power,
while millions of Kurdish refugees continue to
fight for democracy.
Democrats are also questioning the poor
economic situation in America. If Bush is
doing so much about the recession, why are
thousands of responsible, hard-working
citizens still joining the 6.5 million unem
ployed in this country? Why are small
businesses and large corporations alike being
forced to lay off employees left and right? And
why is the Rupublican leader not taking the
Economic Recovery Plans proposed by the
Democrats seriously?
In addition to our devastated economy,
Americans have seen the social system
deteriorate. Crime rates around the country
have risen tremendously. Bush has not
presented a feasible plan to suppress this.
epidemic. His so-called “War on Drugs” has
done little to erradicate the drug problem in
our country. And the “education president” has
also failed to improve our educational system,
although he promised to do so. We still lag far
behind competitors in education.
Americans are realizing the failures of
our present leader. We’re tired of suffering.
We’re sick of worsening conditions. And
we’re fed up with broken promises.
This discontent was reflected in the New
Hampshire primaries. The majority of these
voters, according to an ABC News Poll,
blamed the worsening of our country’s
problems on Bush. An unbelievable 47% of
Republicans rejected their own party leader
and either voted for Pat Buchanan or wrote in
one of the Democratic candidates. Many of
those Republicans said they would not vote for
George Bush if he were nominated by the
party.
The Democrats must continue to make
the American people aware of Bush’s failures
and present real solutions to our country’s
problems. With this strategy and Bush’s
decreasing approval rating, the Democrats
have an excellent chance of winning in
November.
staff writer
With the presidential election of 1992
quickly approaching, our possible choices for
a new, or the same old, leader of our country
are becoming more and more visible.
Although it is extremely difficult to be able to
forecast the outcome of something as
unpredictable as a presidential election, many
facts enable us to eliminate extraneous
possibilities. Therefore, I feel the Democrats
cannot win the presidential election this
November.
The Democrats are not able to win
because of their weak campaign platform. Due
to the fact that the United States is having
domestic problems, such as the economic
crisis, there appears to be an obvious strike
against President Bush. As could be expected,
the Democratic candidates are making the
public aware of the obvious problems, but they
fail to offer a solution to them. Unless one of
the candidates can provide jobs for the
unemployed or balance the budget, the attacks
are worthless.
Although George Bush has done little in
many areas, his ability to handle foreign
affairs efficiently allows him to maintain a
strong public appearance. In “hard times” most
people are not willing to try something new
unless there is an absolute guarantee of some
type of personal benefit. To the people of our
country, the Democratic candidates seem to be
just ordinary people who have enough money
and/or popularity to run for president.
Under the Republican party, George Bush
has fought for peace, reform, and long-lasting
democracy, which is the “American dream.”
In his term, we have seen the Berlin Wall
crumble, Germany unify, Kuwait become
liberated as a result of the Persian Gulf War,
and Russia’s strong communist system
separate into capitalist countries. At one time,
these ideas were inconceivable for all, but now
they are a life-long dream come true. For this
reason, along with the fact that it has been 16
years since a Democrat has held the presiden
tial seat, the public is not willing to elect any
other than George Bush.
Since many of us are 18 or approaching
that age, it is important that we become
involved citizens. Know that it is OK to
complain, but only if you are going to make
yourself part of the solution. Politics is risky
business and we as the public must be able to
see through the propaganda techniques and
find the reality of the candidates. This makes
elections not just another conversational topic,
but a way for us to independently make a
difference.
Education & Freedom
JOSH LEVY
staff writer
Over the last few weeks, I have
experienced firsthand a phenomenon
which we all probably have (or will)
experience during our “education” here at
NCSSM— some sort of punitive action
dealt out by a member of the Residential
Life staff for violations absurdly minor
compared with their subsequent punish
ments.
Before I continue, I would like it to
be noted that this is in no way another
example of the whining student valiantly
defending the liberty of the free world by
taking on the RAs— rather, the intent is
actually antithetical to that farce. While
the actions taken by the staff are very
minor, the effects are somewhat more
important on the scale of the entire
educational system. But first the numbers.
During the last three weeks, three
students were given levels for talking in
the back staircase of their dorm, two
students were given levels for leaving a
mess in the lounge (and subsequently
required to do all housekeeping the next
night), a student was warned of a level
two for climbing a tree, a student was
given a warning for having unescorted
guests on campus, and a student was
given a level for missing check while
sitting in his room during check. These
were only the incidents I personally
witnessed, and I am sure numerous
similar incidents were reported.
The actual incidents which I noticed
(and in some cases experienced) were
disproportionately high considering the
time period of only a few weeks. I would
like to give the benefit of the doubt to the
administrators and continue to believe
that this type of activity is minimal.
However, before one jumps to the
conclusion that the Residential Life staff
is being unjustly vindictive, it is necessary
to consider the motives behind the system
enforced by the staff. The rules set up by
SGA, Parent’s Council, and RAs were set
in place first and foremost with the
interests of the parents and the legal
protection of the school in mind. Immedi
ately an obvious contradiction is detected
in that the most important component of
the system is left out— the student.
This contradiction gives light to a
larger question which obviously needs to
be addressed— the objective of education
in general and the thought process. It
appears to me that this school finds itself
in an interesting paradox regarding this
subject. It claims to take the best students
from the state, students hungry for
learning and not just knowledge, and
actually places them in a sheltered
system. Students find themselves caught
in the conflict between intellectual
freedom and the apparent lack of personal
freedom. The goals of true education
cannot be achieved under these condi
tions.
There appears to be only one solution
to the paradox— to set up a system that
makes true education its objective. Under
such a system, students who truly desire
to learn, and were truly prepared to live
on their own, would be responsible to
keep an acceptable standard of personal
freedom. No one would force any parents
to send their innocent 16-year olds to such
a liberal institution. Only those willing to
face reality for the sake of quality
education would be considered. After all,
in many parts of the world, a 16-year old
often is independent, heads a family, and
in many cases is even willing to give his
life for the freedom of people. Surely we
can offer our students something worthy
of their capabilities.
For those skeptical of the success of
such a system, I wholeheartedly agree
with your skepticism. Once again, we
discover that the true basis of today’s
education is money. We must remember
that our fine institution is supported by
the taxpayers of North Carolina, and is
therefore subject to the whims of
society’s “morals” and pocketbooks.
Perhaps, then, it is necessary to re
evaluate even the basis of our country’s
morals and standards of society. All the
while that our country portrays a homoge
neous moral world, we are falling further
and further behind in education— the last
bastion of free minds and true thinking.
\
\ / , Xw Calc 01.05
Vc: Qrp A
ProB^’m
/ \ Lii;H-reuL55 Ak
T6
%L a Amouwt
OP TiM6/ ^
y
Ve Lot5 q(t
"PkXnJGs. I ‘VDkJOEI?
How HhJV Cight
The
We5u^ U-r5 OP Light