Widener Students on Politics

by

One Nation Under God Divided By Religion

by Mary Rohweder

Widener University Political Science Major

Throughout American history, politicians have struggled to govern under the establishment cause – separating religion from government – while facing controversial religious issues that become involved with the world of politics. Recently two religious issues have been brought to America’s attention – the overturn of Proposition 8 in California and the controversy with contraception for employees of Catholic institutions. These issues have made media headlines, but I believe it is important to research the stances of the President and Presidential candidates.

In response to the overturn of Proposition 8, which formerly outlawed gay marriage in the state of California, Republican candidates have expressed their disdain and exuded support for the protection of traditional marriage while President Obama has not taken a declarative stance. Mitt Romney released a statement supporting states’ rights to ban gay marriage and for citizens to preserve and protect traditional marriage. He stated that the overturn “underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” Newt Gingrich commented that this action was a “radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.” Rick Santorum declared, ” For a court, any court, to usurp the power and will of the people in this manner on an issue this fundamental to the foundation of our society is wrong.” President Obama has also been opposed to same sex marriage and states that his views on the issue are “evolving.” However, the Obama administration has taken action on behalf of furthering gay rights by removing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military.

The contraceptive argument is firmly divided between women’s rights and people’s freedoms. The President has taken a stance on behalf of women’s rights, whereas the Republicans claim freedom of speech and religion. The Obama administration has made a commitment to ensure all women will have access to contraception coverage. President Obama initially proposed that Catholic institutions would be required to provide female employees with contraception, but recently compromised. According to the new compromise, Catholic institutions will not be forced to offer contraception to their employees; instead, insurers must offer full coverage to any women who work at such institutions. Santorum took the most oppositional stance, declaring, “It’s not about contraception….[I]t’s about freedom of speech; it’s about freedom of religion. It’s about government control of your lives and it’s got to stop.”

Overall, Republican candidates have expressed very conservative positions on religion, choosing either to preserve the traditional beliefs of the Church or to call for the protection of citizen rights. President Obama has taken action on certain issues but has compromised, such as not endorsing same-sex marriage and compromising on the contraceptive issue. The culture war of religion has been creating great tension in the Presidential candidates, especially since voters are all watching.

 

by

Gas, Oil, and Energy

By Andrea Stickley
Widener University Political Science Student

With President Obama blazing a campaign trail across the country, and the race between Romney and Gingrich boiling up, a new topic has become the focus of speeches. For awhile now, debate has arisen concerning the possible expansion of the Canadian Pipeline, Keystone. President Obama has refused to expand the pipeline down through America, while Gingrich has adamently stated that that would be one of the first legislation on his agenda if elected. President Obama has instead been talking about leasing out options for more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Something about these two scenarios don’t add up.

Has President Obama not learned from past mistakes that drilling in the Gulf has severe consequences? The damages suffered after the April 2010 BP Oil spill is still affecting fishing industries and the people living by the Gulf of Mexico. Since this is the case, why is President Obama contemplating the idea of setting us up for another oil disaster. Oil spills have consequences far reaching than just the initial clean up. It impacts people for years and makes the economy suffer.

The Keystone Pipeline idea isn’t any better. Expanding that pipeline down through central United States would cause problems for aquifers in that section of the country and the water that they supply to people. It also causes destruction to the environment which is never a benefit. Yes, it would create many jobs and boost the economy, but at what cost to the environment and people living in those areas?

I don’t know if these nominees have forgotten, but this is the 21st century. It’s the era where we’re supposed to be concern about the environment and start using sustainable resources. We’re not supposed to continue relying on the old sources of oil because it’s not going to last forever and the impacts it has on the environment isn’t positive. So, why then have these issues about oil become a focus in campaigns if soon enough we’re going to have to find other sources of energy?

by

99% Voting For…Romney?

by Craig Ricks

Widener University Political Science Minor

So I was cruising through Facebook earlier this week, and I noticed a status update from one of my good friends.  It read, “I don’t understand how we have this whole argument over the 99% vs. the 1%, and then people go and vote for Mitt Romney.”  On the surface, many people will say that the Occupy protestors are a bunch of bums, losers, and people unwilling to work for their pay.  Those who disagree with my friend’s status would say that those protestors are mostly liberal, so the “99% vs. 1%” argument wouldn’t have any effect on the Republican primaries.  But I have a different theory.  While only a small populous is actually protesting, their message is in the minds of millions of Americans, Republican and Democrat alike.  I’ll be the first to admit that I’m more conservative, and while I wouldn’t quit my job or school to protest, I understand their message.

I agree with my friend.  Many of the people voting for Romney are doing so blindly.  A reply to his status said, “because he is electable.”  Is that what we vote on now?  We vote on who can say the right thing instead of who will do the right thing.  Our minds are swayed by the media who should win the election.  Instead of listening to what everyone else tells us, we need to vote based on principle.  Sure Romney is electable, but does he really stand for the 99%?  We’re tired of millionaires and billionaires paying lower tax rates.  I’m not saying that they aren’t paying their “fair share,” but something needs to be done.  The way our entire system is set up allows for those at the top to keep rising, and it’s harder and harder for the 99% to make ends meet.  We need someone who’s going to step in and stand up for the entire country, not just a select few.  Until we start voting on principle, nothing in this country is going to significantly change.

by

Environmental Consequences in the State of Confusion

by Katrina Kelly

 Widener University Political Science Major

In recent years, the clash between finding alternative resources of energy and creating a sustainable economy has become one of the primary focuses of our political culture.  One public policy solution is to use natural gas as an alternative to gasoline: however, the affects of using natural gas is potentially hazardous to health, economic and environmental security.

Last Tuesday President Obama gave a State of the Union speech wanting America to be more energy independent and utilize more natural resources. The Energy Crisis is at a critical stage and government officials are scrambling to find alternative sources of energy to combat the dwindling availability of crude oil. The use of natural gas and oil are the main sources of energy to heat our houses and fuel our cars. Currently, natural gas provides almost 25% of energy for the United States and has the potential to provide 50% of energy by 2035. President Obama would like to see even more natural gas utilized as a main energy resource. The natural gas companies are not currently regulated by the EPA and have the ability to extract natural gas on private and public land without disclosing the chemicals they use in the process of hydraulic fracturing. Obama mentioned he would like the gas companies to have to disclose those chemicals used on private lands to be known. If there was a bill passed like the FRAC Act which requires gas companies to give out the chemical information on private and public lands for health information, it would be a miracle. President Obama even conceded the problems with shale drilling, “Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas, shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail.” Are the payoffs worth the risks and even worth trying if they are another non-renewable resource that will run out in the next century?

President Obama said, “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.” There has always been a zero-sum game between the environment and the economy, and in this current economic crisis and election year there is only one clear winner that Congress will chose: the economy. Natural gas does not solve the energy crisis for Americans nor protect their economic safety. Natural gas is a non-renewable resource just like petroleum. Once we use up all of the natural gas in the United States, we will be forced to look to other countries to support our energy. President Obama said that we have enough natural gas on our shore to sustain us for the next 100 years. Once we use up the natural gas in the next century, what will we do then? In some ways, the use of natural gas a main source of energy is just as if not more dangerous to economic security as oil, and even more hazardous to the environment and our health. In order to close the energy crisis, we must look for other renewable resources of energy.

by

Enough is Enough

by Stephen Scuderi

Widener University Political Science Major

With an approval rating of 11 percent, Congress has reached an all time low in the eyes of the American people. Unable to agree or make solid compromises, both houses have deteriorated into mudslinging matches that leave the citizens of United States angered, ashamed, and desperate for change. But who is to blame? Is it the Republicans, who are refusing to compromise in order ruin President Obama’s term? Or is it Democrats, who are accused of being ‘spineless’ and unwilling to fight for proper compromise?

In my opinion the stagnation of Congress is the fault of both parties. Party polarization has become so strong that nothing can get done. It’s common knowledge that the first priority of every politician is reelection but enough is enough. Politicians, especially Republicans are afraid to work across the aisle for fear of being labeled as a ‘moderate’. In the Republican Presidential Primary, Newt Gingrich has been attacked for participating in a climate change ad with Nancy Pelosi. I find it disheartening that simply being seen with opposition is toxic to ones political career. It’s time for Congress to remember their oath of office, “…I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter..”, because how they are currently acting is a disgrace to their position and a disserve to the American people.

by

Obama Lures Young Voters with College Affordability

Mary Rohweder

Widener University Political Science Major

President Obama has started to share details of his plan to make college more affordable for students – a political move that is likely to attract the attention of young voters and possibly mobilize them to vote if the topic becomes powerful enough during these crucial next months. Although much media attention has been on the Republican candidates who will face Obama in the general election, we still need to pay attention to the fact that President Obama is maintaining his own campaign in his endeavor to be re-elected.

The plan outlines many changes such as maintaining a set interest rate, doubling the number of work-study opportunities, increasing the amounts for federal loans and grants to be available, and rewarding higher education institutions who strive to improve affordability for students within their own financial aid programs. There are concerns about the proposal: for example, it may be challenging for certain institutions to lower tuition in the face of state budget cuts without compromising on what the school has to offer its students. The financial effect of this plan is also an issue, since it is unclear at this point whether increased taxes will fund the changes. However, this strategy will definitely be something that young voters will have personal interest in, which may result in political engagement. The Obama campaign has relied upon youth voters for its political success and has made education a priority in the administration.