NSLC: US Policy & Politics – Days 3 to 7
Comments(0) Well, it took me a bit longer to write again than I thought it would. We’ve been incredibly busy, waking up anywhere from 6 to 8 each morning and going to bed at around one in the morning. Thankfully, it’s been really fun (with a couple of exceptions), through our campaign, lectures, legislative work, and travel.
Hours after my last post, we met up in groups and worked on understanding the states that we were assigned and thus how we would vote to represent our constituents. I viewed this in a slightly cynical manner, noting that since I was a Republican it didn’t really matter what I or my constituents actually thought, only what the party line was. I came to understand that Idaho was a pretty Republican state and that I was to follow the party line. Did I listen? Not really, as you’ll see later.
About 30 minutes later, we did an exercise in sociology. We each chose a name tag off of a table: our choices were Snoopy, Woodstock, Charlie Brown, and Schroeder. I ended up choosing a Schroeder tag, which ended it in a way being the best one and in a way the worst. Picture a huge rectangle on the floor taking up a room. Divide it along the short side. One of those sides was assigned to the Schroeders. The other was divided in two, and one of those halves was assigned to the Charlie Browns. The remaining half was divided in two with one half going to the Snoopys and the other going to the Woodstocks. Each group had a bag of materials, but what we didn’t know for a moment was that the bags contained different amounts. The Schroeders made off with the most, the Charlies had some, and the Woodstocks and Snoopys had almost nothing. There were around 8-10 Schroeders, 20 or so Charlies, 20 to 30 Snoopys, and 20 to 30 Woodstocks. Lastly, the TAs were patrolling the outside of the rectangle as “police.”
Our goal was to build a community using blocks and other materials that we were given. We were told to go to a table outside of the rectangle to get a building permit whenever we wanted to build. As the Schroeders, we found out that things were not as they seemed when we were told that we didn’t need permits and that if we needed help we only needed to ask. I immediately figured out that we were the “privileged” group in the experiment, considering that unlike the others we were sitting down comfortably and not being squished into a small region. We started building our town, naming each building after the “police” as to appease them. Occasionally, a non-Schroeder would enter our domain and try to steal our money, but the police caught them every time.
After the experiment ended, we realized how foolish we had been. Unbeknownst to us, the Snoopys and Woodstocks were being abused to provide money that the police gave to us. At random times, they were hauled off into “jail,” while we were sitting comfortably by our town. The most shocking thing for me was the concept that we were never told that each group had to stay in their own section of the rectangle. We could have ripped up the tape dividing each section and created one giant happy world, but instead we, the Schroeders, sat in our blissful ignorance. I believe that the motto that I had given our town during the experiment as a joke applied best: “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton). The whole thing was a true learning experience for me, acknowledging that there was a side of me that would just sit and relax while the world went to hell if I was well off.
For the campaign, we were divided into different groups. Each party had two campaigns, a National Committee, and an interest group. For the Democrats, they had the National Education Association, while the Republicans had the National Rifle Association. In addition, there was also an independent media group. I ended up being assigned to the RNC. Since then, we’ve worked on the Republican party platform and talked about how best to get out the vote for the election. I’ve been getting into character, working on an attack ad against one of our possible opponents. I had taped juicy parts of both of the Democratic candidates’ press conferences, so I have dirt on both. All I need now is the go-ahead to run one of them.
We’ve been in lectures by one Alicia Kolar Provost, a PhD student here at AU who has worked on campaigns such as Gore & Kerry and was a political appointee during the Clinton administration. She’s been pretty good, and I’ve enjoyed the political science that she’s talked about.
As for guest speakers, so far we’ve had two at NSLC and a panel elsewhere. We’ve listen and asked questions to both Ron Nessen, a journalist and former Ford administration Press Secretary, and William Kelley, Deputy Counsel to the President. I asked him why the IRS has audited progressive churches that have acted in political ways against the current President and not audited the conservative ones who endorsed Bush. His response was simply (and I’m almost quoting him), “I haven’t done the fact-finding research, but I was be astonished to find out that that had happened.” Oh well.
Our panel spoke to us at one awesome location: the CIA! We were able to visit after a LENGTHY security check back at AU, during which we had to leave everything back there. We didn’t really get to go anywhere in the CIA other than the auditorium, but it was still really cool. First, an overt analyst spoke to us about his 4 (I think) years at the CIA, followed by a moderated discussion with 5 panelists. I’m not going to discuss the people on the panel in any detail, as one was still covert. The most interesting person, though, was a software engineer who works at the Directorate of Science & Technology. It sounds like a really fun job to have. The few things I didn’t really like about the visit included the general talk about how the NY Times shouldn’t have published info about the illegal NSA wiretapping. I had heard that the CIA was heavily politicized under Porter Goss, and I hope that these were their true opinions and not something foisted upon them by the culture there. Secondly, they constantly talked about how they were fighting the “bad guys,” which seemed a bit simplistic to my tastes when talking about our enemies.
Tomorrow, we’re going to be visiting the State Department and hearing a lecture by an unknown speaker. That should be fun.
Focusing on the legislative work, I’m a senator on the Judiciary committee, specifically focusing in subcommittee on campaign finance reform and election reform. I was elected chair of the committee (actually vice-chair because of the TA) by the Republican caucus in the committee. Since in real life I’m a Democrat, I had some serious trouble trying to think like a Republican in this simulation. Therefore, I basically wrote some fairly liberal legislation and pretended I was a very moderate Republican. At the party caucus introducing the legislation from the various committees, the TAs who were Republicans in real life didn’t exactly like my work (obviously), and the students who were either Republicans in real life or else very good actors didn’t like it either. Thankfully, there were a decent number who understood why I was standing for principle in banning unethical contributions while it may be tactically damaging to the party.
One thing that I don’t really like about the conference is how it seems to be designed to transform you into a finger-in-the-wind style of politician. There isn’t much emphasis on principle except in the beginning and after that everything is focused on basically how best to get reelected. I find that abhorrent, since I believe that people should care about issues beyond just politics.
To give us just a bit of “relaxation,” we’ve been traveling all over D.C. We spent about 3 hours in Georgetown, about 4-5 hours on the Hill, and about 2-3 hours at Union Station. All of the trips were fun, thankfully.
During our trip to the Hill, I was able to stop by both of my senator’s offices. Although the senators themselves weren’t there since the Senate was in session, it was nevertheless really amazing to be there. I obtained a pass to the Senate gallery from one of the offices and was able to watch while the Senate debated the flag-burning amendment. The Republicans sounded like total fools to me, with one equating flag-burning to spray-painting the Lincoln Memorial, which is destruction of government property. Are they trying to say that all flags are now government property? Thankfully, however, I was able to witness a truly great speech by Senator Inouye of Hawaii. Here it is:
Mr. President, I rise to speak against the proposed
constitutional amendment.
Since World War II, I have been involved directly or indirectly in 13
wars and conflicts: Korea, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Desert One,
Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, the Persian Gulf war, Somalia, Haiti,
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.
In all these wars and conflicts, there are several things in common.
First, American lives were lost and many young Americans were wounded
and will bear scars for the rest of their lives, and we must not
dishonor their memories by abandoning the freedoms for which they
sacrificed.
Second, in every war, great speeches are made and delivered
energizing our citizens to defend our unique American freedoms
contained within the Bill of Rights. I can still hear some of those
stirring words.
During the Second World War, very close friends of mine were lost.
Much blood was shed to preserve every American’s constitutional
freedoms.
To be clear, I have no patience with those who defile our flag. It is
unpatriotic and deeply offensive to those who serve or who have served
in uniform. It angers me to see symbols of our country set on fire.
This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is
unpatriotic, but I believe Americans gave their lives in many wars to
make certain that all Americans have a right to express themselves,
even those who harbor hateful thoughts.
Our country is unique because our dissidents have a voice. Protecting
this freedom of expression, even when it hurts the most, is a true test
of our dedication to democracy.
As a commissioned military officer and as a U.S. Senator, I took an
oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. As a Senator, I have become
accustomed to being insulted and condemned by people who disagree with
me. I have been castigated for having cast votes that some call
unpatriotic or un-American. I believe that my actions were patriotic
and American, but those who criticize me have a right to disagree and
express their disagreement.
It is not always easy to serve the country with a Bill of Rights that
defends the rights of those who would defile our national symbol. While
I take offense at disrespect to the flag, I nonetheless believe it is
my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United
States Senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use
the flag in nonviolent speech.
For over 200 years, our Bill of Rights has endured. It proclaims the
Government of the United States is limited in its powers, and this
sacred document continues to instruct and inspire people throughout the
world. And for the last 200 years, despite repeated efforts to tamper
with this document, we have always found the strength necessary to live
within these limits.
So today we must look inside ourselves once again and find the
strength to affirm our commitment to the precious liberties enshrined
in the Bill of Rights.
We saw Senator Clinton walk in and out of the chamber, and apparently we missed Senator Kerry’s speech on the issue by about 10 minutes.
I’ll write some more in a couple of days on the rest of the program.