The Hypocrisy of People on this Campus

Campus Life, Conservative, CRDaily, Elections, North Carolina Politics, Politics, Student Government, Students, UNC

Honestly, what is it about some people that make them so bent on destroying another person’s moral fabric simply because of the person they voted for. In an absolutely appalling article titled “The Hypocrisy of Summers and Walker” Ishmael Bishop completely demonizes Kathryn Walker and Houston Summers because they voted for Thom Tillis in the last election.

Here’s the link, by the way: http://sbpmatters.com/2015/02/03/the-hypocrisy-of-summers-and-walker-2/

How, can YOU call yourself a Tar Heel for blatantly questioning the ideals of someone you do not know? Do you know who they are? Do you know what they’ve been through? Do you know anything about them other than the vote they cast? I don’t know about you or anyone else at this school, but I think that is a HUGE rush to judgment and an unfair and hypocritical one at that. Do you know WHY they chose to vote for Tillis? MAYBE it had nothing to do with his social views, but of course that wasn’t taken into consideration in the least bit.

As the Editor of the Carolina Review Daily, I will once again speak to the fact that I am MINORITY, FEMALE in a position of authority for a conservative/libertarian magazine. A minority, CONSERVATIVE female who voted for Tillis, BUT believes in women’s rights and FIGHTS for those rights everyday, by breaking through stereotypes like you, my friend, have. A minority, CONSERVATIVE female who is pro-choice, and surprisingly doesn’t have religious beliefs. You could make me out to be a monstrosity; you can poke fun at me or the many other people who identify as I do. OR, you could do the intelligent thing, the thing that ALL of us came to Carolina to do and that is to get to know one another; to step back from the stereotypes and the name-calling; to LEARN and understand and have an INTELLECTUAL debate with people who have different views from us.

Maybe, just maybe, before you cast your judgmental, ill-informed, horrific, appalling, opinions on the rest of the student population YOU should learn what it is to be a TAR HEEL and that is to ACCEPT everyone, regardless of their color, gender identity, ethnicity, AND their beliefs!

I’m not saying this because the paper I write for is endorsing Kathryn Walker, before someone starts to say that because: you have no idea who I’m actually going to vote for. I’m writing this because this is a pure injustice to have someone talking about another person in this way. We are ALL Tar Heels people! ACT LIKE ONE before you tarnish the name of this wonderful University for good!

Lea Palmer

Why Liberals Win

Campus Life, CRDaily, Elections, Politics

Don’t worry – they won’t ever look up. They are millennials.

Any seasoned conservative worth his or her salt – that is, any conservative that has, in some manner or another, been voluntarily immersed in the world of political argumentation – knows the difficulty of defending limited government against liberal affect. No matter how well one seems to know the topics at hand, repelling emotive assaults from activists who carry around a set of finely-tuned and effective cliches always proves an arduous task, particularly in a forum that doesn’t easily warm to conservative thought. We may not care about the extent to which our views are catchy or memorable – as long as they are well-reasoned, we will hold them and defend them. But where exactly does the future of the enlightened ideology lie if it can no longer gain a foothold in the appealing world of pop culture? Such is the prevailing challenge inherited by a new generation of young, conservative thinkers: to make marketable the wildly unpopular view that the dependency agenda fails in every sense of the word.

And quite the challenge it will be, to convince the beneficiaries of wealth redistribution that excessive taxation is philosophically and economically corrupt. One need only examine the wealth of political debates that occur daily between liberals and conservatives to see that the latter struggle in a sensationalist culture: Whether the topic involves free-market economics and its iterative advantage over Keynesian counterparts, or the demonstrable successes of capitalism in creating wealth and alleviating poverty, the celebrated liberal reply remains the same – “profit is evil!” to choruses of eager applause. The discussion may concern republican ideals or the consequences of powerful bureaucracies; it may trace the legitimacy of conventional cultural values, or outline the necessity of personal responsibility in family and in society. But the responses it evokes from the Left never evolve, always having something to do with meanness and oppression, lauded by uneducated automatons.

A TV show that brilliantly illustrates this reality is Bill Maher’s Real Time, the intolerance and naivete of which I have previously decried in ample terms. Maher’s formula, however, is simple, devious, and effective: Invite a well-verse conservative who is generally loathed in pop culture over his or her controversial views (Ann Coulter, Nick Gillespie, etc.), litter the rest of the panel with three or so comedians, journalists, and scientists who are overbearingly liberal and secular (Rachel Maddow, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc.), and humorously watch as a pack of ravenous wolves devour an incongruent lamb at the fierce bidding of both Maher and his illiterate, Roman spectators.

It’s genius, but simultaneously maddening to watch, for you know that there is absolutely nothing you can do to isolate Maher’s idiocy from the likes of his cultish cronies so that the writer from National Review has the chance to demolish Maher’s predictable worldview. And just when you think the conservative will have an opportunity to defend his assertions, Rachel Maddow goes off on how nobody’s listening to her because she’s a woman, employing sexist rhetoric to mock her male opponent. The audience laughs, hoots, and hollers, and the cycle continues unabated – certainly an ironic way for Rachel to demonstrate her feministic independence and self-actualization! Meanwhile, the conservative sits awkwardly and wonders what it might take to convince his fellow panelists that the views espoused by millions of Americans across the country are not as debasing and frivolous as they seem – not as much, at least, as those which necessitate blind approval from the likes of undergraduate women’s studies majors and Starbucks baristas.

The point is that there is a science to the way in which liberalism overwhelms even the smartest conservatives’ voices in pop culture, appealing to boorish and rebellious sentiments in millennials whose attention spans last the length of a Miley Cyrus hit. Conservatives simply cannot win in forums designed to mock their policies; in the same way, they cannot defeat an opposition which is exceedingly hipper and craftier in its manipulation of the politically ignorant. No wonder it is so challenging for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to appeal to certain demographics, demographics which are seemingly inbred to fight against the “outdated” elements of the conservative movement – fundamentally, conservative politicians hold views that, in their economic complexity and philosophical rigor, are too elusive to compete against their fast, cheap, and easy counterparts.

And as you may expect, such holds frightening implications for future elections in which millennials must (however unfortunately) be allowed to vote, darkening the prospects of electing reasonable politicians whose views are independent of the pop-culture behemoth. Conservatives can prove that social security will soon grow financially insolvent, but they have been hitherto unsuccessful in convincing many voters to support those who would do away with the fiscal nightmare – the devious financial alchemy – that is FDR’s undying legacy. The same holds true for the larger welfare state, in general: Do we honestly believe that vast numbers of food-stamp and Medicaid recipients will suddenly experience a change of heart, or the dose of objectivity needed to convince them to vote down the very measures on which they foolishly depend? Of course not, and that’s the critical thinking behind liberalism – the underlying mechanics that allow even the most unsupportable of ideologies to flourish. That dependency on government trumps both economic security and the prestige of principled policy is, itself, liberals’ greatest hope for the road ahead.

As suggested before, the notion of limited government appears bleak in a future in which conservatives fail to overcome this hurdle. Though their policies reiterate disastrous failures, liberals sometimes win because their advantage in pop culture – amongst actors and singing prima donnas who use their inexorable connection with immature minds to propagate rebellious nonsense – is palpable; because there is no stronger political impetus these days than a check from the government that emerges mysteriously from the vast ranks of “those who have,” as Marx might put it. If conservatives could only morph this strand of coolness and change the side to which it regularly attaches, then perhaps it is conceivable that Bill Maher, not Dinesh D’Souza, will have to defend his hysteric views on Republicans’ IQs as outraged audiences cheer his demise.

For that to happen, though, the conservative brand must change in a fundamental sense – seen to be held by both thinkers and farmers, lawyers and mathematicians, Baptists and agnostics. It must shake loose the assumption that membership within conservative circles naturally arises from having money, or that the sole association to be made with businessmen is the draconian cultivation of profit. In short, millennials must be convinced that big government absorbs, overwhelms, and destroys, despite any moralistic claim to the contrary; they must be shown that there is nothing rebellious about the centralization of power or the upheaval of natural rights. But more than anything, they must be reached by people who are hilarious, charming, confident, and, most of all, persuasively brilliant.

 

 

 

Interview with Sean Haugh, Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate (Part Two)

Elections, North Carolina Politics, Politics

As the 2014 midterm elections are quickly approaching, a large amount of the nation’s attention has turned to North Carolina, a state that many consider a swing state after it flipped from blue to red between the 2008 and 2012 elections. The battle has mainly focused on Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican challenger Thom Tillis. There is, however, a third player in this traditionally two-party game: Libertarian Sean Haugh. The Durham pizza delivery man has gained a fair amount of attention thanks to his multiple YouTube videos, and currently has five percent of polled North Carolinians supporting him. Haugh previously ran for the US Senate in 2002 and had served as the national political director for the Libertarian National Committee.

I went to Durham to sit down with Haugh and discuss why he thinks he can win this race. In the second part of my two-part interview with him, Haugh and I talked about the problems surrounding his two opponents, the episode in Ferguson, Mo. and his main method of campaigning: YouTube.

If you have not yet read Part One of this interview, you can find it here.

File:Sean Haugh.JPG

United States Senate candidate Sean Haugh (Photo courtesy of Rachel Mills)

Alex Thomas: Let’s talk about your opponents. The race has mainly been focused on Speaker Tillis and Senator Hagan, with neither side being able to confidentially secure a majority of voters. A September 10th poll by Rasmussen has Senator Hagan up over Speaker Tillis by six points, while a month ago a similar poll by the organization had Speaker Tillis up by five points. Why do you think neither of them can get a majority of people on their side?

Sean Haugh: Because the majority of voters see them for what they are: people who represent corporate special interests and not the people. I found it amusing that Senator Hagan had commissioned a poll that she was touting a couple of days ago, and right there in the stuff that she was trying to point out, her negatives still outweighed her positives. But, her negatives are closer to her positives than Speaker Tillis’ are.

I hold the opinion that Speaker Tillis is completely unelectable. He has no point being in this race. He’s just out there to fly the flag of his party. He has no chance because he has lost such significant demographics. So many people have looked at his performance in the General Assembly and want to reject him.

I’m getting a lot of support simply because I’m not either of them.

AT: You are currently situated around five percent. That is according to a Civitas Institute poll, which, unlike the previously mentioned poll, did actually mention your name directly —

SH: I don’t consider a poll legitimate unless it mentions me by name. That Rasmussen poll that you mentioned is worthless because it’s “some other candidate”. It’s so bizarre to me that the political class and  a lot of media are so wrapped up in the Washington game, that they, too, have lost any sense of reality.

One thing that really amazes me about this race and the lack of legitimacy of media coverage of it is that they are all focused on control of the Senate. That seems to be the only thing that matters to them at all.

A lot of the times, they really just don’t know what to do to me. I just don’t fit into their conception of reality.

AT: Why do you suppose you don’t fit into it?

SH: Because I’m actually talking about issues that matter to people. You watch this news coverage, and there’s almost nothing about how this election is going to affect the people of North Carolina. It’s all about how it’s going to affect what happens underneath the dome in Washington, DC.

I think that is one of the reasons why more and more people are getting their news from Twitter and Facebook instead of the mainstream media. They can actually get real news. Like a lot of people who live in the 21st century, that’s how I get my news.

I talk to people who just watch cable news, and just wonder how they hardly know anything that’s going on in this world. They certainly know plenty about sharks and the Kardashians, but not much about, for example, what happened in Ferguson, Mo. a month ago.

AT: Since you mentioned Ferguson, let’s say a similar incident occurred here in North Carolina. If you were Senator, how would you address a Ferguson at home?

SH: We do have Ferguson here at home. The only difference is that we didn’t shut down the city and protest over it.

There are three cases here in Durham alone since our current police chief, Jose Lopez, took office. Situations where people died through interacting with the police, but not necessarily in confrontation. One in particular is the case of Jesus Huerta, who was shot in the back seat of a patrol car. They still maintain that he managed to sneak a gun in and shoot himself, even though he was handcuffed in the back of the police cruiser.

Overall, the police really have changed over the last few years to really be opposed to protecting and serving the people while having a good community relationship. These kind of things have happened all across the country.

One thing that really concerns me is the militarization of police. To me, that’s a sign of just how opposed to the people the police have become. Why do you need this big, mine resistant armored vehicle for local police work? It’s completely unnecessary unless you want to go to war with the people.

What happened in Ferguson is really a national problem. One thing I would like to do as a Senator is stop this 1033 Program of giving police department and local law enforcement military weapons.

But, I’m not sure how much else I could do besides being supportive of local groups who can really address their local issues. The only way to restore that relationship between the public and the police is for the public and the police to work it out themselves.

AT: So far, your campaign efforts has consisted of around 30 YouTube videos explaining your positions on a variety of issues, ranging from immigration reform to Israel. Have you found this method of campaigning to be successful in attracting support?

SH: Absolutely. It is so easy to share videos and it’s incredibly inexpensive. It costs me around $50 to make each video, and I’ve been able to get my message out to a very large number of people.

In addition, I’ve been able to establish a larger social media presence than either of my opponents because I actually use it to engage people, talk to people and listen to people. They [my opponents] don’t seem to understand Facebook and Twitter in particular. They just use it as a bullhorn to get people to listen to them.

People being able to talk to me and get to know me as a real human being really sets me apart from my two opponents. I mean, you call up Senator Hagan’s office now to try to get some help with something or ask a question or state your opinion. More often than not you’ll get a busy signal. To me, that’s an insult in 2014. Nobody needs a busy signal anymore. You can at least put up a voicemail saying, “I’m sorry we’re so busy. We can’t take your call right now, but you can leave a message or we can call you back in a little bit.”

Getting back to YouTube, it is certainly a lot of fun. It really gives me the opportunity to present myself and my ideas in the exact way I want to. Since government is still kind of locked in the 20th century, it’s a lot less regulated than if I was making TV ads. If I was doing TV ads, I would have to include a lot of other language, so YouTube is very liberating.

I’m really enjoying this campaign a lot more than 2002 for exactly that reason. I can just be myself, say exactly what I want to say in exactly the way I want to say it. The technology makes it easy for me.

AT: You did not get a chance to participate in the September 3rd debate with Speaker Tillis and Senator Hagan. Do you think you will get an opportunity to debate them on a public forum?

SH: I am invited to a debate on October 9th sponsored by the League of Women Voters and WCET-TV. It’ll be down in Wilmington, and at various points all three of us had accepted that offer, but now everything is really in flux.

Once it was pointed out to my opponents that I would be there, all of a sudden they were a little bit less certain they would be there, too. They are incredibly afraid to face me at all. I really see these debates that don’t include me as them auditioning for their corporate special interest masters instead of actually trying to address the people.

There has been not only just my supporters but voters who want a real debate and don’t necessarily support me putting pressure on groups like WRAL and the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters to include me in a future debate.

Having been down this road before in 2002, I hope I’m being too cynical when I suggest that that’s the last thing either of them want. They [his opponents] are the ones controlling the process. I don’t blame debate organizers at all when I’m excluded because it’s not their call. It’s totally up to Hagan and Tillis, and they have both made it very clear that they don’t really want to face me or the people.

Things change every day. I’m still planning on going to Wilmington on October 9th, and we’ll see if either of them have the guts to show up.

AT: If there was one thing you could tell the people of North Carolina that could convince them to vote for you, what would that be?

SH: I’m the only candidate that wants to stop all war. We’ve been in the state of perpetual war for over fifteen years now. There are people in this country that are about to become a voting age that have known nothing but war. The majority of Americans and North Carolinians look at this and know that it’s untenable. We have to do something else other than just more bombing.

It’s not radical or extremist anymore to talk about libertarian issues like stopping all war or spending money that we don’t have. Everybody knows this debt we have is unsustainable, and yet my Democratic and Republican opponents promise nothing else but increasing that debt.

The main thing is if you’re voting for either the Democrat or the Republican, even though there are differences between the two, you are also voting for more war and more debt. It’s time that we send a message to the Democrats and the Republicans that we want something different.

Interview with Sean Haugh, Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate (Part One)

Elections, North Carolina Politics, Politics

As the 2014 midterm elections are quickly approaching, a large amount of the nation’s attention has turned to North Carolina, a state that many consider a swing state after it flipped from blue to red between the 2008 and 2012 elections. The battle has mainly focused on Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican challenger Thom Tillis. There is, however, a third player in this traditionally two-party game: Libertarian Sean Haugh. The Durham pizza delivery man has gained a fair amount of attention thanks to his multiple YouTube videos, and currently has five percent of polled North Carolinians supporting him. Haugh previously ran for the US Senate in 2002 and had served as the national political director for the Libertarian National Committee.

I went to Durham to sit down with Haugh and discuss why he thinks he can win this race. In Part One of my two-part interview with him, Haugh and I talked about his motivation for running for Senate, how he would respond to multiple issues facing the United States currently and what makes this election so unique from his previous attempt to become Senator in 2002.

File:Sean Haugh 3.JPG

United States Senate candidate Sean Haugh (Photo courtesy of Rachel Mills)

Alex Thomas: Why are you running for United States Senate?

Sean Haugh: Because I can’t count on the Democrats or Republicans to talk about stopping this state of perpetual war or spending more money than we have.

I had retired from politics in 2010, and I was very happily retired. But, as I saw this race shaping up, I thought there was a need for a really strong libertarian voice, especially now that we know my opponents are really not going to talk about much of anything besides their own kind of disassociating talking points.

I just wanted to walk into the voting booth myself in November and be able to vote for something besides more war and more debt.

AT: You did run for this Senate seat in 2002, a race which was won by Elizabeth Dole. Do you feel this election is different from that attempt? What’s your attitude towards this election compared to 2002?

SH: From their perspective, I don’t think things have changed at all.

Back in 2002, I thought it was very odd that, at the time, I had lived here less than 20 years and was a lot more connected to life in North Carolina than either of my opponents. I mean, Elizabeth Dole had to claim she was living in her mother’s house to run for this seat. This time, even though my opponents have better North Carolina credibility, they’re both still completely disconnected from how the average person lives.

For me, it’s just a completely different world compared to 2002 for two main reasons. One is that everybody knows what a libertarian is now. I don’t have to spend much time explaining to people what a libertarian is. We have a very favorable view to the point where we have a lot of people who aren’t really libertarian try to claim to be libertarian because it is cachet, so it’s nice in that aspect.

Also, one major thing that’s changed is social media. Back in 2002, we didn’t have Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, that sort of thing. So, in order for me to get my message out, I would have to drive all over the state. On some occasions, I would drive three hours to talk to a dozen people, then drive home afterwards. Now, I can do most of my campaigning from home with the YouTube videos and also on Facebook and Twitter. I’m very easily accessible. People can engage me.

Before, I would go do a talk radio interview, the show would end and I would be done. Now, listeners can continue to engage me after the fact. If people have any kind of follow-up questions or didn’t get a question into the show, they can ask me on Twitter or Facebook. That’s allowed me to be able to get my message out very inexpensively.

AT: Your career experiences range from serving as an administrative assistant for the Duke University Hospital to now working as a pizza delivery man. Have you learned anything from your diverse employment history that can help you win this race?

SH: Oh, yes. One thing I love about my job delivering pizza now is that it keeps me connected with people. I deliver to about 20 families a night, and we have a very diverse city here in Durham. As a result, I’m meeting people from all walks of life every night. It really keeps me connected to what life is like for most of us who are trying to make ends meet.

My job at Duke University Hospital was also very informative to me. I worked with people on their insurance, especially with Medicaid and Medicare patients. It just gave me a real firsthand knowledge of what it’s like to try to be on government benefits. All the bureaucratic Hell they had to go through just so they could keep up with the most substandard benefits that we offer here in the United States, and I’m sure in the intervening time it has gotten worse not just for patients, but for providers, too.

One odd job I had in the past was doing telephone surveys for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) where some naïve researchers thought, “Oh, it would be a really great idea to poll doctors and see how they feel about Medicaid and Medicare and understand what they are facing. Maybe we can incorporate that into policy.” Of course, by the time that reaches the floors of Congress, it’s completely distorted from reality.

But, that experience also gave me a lot of perspective from providers on why a lot of them are getting out of taking care of Medicaid and Medicare patients, as well as why government makes it so difficult for people who need healthcare to be able to get it.

With most of the other jobs I’ve had in my life, that’s the common theme. Being out in public, being in the customer service role and really having to listen to people and get to know what their perspective is.

AT: Your campaign slogan is “Stop All War”. What exactly do you mean by “all war”?

SH: War has infected so much of our public policy. It’s not just the direct war and drone warfare that we are conducting all around the world, but it’s also how we arm everybody in the world. We really need to stop arm sales.

You look at the Middle East where everybody, friend or foe, is armed with our weapons and training. There is the possible exception of Hamas, but they can easily get our stuff second hand. The first thing we have to do in the Middle East is stop the flow of arms to the region.

But, “Stop All War” also involves the militarization of police at home as well as culture war, even though the latter isn’t really a federal issue. I don’t want the United States Senate to start ruling on matters on culture war.

The chance to be able to run for US Senate has given me the opportunity to talk about how this war mentality has infected all of our thinking. We have been so used to being at war for so long, that now we are really turning on each other. There is just no political solution that begins with the half of the country that disagrees with you dropping dead. I’ve been able to use the campaign as an opportunity to talk about how we have to talk and listen to each other, and sometimes agree to disagree. We’re all in this America thing together, and we’ve got to develop a mutual respect for each other again if we’re going to be able to solve any of our problems and move forward as a country.

AT: Since we are talking about the Middle East, let’s start talking about your position on multiple issues by discussing the threat of ISIS. Over the past few weeks, every political leader has been talking about what the United States and its allies should do to diminish ISIS’ power in the Middle East. If you were currently Senator, what plan would you advocate for?

SH: Well, not doing the same thing over and over again that created this Islamic state in the first place.

You listen to that debate between my opponents from a couple of weeks ago [September 3rd], and, to me, the theme of it was “Well, if you loved Iraq War I and Iraq War II, then you’re going to really love Iraq War III.”

They [My opponents] don’t have any solution besides more bombing, and that’s what really created the problems to being with. We have been interfering in the affairs with the Middle East for so long, we created this blowback with these groups who, again, are armed with our weapons and our training. We’ve just become more and more virulent when we think we’ve gotten rid of one threat and then much greater threat arises in their place.

So, the first thing we have to do is just stop interfering in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries and stop that flow of arms to them.

One thing that really upsets me is seeing John McCain on TV. I can’t believe anybody takes him seriously anymore. Last year he was saying we have to arm ISIS to defeat Assad, and now he’s saying we have to help Assad defeat ISIS. People will listen to him say this stuff with a straight face.

Then you look at my Democratic opponent. Senator Hagan is now trying to say, “Oh, I’ve been trying to warn President Obama we need more bombing months ago.” All they think of is that throwing more bombs fixes the problem.

There’s no magic wand we can wave to make this problem go away, but we can undermine it by going back to what Washington and Jefferson counseled, which was free trade with all and entangling alliances with none.

AT: One of the biggest issues that faces my generation is college tuition and, more specifically, student loans. Student loan debt has accumulated to around $1 trillion, which is second in consumer debt only to mortgages. What do you think needs to be done to make that number and the amount of students in debt decreases?

SH: Well, the first thing we have to do is stop flooding the higher education system with federal dollars because it’s just basic economics. If the federal government is going to put all of this money out there for it [an education], then the universities are going to raise their prices to suck up all of that money.

I went to Tufts University in the early 1980s, and at the time tuition was about $8,000 a year. The whole college experience for four years would probably be around $50,000. Now, it’s a quarter of a million dollars. It just doesn’t make economic sense anymore to go to college and take out loans for that.

One aspect of that that really bothers me is when people get out of college and they’re in this mountain of debt. That really restricts people’s freedom. You really don’t have the freedom to be creative with what you want to do with your life. Keeping people in all this debt is a way to control people. I’m in favor for forgiving a lot of student debt.

I don’t know if you remember a few months ago, but President Obama had this happy press conference about forgiving a bunch of student loan debt, and really that plan was just more corporate welfare. It was giving a lot of banks the full value of a lot of these outstanding loans which they will probably never collect. There are so many ways we use issues to transfer wealth to big business and large corporations, and that was one of them.

So, I think it would take a little bit of time, but just cutting off that flow of money from the federal government would not only make college more affordable again, but it would make more economic sense to go to college.

Stay tuned for Part Two of my interview with Haugh, in which we discuss the problems surrounding his two opponents, the episode in Ferguson, Mo. and his main method of campaigning: YouTube.

The Case For Andrew Powell

Campus Life, Elections, Politics, Student Government

Hello Tar Heels,

As most are probably aware, Emilio Vicente’s platform writer recently came out against his former candidate in what many Emilio supporters see as a stab in the back.  Fortunately, that whole incident is really irrelevant as to why Emilio is not the ideal candidate for SBP and why Andrew Powell is the candidate we should all support.

What we have garnered so far in this SBP election is that we have two very nice guys, who we would all want to sit down and have a beer with, running to be the head of our Executive Branch of Student Government.  Both Andrew and Emilio have some noble goals that they wholeheartedly want to see implemented at this University, but so far, only Andrew has shown the experience and concrete plans necessary to turn those goals into policies and actions.  Emilio has got some things that Andrew has not.  He got an endorsement from Eva Longoria and two articles, one in the New York Times and one in the Huffington Post about his identity and experiences as an immigration advocate.  Unfortunately for Emilio, being a really nice guy and standing for an ideal are not qualifications to run our University’s Student Government.  In addition, national media and celebrities plugging a candidate for who he is, not what his platform is, do not belong in our Student Body President election. Yet, even after all this, the biggest indicator as to why Andrew Powell simply out qualifies Emilio came during last night’s SBP Run Off Debate.

The differences between Emilio and Andrew came to a sharp contrast throughout the evening.  To every question, both candidates provided some excellent ideas ranging from listening sessions to flipped classrooms, but only Andrew provided hard facts to back up why his ideas are not only feasible, but also effective at tackling some of the biggest issues affecting our University.  However, the most pressing issue of the night was clearly tuition.  Emilio believed that in order to address this, Student Government must listen to students, because as it is currently, they do not.  Andrew stated that this wasn’t the case because Student Government is made up of hundreds of students who clearly understood the issues affecting their friends and themselves.  He countered that the real changes that must be made are streamlining the bureaucracy in Student Government, so that it is manageable, and cutting costs and inefficiency in the classroom.  He has proposed the models of flipped classrooms and a smaller Executive Cabinet to effectively address his goals of cost cutting, efficiency, and a manageable Student Government. Emilio took issue with a flipped classroom format, citing a friend he knew who said she disliked it, but Andrew was able to back up his plans with facts that showed flipped classrooms to be astounding successes when implemented, improving grades by upwards of 11 points and cutting costs by nearly 37%.  In this format the entire debate ensued.

Making sense of this, we find that Andrew simply was able to prove more effectively that his goals will work, whereas Emilio has simply been able to show his good intentions.  In a race as important as this one, we must let our emotions subside and choose the candidate who has laid concrete plans backed with hard facts of their success.  We must choose a candidate who has both the good intentions and the experience necessary to translate those intentions into good results.  We must choose Andrew Powell.

SBP Results 2014

Campus Life, CRDaily, Elections, Politics, Student Government

From the Board of Elections

5475 voters

41.08% or 2249 for Emilio

28.4% or 1555 Andrew

20.29% or 1111 for Nikita 

and 7.25% or 397 for Winston

According to the Daily Tar Heel  forum, Nikita claimed that she would support Andrew. Other sources are saying that Winston will support Andrew as well. 

The runoff  between Andrew and Emilio will be next Tuesday on the Student Life website

 

*Total votes may be rounded
*Vote totals and percentages were updated 12:24 A.M.