Senatus ad Opus

The Senate's recent burst of activity as a functioning body of government has come as a shock to those who have come to know the upper chamber as a legislative minefield, where few bills get passed and those that do are rather mangled upon exit. A recent Politico article highlights the seemingly overnight 180 that the Senate has undergone in regards to passing new legislature, specifically with immigration reform.

While it is nice to see this group of one hundred elected officials finally doing their job, the amount of praise they should be rewarded for such action should be minute at the most. Election politics are obviously an important factor in deciding whether or not to vote for a bill, but when it is the primary force behind such a decision, it is detrimental to the process and the people.

The fact that super-majorities are almost ubiquitously needed to pass any new laws is a clear signal that the chamber's rules need changing. There is something quasi noble, albeit annoying, about a legislator standing and speaking for hours on end to prevent a vote, but when the mere threat of this action requires sixty senators just to render their threat void, the chamber finds itself at the mercy of the minority. That is not how democracy works.

Elected officials should have one priority: serving the people who elected them. Political squabble should take a backseat when important issues such as student loans and immigration are being debated and voted on, and the Senate seems like it is just beginning to understand this. If only the House can follow suit...

U.S. Arming Syrian Rebels

Last Thursday, President Obama made a long awaited decision to intervene in the civil war that has been taking place in Syria over the past two years. It was confirmed that the United States will provide arms to the rebel forces battling the Syrian Government led by President Bashar al-Assad. Although the administration claimed that it was because of the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons, it is more likely that the decision was driven by a desire to prevent the violence from seeping into surrounding countries. Some politicians, however, chastised the President for not acting quickly enough.

History could help explain why Obama has waited a significant amount of time to take a proactive stance in the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 90,000 people. First and most obvious, the recent foreign policy quagmires of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars should give the administration a great deal of reason to wander cautiously in regards to intervention in the Middle East. Likewise, last time the United States was faced with a similar opportunity to arm rebels in such a fashion was Operation Cyclone in the 1980s, in which the U.S. Government provided arms and financial aid to the Afghan Mujahideen. While this did help Afghanistan to throw off oppressive Soviet rule, it inadvertently allowed for the later consolidation of Al-Qaeda power.

President Obama is right to help the Syrian people fight for their freedom from a destructive despot, but a degree of wariness is necessary when dealing with such a volatile situation. The extremist groups present on both sides echo an atmosphere similar to the one in Afghanistan that was present thirty years ago.

Looking Through the PRISM

Due to thee abundance of quotations that are attributed to Benjamin Franklin, it seems that everything the American cultural colossus ever wrote down or said can be applied to democratic society in one way or another. His 1775 declaration that "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", however, appears particularly relevant in light of the recent news surrounding the NSA's data mining program. Whether or not you agree with the actions of Edward Snowden (the man who leaked the information surrounding the PRISM program), the operations undertaken by the NSA are now out in the open for the public to interpret and, at the very least, warrant a renewed discussion about surveillance in the post-9/11 era.

President Obama's argument in favor of the PRISM program are founded in the pragmatism we have come to expect from the Commander in Chief. He claims that "you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience".

While it is quite clear that our current security climate does necessitate some abnormal precautions, secretly gathering large swaths of digital information about people who are, in the vast majority of cases, completely innocent is a great way to lose the public's trust. Additionally, compiling these records without probable cause does seem to test, or possibly violate, the IVth Amendment rights of the entire American population. However, as notions of privacy and property become more abstract in the digital age, what constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure will surely be tinkered with.

The big problem here is lack of transparency. Disenchantment with government has existed in this country since its founding, but it has seemed especially prevalent since the turn of the millennium. Voter turnout in the 2012 Presidential Election was a mere 57.5% of eligible voters, and it is unlikely that it was because the other 42.5% was stuck in traffic. Programs like PRISM may help protect us to a degree, but they create a considerable amount of distrust between the government and the American people. Terrorists may try and hinder out democracy, but an inactive citizenry will bring it to its knees.

Let Her and Falsehood Grapple

Hello!

As an avid user of the internet, I have been considering starting my own blog for a while. After numerous minutes of research and a healthy bout of procrastination, I have finally decided to take my place atop a digital soapbox. My main motivation for joining thousands of other online citizens who feel that their voices should be heard is a drive to exercise my freedom of speech. As a member of a democracy, I feel that it is my responsibility, as well as every other American's, to actively participate in the discussion of all things public and relevant. Such a belief is what inspired the title of my blog, which comes from a particularly brilliant line from John Milton's Areopagitica. The line, "let her and falsehood grapple", is the cardinal thesis of Mr. Milton's argument for an absolutely free press. The late poet believed that the only way for truth to come forth in the public sphere is for all opinions, belief, and idea to be present in the popular dialogue. It is in this spirit that I wish to add my voice to the already abounding digital forum. I hope that the posts to come will generate discussion in any form. Enjoy!