6 november 2004
opied
the stentorian | ncssm
Do the Debates Matter? Why Bush May Lose the
Battle and Win the War
Phillip Golladay and Chris
McLain
T he third and final presi
dential debate was in
Tempe, AZ, on October
13. It wrapped up a series of
four debates, three presidential
and one vice-presidential,
which lead us into the final
two weeks of campaigning
before the election. For the
most part. Senator John Kerry,
the Democratic candidate, has
been called the wirmer of all
three debates. In fact, until
after the third debate, polls
were essentially tied.
However, in the first poll after
the last debate. President Bush
has the same lead he had going
into the debates, with Bush
having a 52-44 edge as of
October 18 in the CNN/USA
Today/Gallup poll. On the sur
face, this really makes no
sense. However, let us look at
the facts.
Many people have
criticized President Bush for
being too conservative.
However, as an electoral move,
playing a candidate to the right
does have its advantages. First
of all, more people - about 10
to 20 percent - identify them
selves to be conservative
rather than liberal. Therefore,
the Democratic
candidate in an
election has
more of a need
to appeal to the
independent
swing voters
than a
Republican. In
fact
Republicans in
the past, name
ly former
President
Bush, have lost
elections due
to their swing
more towards
the middle.
Therefore, it
would be con
sidered a better
decision for!
Bush to appeal to his conser
vative base. This is even more
important in this election year,
in which many members of the
left are already mobilizing
against Bush.
Another point to con
sider in this election is what
the public wants from the can
didates. Traditionally, the
main guide in elections tends
to be the issues themselves.
However, as this is the first
presidential eleetion after
9/11, the publie seems to be
looking first for leadership in
the candidates, rather than
their views on the issues. Part
of the appearance of leader
ship, at least according to the
public, is the decisiveness of
the candidate. The Bush cam
paign has
done a very
good job of
selling John
Kerry to the
American
public as a
person with
more waffles
than Belgium,
especially in
regards to the
war in Iraq.
Furthermore,
President
jBush has
■maintained
ihis position
on several
^controversial
issues, such
as Iraq and
A--the war on
terrorism, even in the face of
dropping opinion polls. If the
American public is looking for
decisive leadership. Bush defi
nitely has the upper hand on
his opponent.
In the actual debates.
the candidates presented two
different styles. President
Bush spoke in a plain style
straight into the camera, while
Senator Kerry tended to speak
to the moderators in a more
refined, eloquent style.
However, during the second
debate, especially at the begin
ning, Kerry seemed to be out
of place in the town-meeting
format of the debate; he was
not as “human” as Bush was in
answering questions. Even
though both candidates are
Yale graduates. Bush seems to
be a person one could with
which to sit down and talk,
while Kerry has a much more
aristocratic air around him.
Overall, the presiden
tial debates gave us the expect
ed result: Kerry, a 20-year vet
eran of the Senate, is a much
stronger orator than Bush, who
has been in politics for around
10 years. However, it appears
that the American public does
n’t consider the debates to
have been important for this
election. (Poll is from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/co
ntent/?ci=13657)
The Other Side of Outsourcing
Aneesh Kulkarni
T he issue of outsourcing
jobs has come to the
forefront in Campaign
2004. The Charlotte Observer
even ran a series of front-page
articles titled “There Go Our
Jobs”. Prominent politicians
from both parties have criti
cized the outsourcing of jobs
to other coimtries; to them,
supporting it is bad for the US
economy and even worse for
their political careers. And the
effects of outsourcing are dis
torted by politicians eager to
get elected. But outsourcing
jobs makes a lot of economie
sense.
Outsoiucing jobs not
only benefits businesses and
eonsumers, but also leads to
job creation. If an Indian soft
ware programmer is paid a
tenth of an American's salary,
a company that develops soft
ware in India will save money
and - provided competitors do
the same - the price of its soft
ware will fall, productivity
will rise, the technology will
spread, and new jobs will be
created to adapt and improve
it. So although outsourcing
may cause a loss of jobs in the
short term, it is good for the
economy over the long term.
It’s not just manufac
turing jobs and call centers
that are moving abroad. Delta
Airlines sends reservations
jobs to the Philippines. Oracle
(a software company) and
Ericsson (the telecommunica
tions equipment manufactur
er), have moved product and
software development jobs to
India. This allows Delta to
reduee its ticketing expenses,
which means lower prices for
passengers. Ericsson can also
reduce its costs, which allows
countries can do something
cheaper we ought to let them
do it, and concentrate on what
we can do best."
Exactly. And it’s not
just cheaper labor that drives
corporations to move jobs
abroad. Governments of coun
tries like India and China offer
Bangalore software office,
they use Dasani water, IBM
computers, GE lighting, and
Folgers Coffee - all American
products. That’s just another
example of how American
companies gain from out
sourcing.
The notion that out
T»MAl®TraV6L^
ABRAhGeHStrtTo
it to offer you cheaper cellular
phone services. This will in
turn allow the company to
grow and create more jobs
here in the states.
"Outsourcing does
not reduce the total number of
jobs in America," said Robert
Reich, labor secretary under
President Clinton. "If other
huge tax credits to companies
that set up operations there.
Plus, many countries have
some sort of a national health
insurance system, removing
that liability for the corpora
tions.
An added benefit is
the profit for other American
companies. For example, at a
sourcing is causing the large
job losses over the past four
years is simply a common
myth that can be dispelled by
simply examining the statis
tics. The reason behind the job
losses is simply that the eeono-
my was in recession. From
1999 to 2003, 1.3 million non-
agricultural jobs were lost.
■ : . -noil o;ju'j
•rr . . • -'Ao j-tioj £ ^nbd
Included in that number are
800,000 management posi
tions that disappeared - includ
ing executive jobs that are not
easily outsoureed. But busi
ness and financial service
occupations - professions con
sidered at risk of outsourcing -
added more than 600,000 jobs
during the period. Given these
data, it seems unreasonable to
blame the loss of jobs on out
sourcing.
Let’s see where the
major eandidates stand on out
sourcing. John Kerry is
strongly opposed to the idea of
outsourcing jobs, claiming
that it increases unemploy
ment in the United States. He
would offer tax credits to com
panies that do not outsource
jobs. While this seems like a
reasonable strategy, it is
intended to reduce outsoiue-
ing of jobs by replacing the
savings of outsourcing by tax
credits; however, it does not
offer the other benefits of out
sourcing like healthcare sav
ings and new markets, and it
may not significantly reduce
outsourcing of jobs. George
W. Bush, on the other hand,
does not oppose outsourcing,
and still claims that he is com
mitted to protecting American
workers. While this may
seems like a contradiction to
the average worker, it’s not -
we really can have it both
ways!
Source: New York Times:
2/15/04