One Person, One Vote: It Was Nice When It Lasted

On April 2, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States delivered another blow to democracy in our country. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that individuals can contribute to as many political parties and candidates as they want.

I suppose the only saving grace from this decision is that the court did not strike down the actual per candidate/party contribution limits. Meaning that a private citizen can now contribute to 10, or 20, or even 30 candidates, but can still only give whatever that max contribution limit is to each candidate. However, I strongly believe it is only a matter of time before that those contribution limits are also struck down in the name of the 1st amendment.

Although one person still cannot directly fund a candidates entire campaign by themselves, this ruling has vast ramifications. It yet another crack in democracy that is enjoyed in this country. The essence of "one person, one vote" is being quickly replaced with, "more money, more voting power"
 The vast majority of Americans do not have the financial means to contribute the max limit to justt one candidate, much less 20 of them. Due to the necessity of fundraising in our elections candidates are forced to follow the money. They have a strong incentive to listen to, help, or even be in service to the people that can fund their political ambitions.

The current system is consistently being tipped in favor of the super wealthy and away from middle-class America. While I doubt most Americans want to attack the free speech of their fellow wealthy citizens, there has to be a realization that the current trend in campaign finance law is inherently unequal.

One potential solution is to push for legislation which creates publicly funded elections. Each and every candidate would be given an allotted amount of taxpayers money, and a set amount of time to campaign. This would decrease the length of campaigns significantly, level the playing field for non-incumbent candidates, and present a better form of democracy for this country.

Unfortunately though, the powers at be have a strong incentive to not put forward such reforms. Incumbents have a significant advantage as of now and any new legislation, which they would have to pass,  which would decrease their chances of re-election will probably not gain any significant traction in Congress.

So as of now our country will continue to endure long and expensive campaigns that provide little public good. Our televisions will be filled with attack adds for months on end and there will be the usual rounds of countless debates during the primaries. And at the end of it no one, neither the candidates or the public, will be better off.

We Lost The War Because Our Leaders Could Not Lead

America let's be honest....we have lost the war in Afghanistan.

Every day 38,000 troops are leaving their patrol bases and combat outposts, attempting to carry on with the mission of bringing democracy to Afghanistan. However, this mission, regardless of the capabilities of our military and its service members, is one that has wholly failed.

As a U.S. Marine in Afghanistan, I never served with a group of more professional, dedicated, and brave men in my life. They were selfless with their bodies in the midst of firefights and displayed daily acts of courage that would humble us all. But bravery and an enemy body count only get us so far.

For every insurgent killed there will be five that replace him. For every house searched, another Afghan family becomes disillusioned with America, and for every wall or field damaged, another potential enemy fighter is born. The overall objective of constructing a democratic government in a broken country, cannot be accomplished when the future electorate hates the creator of this pipe dream.

 By the U.S military conducting large scale counter-insurgency operations we are only increasing the probability of ruining our reputation with every shot fired or every bomb dropped in someone's neighborhood, village, or town.

The war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Not because we don't have the right equipment, or good enough Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, or Sailors, but because the goal of democratizing an entire nation is unattainable. With the bar of measurable success set so high, the best we can do is reach up and grab that glass of American exceptionalism and drink it while we can, or pay off our tab and go home.

 On every patrol I met the local men living in our area of operations. And yet everyday I never knew whether tomorrow that farmer would be firing at me or shaking my hand. The objective in warfare is to defeat the enemy, but what if that enemy is supposedly the future of the country you are trying to build? Unfortunately this is not a new predicament that the United States has found itself in. Vietnam and Iraq are examples of the U.S government attempting to use military force as a substitute for diplomacy, and both had terrible results. Vietnam is still a communist country, and Iraq barely has a functioning government.

By continuing large scale military operations, the United States will continue to radicalize the moderate, and disillusion the hopeful. This is not the fault of the men on the front lines. They take the steps necessary to keep their fellow brothers alive. Whether that means searching homes, responding to force with force, or walking through a farmer's field so they will not patrol on roads strewn with I.E.Ds, then they must do that.

But....these ongoing operations will not lead to elections, or campaigns, or democracy in this country. Every bullet fired at the enemy, might as well be a bullet into the dream of democratizing Afghanistan. We shoot, kill, or arrest them, and then wave our flag and prosthelytize American values. If I were not of us, I would not believe the dream we are pitching either.

If the premise of victory can be replaced with a much more realistic objective, then true progress can start being measured. "Containment of the threat" needs to replace the current slogan of "democracy for all in Afghanistan."

Afghanistan will not be won by U.S Marine Corps infantry battalions. Instead the credible threats within the country will be contained by the use of highly trained small unit special forces.

 There are several reasons for this. One of the most important being is sustainability. A force of 2,000 special operators costs much less than 20,000 traditional infantrymen, and their ability to quickly strike an identified threat is unmatched. President Obama's light foot print strategy should not be the way military force is applied in other parts of the world, but it is how the military should be used in Afghanistan.

By accepting the reality that a counter-insurgency is a conflict that cannot be won, then we can begin to work on more productive strategies. Current U.S policymakers believe that if we spend more money, send more troops, and kill more of the enemy, then results will come.

True, politicians and generals might see momentary gains by utilizing a troop surge technique and implementing a "clear-and-hold" strategy. But our troops can only clear-and-hold so much, and what happens when the troops depart? All of our government's actions thus far in this campaign do not breed sustainable outcomes.

War is not an option that should be chosen easily or readily. Too often it seems our leaders resort to mass violence, attempting to accomplish missions which are impossible or unnecessary. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all examples of conflicts that we should not have fought in, and that we could not win. Life is too precious a commodity to be wasted fighting an ill-conceived conflict. We did not lose the war in Afghanistan because of our service member's inabilities. We lost the war because our leaders could not lead.

The Hobby Lobby Case: Is It the Beginning of the End for Obamcare?

This past Tuesday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius. Both of these cases, together popularly known as the "Hobby Lobby" case, deal with the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act (A.C.A) The owners of these two companies are deeply religious and view the mandate as a violation of their freedom to practice their religion, by being forced to supply contraceptives to their employees through mandates insurance programs, that violate their faith based beliefs.

The reason that this case is so important is because of the potential ramifications it can have in the future for the entire structure of the ACA. If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, and allow these private companies to selectively administer health care coverage to their employees it would set an important precedent. This "slippery slope" was noted by two of the more liberal justices on the court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered whether other employers with religious objections would be able to opt out of covering medical procedures, such as vaccines or blood transfusions. "One religious group could opt out of this, and another religious groups could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal, and nothing would be uniform," chimed in Justice Elena Kagan

Taking a historical view on this case, one is reminded of the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortions nationwide before a certain time, prescribed within the "trimester framework". The similarity lies in the strategy that was, and is being used by opposition groups to minimize the effectiveness of these various laws. Pro-life groups have systematically brought cases before the courts that incrementally chipped away at the core of the Roe v. Wade decision. In many states, where there are only one or two abortion clinics, the "the right to an abortion" is nothing more than a paper tiger that in reality has no real tangible effect on women's lives or their supposed rights.

The same sort of paper tiger law could be born again, starting with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in this case. As both justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan pointed out, if this exception is made, why could not other exceptions be made. The slippery slope of legislative and judicial appeasement could result in the minoirity enjoying their protected rights, while the majority of people are subjected to a disuniformed healthcare system, resembling the one which the ACA was intended to fix.

However, the plaintiffs in this case do you have a valid argument, and the importance of religious freedom and choice are critically important to the independence that all citizens should be entitled to enjoy in this country. But in my opinion, I fail to see how their religious freedom and that of their company are interconnected. I am sure that of  Hobby Lobby's 13,000 workers  there are many that participate in activities that do not coincide with the religious beliefs of their employers. Does this mean that Hobby Lobby should fire them, or not even hire them in the first place? The confusion that occurs when trying to prescribe rights to a corporation is illogical. Furthermore, when attempting to place rights in the hand of a corporation there is confusing gray area that emerges.

The owners of Hobby Lobby have every right to practice whatever religion they choose. But in my opinion, their corporation does not have the right to choose a religion to follow. If the court were to rule in Hobby Lobby's favor then this corporation should have to only sell their products to consumers who follow and practice the same religion as the producers of their products. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan's observation that the ability for corporations to pick and choose what aspects of laws to follow based off their religious beliefs creates a non-uniform marketplace, that does not prove equitable solutions or products.

All though I hope the Court's majority will rule against Hobby Lobby I very much doubt they will. The past case of Citizens United demonstrated the court willingness to extend fundamental rights to corporations, and I doubt they will see much of a difference in this particular case. If the court does rule in favor of Hobby Lobby then this could be the first substantial crack in the ACA. It leaves open the question of who, or what corporation, will next bring forth a case demanding that they do not have to adhere to the ACA. The continuation of these separate lawsuits chipping away at the very core of this law could result the law itself being gutted and essentially useless. While it is impossible to predict the future, this case could be a step in the direction of nullifying President Obama's landmark piece of legislation.