What The Election of 1952 Tells Us About Social Media's Failure

What The Election of 1952 Tells Us About Social Media's Failure to Grow Political Influence of the Average American

In 1952, the United States elected in a landslide the first Republican President in 20 years. How he arrived at that role is more fascinating than what he did when he got there.

POLITICS VS. PUBLIC SERVICE

In 1952, long before computers and social media, and for some, long before television - there was a social campaign underway. It was the Draft Eisenhower campaign, and it was the first successful political draft of the 20th Century.

Eisenhower stated many, many times that he didn't want to run for President. He was content as a general and hero of WWII. Even President Truman, convinced that Eisenhower would run as a Democrat, tried to press him to run, all the while he replied with a resounding "no".

So people who believed he would be a great President tried a different approach - they would get the people to demand it.

This was a different era - politics was still seen as a "public service", that Eisenhower himself said he would not feel comfortable turning down if the American People determined he would be the best man for the job.

So how would they be able to convince a man, in a era with no social media or quick communication, that the people wanted him?

I LIKE IKE

The TV show Mad Men outlines some pretty impressive old school marketing tactics. They likely didn't mention that the very type of marketing they described was used to help elect a President.

"I Like Ike" (named after Eisenhower's nickname, Ike), was a grassroots movement that became a symbol of the efforts to drive Eisenhower to run - developed by a marketing businessman who later became Secretary of Commerce under Nixon. It was launched in 1951 by a few Republican Governors and Senators, but was fueled by a citizenry who was passionately in favor of America's last wartime hero who purchased the merchandise like candy.

Still, Eisenhower rejected calls to run. Instead, the Democrats and Republicans were still moving forward with their candidates as expected.

Then, in January of 1952, Eisenhower's name was added to the New Hampshire Republican Primary - without his permission and with no marketing or fanfare.

24 Newspapers soon endorsed Eisenhower, including the New York Times, despite having not announced a bid to run. Millions of Americans purchased I Like Ike paraphernalia (sounds like Make America Great Again hats of 2016), driving forward the notion that "Ike" was the people's candidate.

"SERENADE TO IKE"

Even with all of this, Eisenhower didn't believe the hype. He thought the media was exaggerating. After all, you couldn't track likes and metrics in 1952. How did he know it wasn't just the elites pressuring him?

The I Like Ike movement held a massive rally in Madison Square Garden - at the time a capacity of 16,000 - and 25,000 Americans showed up to show their support, refusing to leave even when the Fire Marshall asked them to leave. Famous businesswoman and aviator Jacqueline Cochran flew to Paris a few days later to show Eisenhower Serenade to Ike, a tribute film she had made - ending with a toast "To the President of the United States.

Then, in March, having not campaigned or spent any money, Eisenhower beat his Republican Primary opponent Robert A. Taft 50% to 38% in the New Hampshire primary (his opponent had spent precious time and money there). A few days later, he received 106,000 write in votes (some as Isenhowr or just "Ike") in Minnesota, only 20,000 behind the on-ballot candidate in the State.

Eisenhower was now convinced - the people did want him. The movement was real. The rest, as they say, is history.

SOCIAL MEDIA'S POTENTIAL

Social Media is often praised as a way to connect people. A way to deliver ideas more rapidly. Some argue so far as to say that Social Media has reshaped the political climate, and led to major changes in how politicians campaign, how entertainers entertain, and how people interact.

People will cite the ability of "sharing" memes and statuses throughout the internet, which can garner hundreds of thousands of likes and build a narrative, as evidence that people have more of a voice now than they ever had before.

But how much of that voice is actually reaching its target? How much have Americans really seen their ability to change their fates expand tangibly through Social Media?

In 1952, long before social media, millions proved that Americans as a unified voice could change the Country. 106,000 people woke up in Minnesota and wrote in a candidate who wasn't even on the ballot.

Why was that? Was it because there weren't hundreds of comments on Social Media telling people that their vote was "wasted"? Was it because people were more aware of civics, or just more willing to be involved? Was it because people had to communicate more in person, and thus ideas could still permeate in a very different way?

Even with social media and ubiquitous TV sets, third party candidates, let alone "drafted candidates", have immense trouble raising awareness.

People will argue that Ike had the establishment behind him, so of COURSE it was easy for the idea of him running could permeate - today, the establishment holds back independent ideas. But therein lies the problem - the promise of social media was supposed to be independent information.

How is social media useful, if it can't even evolve our ability to communicate and affect change beyond what we could 60 years ago?

WHAT WENT WRONG?

In 1952, the American People, sparked by an idea, fueled an 8-year Presidency. Today, ideas are generated on social media every single day, but are unable to gain traction. Those that do, are polarized and dismissed.

There are hollow echoes of similar activity today - President-Elect Trump's rallies and usage of social media to directly reach the people, being two of them - but they are often misunderstood and manipulated by those who want to rebrand the messages for their own purposes.

The issue lies in the very nature of social media. The Average American citizen isn't aware - but on things like Facebook and Twitter, THEY are the product. They want users to feel comfortable so that they keep coming back. People don't typically come back if they are challenged - they come back if they see things they agree with.

This is why, today, even though we have the tools as American citizens to do what we did in 1952, without the backing of the establishment - we won't. We can't agree on doing it, let alone how to do it.

Perhaps if civics hadn't been all but abandoned prior to social media's rise, we would see a much different situation. Then again, perhaps even with civic awareness, social media itself is the cause, not the symptom, of the current political disconnect. Would America of 1952 have been more or less likely to nominate Ike if social media had existed back then? Or would everyone have talked each other out of it?

We can never answer that question, but hopefully, with the internet entering it's mature phase and people becoming more aware of fake news, we will start to see a shift back towards awareness - in spite of our own desires to remain in the bliss of our own echo chambers.
------------------------------

The "Others": Multi-Racial Americans in the Age of Identity Politics

The "Others": Multi-Racial Americans and Identity Politics

For millions of Americans whose race isn't as clear as black and white, identity politics can force an uncomfortable choice. But there is an alternative to division.

I am the "other".

Below Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, at the very bottom of that job or school application, sometimes a loan application - there I am. "Other".

I am the son of a white Irish father and a first generation immigrant Dominican mother. The only thing the two sides of my family had in common when they first met was that they were both Catholic. Now, they still have very little in common, except grandchildren and nieces and nephews.

Racially, this makes me "mixed" (or Other). In a world where wearing your race is a badge of pride, where Brown and Black and White are quickly coming back into style as how you define the quality of your American experience, I have been left in a veritable gray area where standing out means standing against everything I have been brought up to believe.

GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS

Growing up, race meant nothing to me. I was surrounded by people every shade of brown and white from the time I could crawl. People spoke English, Spanish and Spanglish interchangeably. I visited relatives of moderate wealth and relatives of moderate poverty, ranging from New Jersey to the Dominican Republic itself.

The first time I really felt it - "being the other" - was when I started going to friends houses. I went to friends houses of all cultures - black, white, Hispanic, Asian - and the culture in these homes was palpable. When I entered a white person's home, I was never quite white. In a Hispanic person's home, I was never quite Hispanic, either.

So, what was I? My first language was Spanish but I had forgotten most of it, my skin was brown but not that brown, I spent most of my time with my white family and I didn't have an accent. I ate Rice and Beans and Corned Beef. Empanadas and Pot Roast.

It took me years to figure it out, but I was the quintessential result of the melting pot. I was the perfect blend of two cultures, taking what I needed from each and emerging on the other side unscathed. 

Without the ability to associate with either side of my family alone without feeling as though I was missing out on the other half, I grew prouder and prouder of the place which gave me the opportunity to grow up a blend as I did. I no longer identified as a Dominican/Irish mix. I didn't want to just be "other". So I choose another option.

I was American.

YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US

Since the 90's, identity politics has been taking hold of the national discourse. While I was identifying more and more as an American, everyone else was identifying as one less and less. They substituted their Americanism for a more divided view of the world. The American experience has always been unique for different groups, and people began to identify politically with that experience, rather than driving towards a unified one.

For me, choosing to identify with an identity other than American would mean lying to myself. It would mean that I was choosing one side of my family against another. I loved both cultures, both sides.

Now, as racial tensions seem to be spiking, I am again stuck in a gray area from which there is no escaping. In the America I grew up in, different even from some of my own cousins, all lives have always mattered. I have seen and been impacted by institutional racism, yet simultaneously benefitted from the American Dream.

It is from this perspective that I push for Unity. As a multi-racial American, my very existence depends on and is the result of post-racialism. To try to drive a wedge between different races, to try and divide instead of unite, is the antithesis to not just the life I have lived, but the person I am.

I believe in America and the melting pot because we multi-raced Americans are that melting pot. We are the post-racial America that people dream about.

My family is living, breathing proof that love overcomes all boundaries. Watching my father uncomfortably meander around my Dominican family's home as they all speak Spanish around him wasn't just entertaining, it was a life lesson.

When you love someone, you look past differences. We need to spend less time figuring out what seperates us as races and instead emphasize on what brings us together as humans.

In that way, America has always been a beacon of hope. Because here, people can break down discrimination and drive forward a better future for their children.

It can continue to be that beacon, but only if we finally start to fulfill Dr. King's dream and judge people not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

Intellectuallenza: The Collapse of Knowledge in America

Intellectuallenza: The Collapse of Knowledge in America

In an increasingly global society, Americans are increasingly ignorant of the rest of the world's history and culture - even as they claim otherwise.

My grandmother is now almost 90 years old. In her life, she has been a teacher, a soldier's wife, a mother to both a lawyer and an alcoholic, a young widow, and a caring grandparent.

One of my favorite parts of sitting down to talk with her is that no matter what topic I seem to bring up, she has input. A story to tell, perhaps. Or knowledge to bestow. Nowhere is this more apparent than our discussions about foreign countries.

News in Turkey? She will go on and on about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a bit before her time, and the ensuing Young Turks who took over. China? She can go at length about the personality of the Chinese and how their culture influenced their diversion from Soviet-type communism.

Riots in France? She can tell me at length about how DeGaulle used to handle riots in the streets back in the 50's. 

Some of this knowledge can be attributed to age. After all, as we move through life we tend to absorb knowledge along the way.

However, there is another element to her knowledge, and this element is one that seems to be missing from today's intellectuals. 

IT'S ABOUT WHO YOU KNOW, NOT WHAT YOU KNOW

I have tried to have conversations with my peers similar to those with my grandmother. It falls on ears that are not only disinterested, but often actively repulsed. Younger circles (and not JUST Millennials), even those who consider themselves "intellectuals", simply do not have the same level of historical knowledge as the generations before us. And those of us who do are looked at as know-it-alls or condescending. As though somehow this level of knowledge is aberrant or unnecessary.

From anecdotal evidence, with my teacher in Freshman Year of High School not understanding that an exchange student from Georgia was coming from the country, not the State, to actual statistical evidence of Americans simply not knowing the world around them, it is very clear that there is a brain drain - even as more Americans than ever go to college.

My grandmother was by no means an intellectual. She was a woman who went to college - Douglass College for Women, now part of Rutgers University - which was much rarer back then. But she was not a professional. She didn't remain in academia. She was a stay at home mother of two, dealing with an alcoholic father and son, and a husband who was sick with hemachromatosis.

"Make no mistake, we are producing a highly skilled labor force. We just aren't producing a highly knowledgeable one."

Nonetheless, she has knowledge. It is an old type of knowledge - one that has existed since the beginnings of human civilization - but one that seems to be dying quickly. It goes deeper than just understanding history, or understanding what is going on in other parts of the world.

It is the knowledge of people. The journey of people all around the world from our starting point all the way to where she finds herself now. The full story - the only story - of our legacy on this planet. 

It is a knowledge that doesn't discriminate. It doesn't see a country as unimportant, or a race as un-qualifying. It doesn't see Islam or Christianity or America or Asia with any biases, it simply sees all of these elements and follows them through the ages. 

For all of the faults of the "Greatest Generation" and those prior, they understood their fellow man and woman around the world because they understood where they had come from. 

WHAT IS "OLD KNOWLEDGE"

When we follow a modern saga - say, Star Wars - it isn't a story just of the galaxy and politics (and the movies that tried to be only that were arguably the worst of the group). It was a story about people, a family, love, lust, loss and hate, and their impact on the galaxy as a whole. Understanding these people and how they feel about their surroundings is our eye into the story as a whole.

We seem to have forgotten that history was written by people with their own stories and biases. We have sterilized history of all of the personality, suffocating interest. You don't understand a culture by simply understanding how it's borders changed, or what group of countries it was allied to in WWII. You understand a culture by understanding its people and their experiences.

This is what is so vital about this old type of knowledge. My grandmother's stories were filled with people - either that she met, that she read from, that she knew, that she heard about on the news. It wasn't just for flavor. This is how she learned her history, and about other cultures. 

A textbook can teach you about events. It can't teach you emotion.

There are stories this interesting scattered all throughout our history, sprinkled here and there in matter-of-fact Wikipedia articles for flavor. 

There was a time when these stories were how history moved forward. In fact, up until relatively modern times, telling stories was the primary means of relaying knowledge to the next generation.

As you can imagine, these stories were filled with anecdote and emotion. With people.

So why then today, in a time where we are more connected with the rest of the world than ever before, are Americans so ignorant of it? Why are the cultures of other people being so lost to us, even while we can interact with them at any time?

EDUCATION TODAY IS FOCUSED ON SKILLS, NOT KNOWLEDGE

As much as we like to pride ourselves in the first world that we are sending so many people to college to get an education, I have some bad news for you: we are still sending our kids to school simply to learn a skill or trade. That skill or trade just happens to be different than what it used to be.

While people used to apprentice to be a mason, they now go for 8+ years to school to be a Doctor, coming out "educated" in our eyes but in reality just extremely skilled in one specific sector of our economy.

This is the nature of a capitalist economy. There is nothing wrong with this system, simply how we view it.

Make no mistake, we are producing a highly skilled labor force. We just aren't producing a highly knowledgeable one.

Older generations went to school for trades, but since college wasn't part of the equation, they didn't have any illusions of intellectualism from it. Those who wanted to be educated - to understand the rest of the world - had to seek it out. Many, like my Grandmother, did so.

Today, the pseudo-intellectuals of the nation don't think they need anything else. After all, they are highly educated, right? That is what they spent all of that money for.

I call it "Intellectualenza" - the over-emphasis of higher education as the "ending point", leading to an entire generation of Americans who cal call themselves "higher educated" while not possessing even a third of the knowledge of the generations before them.

CULTURE IS AS CULTURE DOES

Our inter-connectivity to other cultures belies our lack of knowledge of them.

Iran today is a Muslim theocracy. Many people know this. It isn't hard to get in touch with an Iranian either at home or abroad and understand their current perspective.

Few people even know that "Persia" and "Iran" are the same thing, and fewer still can go back and know that Islam wasn't the religion there for a majority of the country's history.

Throughout history, it has been an Ancient Zoroastrian Empire, a Secular Dictatorship, one of the wealthiest parts of the world and also one of the most powerful.

These sorts of marks on a country's history don't simply disappear. The people carry it with them. This type of knowledge helps us in negotiations, in interactions, in empathizing and sympathizing.

Our generation claims to be the harbingers of a new multicultural society - of a global paradise where we can live in harmony. Yet, in the most simplistic test of understanding another culture - knowing it's past - we consistently fall flat.

Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. Unfortunately for us, I don't think many people even know what it is we are repeating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Insanity of a Religious Test to Enter The U.S.

The Insanity of a Religious Test to Enter the U.S.

When it comes to Syrian refugees, you either let them in, or you don't. What religion those trying to flee claim to adhere to should be irrelevant to the conversation. Unfortunately, it isn't. The result is an erosion of the very foundations of what the United States was founded on.

Just as things are getting crazy on the left wing of the political spectrum, it seems as though the right wing has decided they wanted to up the ante.

President Obama had said that he plans on allowing in 10,000 refugees from Syria to allow those fleeing from their war-torn homeland to have a place to stay in the United States. In contrast, Europe has been bombarded with refugees from across the world, accepting 73% of the world's total refugee population at around 490,000 in 2013.

10,000 refugees is exactly 10,000 too many for the American right wing. Unless, of course, they are good Christians.

There have been calls for President Obama to allow only Christian Syrian refugees into the United States. This would mean that the United States would be actively choosing one religious group over another for preferential treatment. In this case, entry into the country.

The First Amendment explicitly states that the United States should never enter this sort of territory. Our government should be above religion, not taking it into consideration. The fact that this is even being mentioned is not simply wrong, it is the epitome of un-American.

Our country was founded on an ideal notion that no human should ever have to suffer any sort of transgression based on their religion. What the Republicans are suggesting here illustrates not only that they have no right being President of this country, but that they have no idea what being an American is truly supposed to be about.

That being said, there is an argument to be made about the safety of allowing in 10,000 refugees, particularly after the Paris attacks proved that some refugees are not simply fleeing violence.

However, the argument must be framed around allowing ALL of the refugees, or allowing none. To narrow it down and say that only Christians should be allowed, or only whites, or only ANY subset, is simply egregious.

Our country has done things like this before; one need look no further than the Chinese exclusion act. Today, something like that seems crazy and racist. Not allowing a specific race into this country feels morally wrong, and it should.

I don't necessarily say I am a proponent of keeping all of the refugees out, nor am I a proponent of allowing them in. However, if we are going to have this discussion, it must be framed around the group as a whole and not on religion.

Otherwise, we are no better than the theocratic Muslim countries they are looking to flee.

Paris Fallout: America is Still a Melting Pot - And That is a Good Thing

Paris Fallout: America is Still a Melting Pot - and That is a Good Thing

Coming off of the heels of the most deadly attack in Paris in years, anger-fueled questions have arisen about the role of Muslims and Islam in the Western World. The answers to these questions give us a glimpse into how well the U.S. integrates other cultures into our society - and how despite the naysayers we still stand out as an exemplary global model of success in this regard.

The "melting pot" analogy for the United States goes back over a century, when the world still regarded the U.S as a new promised land for those seeking refuge. It essentially implies a blending of cultures together into a new, distinctly "American" culture that sheds the prejudices of the homelands in favor of freedom.

That all sounds overly-poetic and patriotic, I will admit, which is why many have started to claim that "melting pot" is and always has been an over-simplification and culturally insensitive. Some have taken to calling the United States a "salad bowl", where all of the ingredients are in one place but aren't quite blending together. 

Some even take it a step further and claim that the United States "has no culture". 

However, I would argue that one must look no further than the continuing successful integration of Muslims into American society in order to gain a perspective of just how powerful our culture is, and why the melting pot is still very real - and something we should be proud of.

WHO WERE THE PARIS ATTACKERS

Bullet hole left from the Paris attacks

Friday left over 130 Parisians killed in what were the most deadly attacks on the country since WWII. Eight terrorists struck throughout the night, using a combination of small arms and bombs to instill fear throughout the French capital.

Who were these terrible attackers that could do such a thing to civilians?

Several of the attackers were born in either France or Belgium and had lived there most of their lives. Only a few came as refugees from Syria.

This of course begs the question, as it always does,  how could individuals born and raised in a westernized, comparatively rich nation commit such atrocities on their own people?

This question is, of course, is what leads to anti-Islamic sentiments across nations impacted by terrorism. That fear that your Muslim neighbor, who seems normal, could be hiding a dark secret about planning something terrible. 

The answer to why European-born nationals could commit these crimes is complicated, and it has as much to do with national identity as it does with extremist ideology.

They key lies in how Europe as a whole tends to treat migrants from other countries. Europe has not had a century of "melting pot" ideology behind its immigration systems. So their policies and culture, while decidedly liberal and open armed, are far less effective in building a system of integration. 

The European progressives, similar to U.S. progressives, emphasize culture and the importance of not "white washing" immigrant traditions. Unlike in the U.S., European progressives have been in control for several decades.

Being so careless regarding immigrating cultures is fantastic on paper and in the halls of your University. In practice, it is ruinous to a country's identity and security. Instead of a melting pot, you get the salad bowl that some would prefer, and immigrants such as Muslims, instead of being integrated, are separated out from the majority in enclaves that breed distrust of the system that put them there.

WHEN IN ROME...

Despite this picture, Rome's fall had less to do with a battle of swords and more with a battle of culture

I hate to belabor the examples to the ancient Roman Empire, but integration was something that they did very well. In fact, there was a whole word invented for the process there: "romanziation." the Empire didn't fall because barbarian hordes stormed over the walls. The barbarians were already there. The Empire fell because they stopped integrating them. 

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." This quote has been attributed to St. Ambrose during the 4th century - Rome's final full century - and it's meaning is deeper than just a catchy phrase. 

The quote in one line describes integration from an ancient perspective. When you go to the place of another, adopt their ways if you want to be successful.

Areas conquered by the armies, filled with natives, were Romanized until the cultural differences were near unrecognizable. The Roman lifestyle, one similar to the one we enjoy today (minus the technology), was sought after by the barbarians on the borders who saw it as a way to wealth and luxury. In fact, dozens of "native" populations in the Empire did integrate. The Empire spanned from Spain to Russia - for that entire segment of land to have one identity wasn't just impressive. Today, it would be impossible.

Slowly but surely the political climate spiraled out of control and individual barbarian tribes were being given more authority in their areas than the Roman government as a whole. It was only a matter of time until the formality of a Roman Emperor overseeing it all was abolished.

In 476, 100 years after St. Ambrose had lived, it was. By that point, it was merely a formality. The lands that the barbarians had inhabited were long since something entirely different, stripped of a "Roman" identity and instead identified wholly as one of the tribes which inhabited it.

...JUST BE YOURSELF

Imagine if the quote had ended with the text above instead of with "do as the Romans do?" Could the Roman Empire have existed, let alone lasted for 500 years?

Unfortunately, this is the Europe we have today. So obsessed with multi-culturalism and political correctness (and on a more cynical note, votes), that they ignore the very thing that defines them as individual countries - a unified culture.

Herein lies Europe's issue. They have a subset of a group of people - radical extremists - coming to their country and seeking to actively change it rather than live there as it stands. At any other point in history, this would have been unthinkable. Now, European leadership lacks the political will to do what needs to be done to ensure appropriate integration by enforcing cultural values. Instead of integration, you have enclaves which are just breeding more extremist ideology as these groups, despite living in a country may never feel truly as a part of it.

Of course, not all European Muslims have rejected integration. However, this is by their own desire. European nations seem obsessed with giving them an option to reject it if they so desire.

This cultural "boom bust" cycle - of preaching multi-culturalism until an attack and then suddenly taking a hard line stance - is not healthy for either the minority or majority groups and simply continues to breed distrust. The only option is to choose, as countries have done for centuries, passive integration. 

Unfortunately, some European governments, and many in the United States, want to see us fight against it.

THE AMERICAN MUSLIM

As a contrast, despite the will of many who I consider misguided on the left, America still has a somewhat stable integration system. While this is being actively fought tooth and nail by the left wing, it is a vital and healthy part of any nation.

The political left dislikes this notion because it assumes American culture (which they already claim doesn't exist) is somehow superior to others. To have them "blend" into the American culture is to have them lose what makes them special and unique.

I would argue the opposite. The idea of inclusion, of leaving your past prejudices behind, and of living in compatibility with your neighbors is not cultural destruction. It is being a good person.

In fact, as seen in Europe, lack of integration has the exact opposite effect of fostering mistrust on both sides. This is why Muslims in America are not only the most cooperative with authorities in the world, but they are often times less extreme than the born-again Christians of our own American south.

60% of arrests post-9/11 were due to American Muslims turning in extremists. In fact, the FBI tried on one occasion to foster extremism in a mosque and their informant was turned in by the very mosque he was attending for being too extreme. 

Some of this has to do with the difference of American Muslims to those in Europe - more educated, more diverse backgrounds, generally more well off - but more of it has to do with the societies they are arriving in. The American Dream is alive and well for many of these immigrants, a large proportion of whom make over $100,000 yearly, and live a lifestyle many of them could have never dreamed of back home.

Compare the nationalities of the Paris terrorists to those of 9/11 - America isn't breeding terrorists. These Muslims were not born here, they were imported and instructed by their superiors not to talk to American Muslims out of fear they would be turned in.

American Muslims are living, breathing reminders that the melting pot does exist, and serves to destroy the prejudices outside of these borders, even in an interconnected society like we have today.

However, attacks like those in Paris always bring out the fear mentioned earlier in the article: "my Muslim neighbor could be a secret extremist".This leads to irrational actions such as wanting to shut down Mosques, stop letting Muslims in and viewing them all as enemies.

The only thing that has allowed our American Muslim community to flourish, as with every religious group before them, is the rejection of those negative ideals. We must always remain vigilant to not fall prey to labeling those who would be our allies against extremism as our enemies, and push them away instead of embracing them.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

As with every enemy we have fought in the past, America's strength is our diversity. Consistently, our nation is made up of those who would otherwise possibly be our enemies in times of war - German, Japanese, Russian, etc. This is no different today.

We must embrace this diversity by preserving the very thing that drew these people to us in the first place: our culture. Unlike many countries, our culture doesn't go back thousands of years or have temples to examine.

Instead, American culture is something entirely different. It isn't about shared history, it is about a shared future and a shared promise for a better world.

That is what makes the United States unique and something that, during this crisis, Europe can learn a thing or to from us about. When it comes to integrating people to your country, it isn't about taking care of where they came from. They will take care of that themselves.. All that matters is how you can make their lives better for them and their children.

Four Things That Nobody Is Mentioning About the Skywalkers in Star Wars: The Force Awakens (SPOILERS)

Four Things That Nobody Is Mentioning About Skywalkers in The Force Awakens, and a New Theory (SPOILERS)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD LIKELY IN BOTH THE ARTICLE AND COMMENTS. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE MOVIE, DO NOT READ ANYMORE OF THIS ARTICLE

Several trailers, images and dozens of leaked toys later, hardcore Star Wars fans of all ages are all awaiting the arrival of Star Wars: The Force Awakens next month.

Unlike most modern trailers, the ones for The Force Awakens have revealed little to nothing about the plot. However, based on all of the leaks, the trailers, and what we know about J.J. Abrams, among other elements, people have pieced together what they believe the plot might be.

One missing and mysterious element in all of this is where Luke Skywalker, who has had no presence in any trailer since the second teaser where he simply repeated lines from the old movies.

There are many theories as to where Luke could be and the reason Abrams is keeping him out of the limelight, ranging from him being the main villain to him being dead.

I have read many of these theories and have noticed that there are a few major plot points that people are overlooking in their discussions about Luke's role and the potential continuation of the Skywalker family.

While these are all points from the OT and inferences from there, these do include some spoilers from the leaks about the TFA plot.

[FINAL SPOILER WARNING!! TURN BACK NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS THIS]

#1: KYLO REN AND REY ARE TOO YOUNG TO HAVE BEEN TRAINED BY LUKE BEFORE HE DISAPPEARED

We know from the trailers that Han Solo has to tell Finn and Rey that "It's true. All of it. The Jedi and the Dark Side." Which means Finn and Rey had no encounter with any force users prior to that point.

Not to mention, TFA is 30 years after ROTJ. Rey and Kylo are at most in their early 20's, which means they would have had to be born shortly after Vader's death, and if Luke had been training new Jedi up to 15 years ago (their age 5, when Rey was supposedly abandoned), the new Jedi would not necessarily be a "legend" in this Universe to where Han would need to explain. People would remember them, particularly Rey.

This means that regardless of who Rey and Kylo end up being, there is no way they were trained by Luke. At least not yet.

#2: OBI-WAN, ANAKIN AND YODA STILL EXIST AS FORCE GHOSTS

Something everyone seems to keep forgetting: Luke isn't alone! He has the help of several old allies in the form of Force Ghosts. The combination of those three ghosts will be supporting him and guiding him through everything post-Return of the Jedi. I doubt, with this support system, Luke will turn to the Dark Side.

What role these force ghosts will play, or if they even still exist, is unknown. But the answer to these questions will likely be a pivotal element to Luke's disappearance. With all that is at stake, I doubt that these old Jedi force ghosts simply dissipated into thin air.

As an aside, who is to say there are no Sith force ghosts? That Palpatine (or his old master Plagueis) hasn't been influencing things in the background? Or that Plagueis "cheating death" is really just returning as a force ghost?

#3: LUKE HAS TONS OF EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS

The Jedi in the prequels made it clear that emotional attachment and love is the path to the dark side. Luke not only has a living twin, whom he loves dearly, but also connections to several other major characters that the Jedi would have frowned upon.

In fact, Luke has seen the power of emotion when it turned his father Anakin back from the Dark Side.

So, one of two things could have happened: Luke could believe that this emotion is a good thing after all and try to form a new Jedi order that includes them, or he isolates himself to remove those emotional attachments in order to rebuild the Jedi correctly.

If it is the former, does this mean that the new order he created became corrupted? AFter all, the dark side is "easier" and more tempting for students of the force. If it is the latter, does that mean Luke's disappearance is all just part of the plan?

#4: LEIA IS NOT A JEDI IN TFA

While we can't be sure that Leia was trained or not after Return of the Jedi, it is clear that by TFA she is not actively a Jedi anymore in any case. To me, this is further evidence that Luke either never re-started the Jedi Order, or very quickly ended it.

To have 50% of the living Jedi not be using their abilities after Return of the Jedi says to me that the characters were actively avoiding the force, perhaps out of fear of becoming like Anakin Skywalker and going down the path towards the Dark Side.

A THEORY

What if Luke believed that keeping the formal training away from anyone was the safest route for the galaxy? That for him to go into hiding and refuse to train anyone else, putting the force "to sleep," was the only way to assure that nobody would fall prey to the Dark Side like his father had done and he had nearly done?

What if Finn or Rey is finally the apprentice that changes his mind, and convinces him to return from hiding and "awaken the Force" to rebuild the Jedi Order? Luke believed that by hiding the force he was saving the galaxy from the Dark Side. Force-sensitives (like Kylo and/or the other Skywalker children) would still be falling prey to a bigger enemy (Uber) without a light side force to guide them.

Something else of note is that Adam Driver's eyes in the one image of him we have seen are not the typical "Sith Yellow" from the prequels on Vader and the Emperor. Whether or not they are getting rid of this small feature for the sequels is yet to be seen. However, this tells me that Kylo Ren, while an agent of the "Dark Side", is not yet consumed with the dark side of the force and is instead playing an inverse Anakin: fighting for the Dark Side while clamoring to see what is on the light. I believe that Uber is playing to Adam Driver's desire to learn more about the force, through from a Dark Side angle, to get him to do his bidding. Kylo Ren may know nothing about the force, he might think power stems from the light sabers Luke and Vader had formerly possessed.

Just some thoughts. Feel free to share comments below.

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right: The Story of the Moderate Millennials

The rope can only take so much before it snaps.

In a world of progressives vs. reactionaries, moderate millennials stand planted firmly in the center in an endless tug of war. Unfortunately for us, nobody likes the middle anymore.


It is rare to find an undecided millennial from a voting standpoint. Most decided since they were 18 that the Democratic Party would have their support for life, it seems. That the GOP is the party of the "old" and "backwards". The events of the past week, however, have reinforced my indecision towards which ideology I place myself.

Last night's particular GOP debate happened to be taking place on the eve of the resignation of the President of the University of Missouri as well as some protests at Yale about something stupid. (Don't believe me? Click the link. I dare you. Scarier than Halloween itself.)


Millennials are obsessed with being "progressive". And why wouldn't they be? "Progress" sounds great. It means we are moving past where we currently are into a bright new future. The one that we were promised growing up of a multi-cultural and post-racial society.


Anything that stands in the way of this progress will be destroyed. Just ask that Yale professor.


Herein lays my dilemma. I completely agree with supporting the middle class and a sane foreign policy. I also believe in free speech. It seems at this point I, like other moderates, have to choose between the two, and I don't want to have to.

I didn't simply chose the title of the blog to be this song lyric to be catchy - I think it illustrates a point very well about the state of the fringe wings of our culture. I will go in depth on each side to explain.


PROGRESSIVE CLOWNS

The recently-released video game Halo 5 has a villain named Cortana, an artificial intelligence who was alongside the hero for 4 games prior and has come back to rid the world of all evil. Her goals are laudable - peace in the galaxy. Her means are not - she seeks to actively punish anyone who stands against her perspective. This is the way to peace. Silencing - or outright eliminating - opposition. Only she understands what needs to be done to make society right again.

Similarly, VIKI from I, Robot had a plan to do the same using an army of human-built machines to enforce martial law in order to help eliminate violence from human society. Her mission was to protect humanity. Her idea of doing so was to eliminate all choice in the matter.

Cortana and VIKI are the perfect villain for this generation. They represents the hypocritical, passionate, but full of well-intention liberal millennials.


Going back to my prior analogy, a clown is funny, but knows exactly what it is trying to be. This is someone who is unabashed in their behavior because they are getting paid to do so.


At this point, this is how I would describe the left. Specifically the liberals of my generation. They have become a walking, talking mockery of what being a progressive is supposed to be about. And they are proud of it.

VIKI from I, Robot

The students at Yale knew exactly what they were doing when they were berating that professor. They sincerely believed they were doing the right thing. More power to them; that is what free speech is all about.


However, it is also about an exchange of ideas. About debate. About different viewpoints coming together and compromise. With progressive millennials, there is no debating. You either apologize for your transgressions or you suffer their internet-fueled wrath. So consumed are they with what they see as progress that they don't stop to think about the fact that the world their parents have so carefully crafted for them with the "everybody wins" mentality is not the world they will be entering after college.

For them, of course there is no compromise! We are talking about people's rights! We should never compromise when it comes to people's rights!

I completely agree. In fact, we have an entire document, The Constitution, in place to protect people's rights. It isn't perfect, and has not always worked in the past, so I can understand my generation's hesitance to trust it. What we can't do is say that one person's right to free speech is any less than someone else's right to not see an offensive image. If we start entering that territory, we have started to put one person's rights above another. Once we do that, we are no better than the generations of our ancestors before us.

Unfortunately, it looks like some of my generation has already gone the way of Cortana and decided that they know best how to solve our problems, and it starts with silencing those who oppose them.


I am not sure when the rubicon was crossed and at what point our generation crossed the line towards proto-fascism, but it has occurred and it frightens me.


Before I get raging emails about me comparing what they did to fascism, let me illustrate the point for you. The Nazi party was not the "government" of Germany until 1933. Sure, they had
some seats in the Reichstag. But they weren't the majority (and certainly Hitler wasn't dictator) before the Enabling Act.


However, during the years leading up to their victory, before even they had any seats in the parliament, they were still very active. They were physically and emotionally abusing those who disagreed with their beliefs, publicly and privately. They were creating a culture of fear in Germany, where people were afraid to speak about certain subjects for fear of Nazi reprisal.


To be clear, this was not the government of Germany doing this; these were private citizens who simply took it upon themselves to enforce their views as a brute gang that nobody, or at least very few, had the will to counter. Sound familiar? By the time anyone did, it was too late.


I mention that because the current progressive mantra is "the constitution means you can't get arrested for saying what you feel, not that you don't have to deal with consequences of what you say!" This is true, nobody is getting arrested for their views (yet). But like in Germany in the 30's, sometimes it isn't the government we have to be afraid of.


I do want to clarify that I often believe in the message of the progressives. Combating generations of systemic and systematic oppression is hard, and we have to work hard to make sure it happens. But delivery of that message is equally important, and at this point I am not comfortable that the current "progressives" will be able to maintain dignity and respect for the institutions they claim to be trying to fix.

As such, these are the clowns to my left who I simply do not nor will ever identify with. The pseudo-intellectual boys and girls who believe in hindering free speech and assailing those who disagree with them "for the greater good". I use boys and girls instead of men and women consciously; to call them the latter would be a disservice to the level of maturity those terms are meant to represent. There are millions of mature progressives who understand that this isn't how you treat people. Unfortunately they are being drowned out.

To make it worse, there is no "moderate" to many of them. They see "moderation" as part of the problem, as part of the "compromising" on people's rights. As such, their vitriol turns me and many other moderates away. We simply are not welcome among their ranks.

RIGHT WING JOKE



Unlike the clowns, who understand why they are funny, jokers are individuals who are funny without intent. I can think of no better way to describe the modern right wing than this: an enormous joke that is carrying on through life as though they are oblivious to their own idiocy. We are living through the death of the Republican party and aside from being fascinating to watch, it is utterly disheartening.

The debate last night was likely the most tame and issues-based that any of them have been. Even so, these caricatures of Republicanism seem to simply have embraced the ghost of Carnegie and Rockefeller and have decided that, voters be damned, they are going to tell us all that we don't work hard enough and make too much money anyway.

While on the opposite side we have progressives, on this side we have reactionaries. Increasingly, it seems that any form of moderation in the Republican Party is being stamped out with equal ferocity as on the left. This was most recently manifested in John Boehner, an absolute moderate in an extremist world, announcing he was leaving the position of speaker of the house.

Sometimes in the 80's, religion took over the Republican Party. Sometimes in the 2000s, the religious right had eliminated all but figurehead opposition to their reign. Today, what we have is the equivalent to a Theocratic party in many ways, where "which of your plans would God approve?" is a reasonable question to ask.

The problem isn't just conservative vs. liberal, but generational. Gen X and Baby Boomers simply look at societal issues very differently, as evidenced by millennial outlook on police (much more in line with the typical African American view) vs. older generations views on police (they can do no wrong!) These issues are pushing the older generations towards the right wing even if they didn't used to consider themselves as such.

Like many millennials, I do not profess to be overly religious. That reason alone should eliminate 99% of reasons to vote for the modern Republican Party. However, that is not the sole reason for my ire against the modern right wing. Instead, it is the fact that they seem to have entirely forgotten history with regards to corporations, and seem to actively fight intelligence in any sense of the word, replacing mathematics and science with God.

The Gilded Age was a time period in U.S. history where corporations ran amok. Progressives of that era (NOT "progressives" of today) fought very, very hard to obtain what we take for granted today - Unionization, 5-day work week, vacation, etc. Republicans avoid outright saying they would like to go back to that, and instead just hint that every modern problem seems to be that we just have too much money and time on our hands for our own goods.

Teddy Roosevelt, my favorite Republican President, used to actively break up large corporations to spur competition. Many large companies today he would have broken up long ago. Capitalism can only succeed with oversight, and Republicans seek to eliminate much of that.

There are some exceptions. The libertarian wing of the party is one that I until recently felt very aligned with, and every now and then a Republican comes along who is more "old school" than the preachers in suit and tie that we get typically from that party.

In a bizarre turn of events, conservatives today are more open with regards to ideas than their liberal counterparts. They may disagree with you, but rarely are conservatives actively trying to silence liberals for their views. (With the notable and large exception of the religious right - but that has been going on since the dawn of time.) For example, a conservative may not agree with Gay Marriage, but typically, they will not try to silence those who are for it.

Instead, conservatives choose to be closed with their own ideas rather than shutting out others. They look towards the institution to validate their own closed-mindedness, such as keeping gays from getting married, rather than silencing the opposition entirely. This is also something I can never profess to be a part of.

Any good that the conservative side used to have is being drowned out by bigotry. However, I can't wholly eliminate them from my roster because at the very least I can debate with them.

"They may disagree with what I say, but they will fight to the death for my right to say it." On the other end of the spectrum, they will fight to the death to shut me up. Which side would I rather be on? One who actively professes things I disagree with, but has no intention of shutting me up? Or one who actively professes what I tend to associate with, but goes against my views of open dialogue and allowing people to speak their minds?

HERE WE ARE, STUCK IN THE MIDDLE

The United States today is more polarized than any time before in its history save perhaps the civil war. The boundaries are not geographic, but instead intellectual and generational.

Yet this polarization alienates me and millions of others, regardless of age. We have no choice but to watch as each side reinforces itself and prepares for the next volley. Meanwhile, those of us who just want a government that works, keeps our families provided for and safe have no outlet. We have nobody to vote for.

Instead, we have to choose a demagogue, either right wing or left, and hope that this particular demagogue is at the opposite polarity from the rabid proto-fascist populace willing to use force to get their goals.

At the very least, at that point we will have some checks and balances as the two sides confront each other. At best, maybe we can get some dialogue. But I won't hold my breath.

Follow me on twitter @chris41336