The difference between America's China and an American's China

Throughout the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama identified similar villains, among which were the deficit, Syrian President Basher Al-Assad, and China. While the former two are certainly far from benign, I take issue with the third subject. China is frequently targeted as a threat to US economic interests during American election seasons. In the 1992 election Candidate Bill Clinton accused the Bush Sr Administration of being to soft on the human rights violations of who he referred to as "the butchers of Beijing." In the 2000 election, Candidate George W. Bush insisted that the Clinton Administration's definition of China as a "strategic partner" was misguided, suggesting that the term "strategic rival" was more accurate. 

Earlier this fall, Mitt Romney stated that "China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the president has a regular opportunity to label them as a currency manipulator, but refuses to do so." Romney went on to promise that "On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator." No doubt the statement would have been referred to as Romney's "Guantanamo Promise" had he been elected, but instead of being above the political child splay, President Obama called Romney's bluff. In Mid September, President Obama filed a suit against China in the WTO against illegal subsidies for China's auto industry, no doubt a nod to the auto-labor vote that won President Obama the Great Wall of Midwest Swing states. President Obama also didn't forget to tout his record on pressuring China for currency manipulation. During the second presidential debate, Obama stated that "as far as currency manipulation, the currency has actually gone up 11% since I've been president because we have pushed them hard. And we've put unprecedented trade pressure on China.That's why exports have significantly increased under my presidency." 

As an American who currently works and lives in China, I'm annoyed that the American political system must cater to a misinformed electorate to express US policy on China. True, China is a rival, but it is also a partner. As it is with Republicans and Democrats, China and the US must work together to forge solutions to 21st century challenges. True China may be an idea stealer, but it is not a job stealer. Instead of viewing the violation of intellectual property rights in China with sustain, I choose to look upon it with sympathy and pity. Cheaply manufactured copies of designer clothes, electronics, and apparel reveals China's greatest weakness and America's greatest asset against China's rise, the power of human capital and innovation. The most striking observation I have gathered from teaching my classes is the complete lack of creativity from students. Acquired skill, swift memorization, and community ethic are strong here, but the flame to create flickers in a chamber with an oxygen content similar to the skies of Beijing. 

What bothers me most about China bashing in US politics is the socially constructed image Americans are given of China as a homogenous system where people are akin to parts in a cold and lifeless machine. It is illustrated as a nation with no other objective than the subjugation of the US economy in effort to separate Americans from what is rightfully theirs. 

This image could not be farther from the truth. Yes, China is extremely bureaucratic, hierarchical, and to an extent patriarchal (this is swiftly changing). However, the most beautiful thing about Chinese society is it's disunity and randomness. This quality expresses itself in the anarchy of Chinese traffic which is akin to a scene in a Dr Seuss book where trucks, cars, buses, bikes, cattle, and motor vehicles you never even knew existed collide into a vortex of confusion. It expresses itself in city parks where one can find Chinese citizens at leisure, playing basketball, fishing, skating, playing western and chinese traditional instruments, kicking around a Chinese hacky-sack(jianzi), or a singing in a choir. It expresses itself in the live chickens that can be found in any rural or suburban area freely strutting alongside humans without reason. It expresses itself when a whole restaurant staff dances in unison to Korean pop music to boost employee moral. It  expresses itself in  the group of Foxconn workers getting drunk on a week night at a local restaurant. It expresses itself (unkindly) when your boss calls to tell you that you will be going on a day field trip or be filming a promotion advertisement at the last minute due to the bureaucracy's failure to inform you prior. China isn't as predictable as Americans make it out to be. Any American would be surprised at what can be found here. 

Furthermore the Chinese people in the context of China is unfair to the former, a farce I too have been guilty of. One cannot simply lump 1.8 billion people into some unified object, and it is ludicrous to assume that the motives of growth for the Chinese are anything more than self interested. The Chinese are not out to "steal" American jobs. In reality the Chinese dream and the American dream are similar. The average Chinese citizen wants a safe and healthy working conditions, healthcare, housing, a family and security for that family. Despite the transference of manufacturing jobs from America to China, a large majority of Chinese citizens can't achieve these goals unlike their American counterparts. Most Chinese people I know work every day not expecting a living wage or a vacation with the family to see some of the infinite beautiful places their country has to offer.

The American illustration of such China is void of color and natural beauty. When Americans picture China, they conjure up images of the black skies of Beijing, dark shiny waters polluted by sewage and agricultural runoff, villages pummeled by earthquakes, and perhaps a snapshot picture of the Great Wall. This is a shame. Despite it's numerous environmental disasters, China still has an abundance of natural wonders such as the blue waters of JiuZhaigou, the misty mountains of Guilin, the austere peaks of Huangshan and Taishan, the never-ending majesty of the Tibetan Plateau, the tropical beaches of Hainan, and the roaring waters of the Yangze River to name a few. There is far more to China than its factories. The mountains, rivers, and forests of this country have inspired painters, poets, generals and explorers for centuries. 

Americans see China as a negative subject for the most part. This is largely due to the fear America has for change in the 21s century world order. China has become the second most powerful economic actor in the world. Americans ponder, they don't look like us, and they don't have a democracy, can they be trusted? These feelings are normal, and America has already experienced them with another Asian economic rival during the 1980s, Japan. But we shouldn't let it consume our actions and our words. 

America still is the most powerful military actor and most influential economic actor in the world. Our problems may be numerous, but blaming China will not yield solutions. The solutions come from within our gridlocked government, slowly recovering economy, and the ingenuity of pour people. China to has its problems, corruption, environmental degradation (the results of a growing economy), vast income inequality, a housing market bubble, and on top of that slowing economic growth. These are challenges that the new leaders of China must and will confront. 

Two weeks ago, China had it's own election which yielded the first transfer of power in ten years. During the 18th People's Congress, Xi Jing Ping was elected as president and Li Keqiang was elected as Premier. During his acceptance speech, President Xi pontificated China's contributions to mankind and the integrity of the Chinese people. Towards the end of his speech, Xi stated "China needs to learn more about the world, and the world also needs to learn more about China." These words give me hope that common ground can be forged between our two countries.In the end, all that really separates us is the Pacific Ocean. 

Why Myanmar Matters

The Middle East is once again in flames this week as Hamas and Israeli authorities continue to exchange fire in the Gaza Strip and Syria remains unstable. Additionally, a partisan storm is forming in Washington over the poor handling of the Benghazi attacks, resulting in the death of 9 Americans. GOP senators John Mccain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have initiated a political vendetta against UN ambassador Susan Rice regarding the Benghazi intelligence failure, vowing to block her nomination as the Secretary of State. President Obama has considered Rice for the position but hasn't made a finalized decision at this point. The debacle has been further complicated by the marital scandal of former FBI chief Gen. David Petraeus.  

In the midst of this calamity, several observers find i difficult to understand why President Obama has chosen to visit Southeast Asia, including Myanmar, the mysterious closed society that has recently opened the doors to Democracy after 50 years of military dictatorship. Americans still do not realize the importance of this area of the world for American geopolitical strategy. This sobering fact is largely the result of a lack of education provided by a disinterested media and a mostly silent commander in chief. Both accounts are disheartening. When I watched the last presidential debate on foreign policy, I was taken aback by the lack of discussion regarding regional security, military/ navy strategy, and soft power projections in the Asia Pacific. In my observation, this was one of the areas the Obama Administration preformed best on. 

During the Bush years, the Asia Pacific remains largely ignored by the US Government. President Bush's foreign policy focused primarily on the Middle East, while Asia was considered a second front for the War on Terrorism in areas such as the Malacca Straights which has suffered numerous pirate attacks and the southern Philippines stilled plagued by the terrorist network Abu Sayyaf. The Southeast Asian regional organization ASEAN was demised by President Bush as a "talk fest" and the policy adopted for Myanmar was strict economic sanctions and isolation without communication. The result was a diplomatic shift towards China from the nations of Southeast Asia. China appeared more diplomatic in the South China Sea, and showered countries such as Cambodia with interest free loans and infrastructure investment. State owned Chinese power companies liberally invested in hydroelectric dams in Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia. The business community in Thailand is mostly made up of overseas Chinese immigrants which were eager to extend ties to the mainland to garner investment in Thai as well as Malaysian, Vietnamese, and Indonesian industries. 

However, starting in 2010, disputes began to break out once again over the South China between China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Chinese dams were met with animosity held by local Laotians and Burmese who witnessed the destructive results that leveled their villages and agriculture lands. 

In the midst of this tide of uncertainty in regards to Southeast Asia's benevolent neighbor to the north, the Obama Administration saw an opportunity to reverse these trends that resulted in a near decade of American neglect. Now 2,500 marines have been stationed in Darwin, Australia, US air craft carriers are now stationed in Singapore, and military exercises are annually conducted with Vietnam and the Philippines. In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the 17th ASEAN summit and announced the US is "Back in Asia." Soon after, the US signed ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and submitted an official ambassador to ASEAN. 

Around this time, Myanmar experienced changes of its own. In November of 2010, world renowned Burmese Democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi was released after seven and a half years under house arrest. Following her release, Suu Kyi encouraged the international community to show more flexibility on the sanctions imposed upon Myanmar. Since then under the leadership of President Thein Sein, Myanmar has undertaken a number of reforms such as expanding the freedom of the press and releasing hundreds of political prisoners. Additionally, on April 1st, 2012 Myanmar held its first open elections in over a half a century in which Aung Suu Kyi was elected to the lower house of parliament under the Union Solidarity and Development Party. In response, the Obama Administration has gradually rolled back sanctions on Myanmar, and Suu Kyi was congratulated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit to Myanmar earlier his year. 

A reverse in Myanmar's shift towards China has also followed these reforms. Taking into consideration negative public opinion, President Thein Sein temporarily suspended the Myitsone Dam which was to be built on the Irawaddy River near the Chinese boarder. The dam was funded by a Chinese state owned company called China Power Investment Corporation which was to hold 70 percent of the profits. The dam would have provided an estimated 3,600 to 6,000 megawatts of electricity to Yunnan Province most likely the city of Kunming. For China this is bad sign. It reflects the fear Southeast Asian nations have regarding their weak geopolitical position in relation to a rising China. Such fear yields encouragement from Southeast nations for a larger American role in the Asia Pacific.  

President Obama has made his best efforts to capitalize on these fears, and it appears to be reversing the influence the US had lost under the Bush Administration in this vital region of the world. During his speech at Rangoon University, President Obama used this opportunity as the first US President to visit Myanmar to help foster this strategic shift in the Asia Pacific towards America's favor. His words were pragmatically employed in effort to encourage reforms and suggest benefits for doing so. 

Taken from the Diplomat Magazine:

“I recognize that this is just the first steps on what will be a long journey,” the U.S. president said alongside his Burmese counterpart, Thein Sein, at the former parliament in Rangoon. “But we think that a process of democratic reform and economic reform in Myanmar … can lead to incredible development opportunities here.”

In my observation President Obama's recent trip to Myanmar represents a Reagan moment of his presidency. While Ronald Reagan was known for being bold, his strong words pontificating the destruction of the Berlin Wall were a strategic response to observed shifts in Eastern Europe and the greater Soviet Union.

Today a similar shift is occurring in the Asia Pacific. While many Americans still believe that the Middle East and Israel's sovereignty should be our number one foreign policy objectives, I see such a direction as nostalgic and senseless. America's involvement in the Middle East has been a mistake and under Obama our domestic energy supply has expanded to the point that the region's geopolitical value is minimal. Our goal in the Middle East should be stability and nothing more. Policies shaped to expand democracy in the Middle East by military means  has depleted that ability to preserve peace. The more involvement America undertakes in the Middle East, the more trapped we will become by our own geopolitical folly.

In Myanmar on the other hand, our crusade for global democracy is already being won. Sanctions and regional pressures from Myanmar's neighbors brought about this change, not military presence. To fail to recognize this accomplishment would be to miss out on a historic opportunity to regain influence in a region of the world that does matter to the economic and maritime security of the US. Furthermore, to ignore Myanmar at this point would be to ignore the beginning of a successful transition towards a regime that reflects American values in democracy and human rights.

 In recognizing the geopolitical necessity of the Asia Pacific by making Southeast Asia his first foreign visit after reelection, I believe President Obama has proven himself to be one America's greatest presidential diplomats, and an exemplary commander in chief. Following his presidency, Barack Obama will surely join the ranks of other presidential diplomats such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. One thing's for sure, he won't be wallowing in the shadows of a political tragedy at some dusty ranch in Texas. 

What was the 2012 election really about?---Proposals of Smart Governance

     I was a Sesame Street fan when I was a kid. I still believe the messages of sharing, friendship, manners espoused by the children's television program are still valuable to this day, and it's hard to believe they were all brought to you by the letter "L". As adults, we all know of course this is not the case. Sesame street like many other educational programs on Public Broadcasting are bright to you by government funding from taxpayer dollars. As are many other services. 

    In the first presidential debate, we heard a few off handed comments concerning PBS and Big Bird that have been animatedly over exaggerated by both political campaigns and the blogosphere. In doing so the media has lost the central argument behind the infamous Kill Big Bird comment. In fact, I think the comment itself encompasses the central issue in this election. While polling and the media would have you believe that the economy is the #1 issue, and it is certainly important, I find that the difference in policy prescriptions between the two candidates actually direct themselves to another argument that has raged since this nation's origins, of which the economy is effected by. 

     What is in question in the election of 2012 is the central role of government in society. What is government's purpose?What are government's appropriate responsibilities? And not whether big government is good or bad but rather what constitutes as big government? We can hear a lot of rhetoric coming  from the Republican Party regarding their self proclaimed status as the party of small government. But frankly, the idea is ludicrous. After all, the Patriot Act, The War on Drugs, and Medicare D were all brought to you by the party "R". Several individuals in this country perceive the Defense of Marriage Act, Pro Life policies, and the recent wave of election laws sweeping Republican ruled states as examples of an abuse of government power to fit the ideology of some at the expense of the rights of others. It makes perfect sense that in recent years, movements such as the Tea Party and the Ron Paul campaign would seek to remove the current Republican establishment and supplant it with something more libertarian. 

     I personally find both alternatives unappealing. In recent years we have witnessed societal instability due to bank failures, economic crisis, and deficits. But what has been accused as the cause? Within the past 4 years, aggression has been targeted on government expenditures, and a specific few, the small proportion of expenditures employed to provide investment in public welfare and education as well as safety nets for those Americans who cannot help themselves in a time of economic turmoil. On the other hand, for over decade now outrageous tax cuts for the wealthy have been left unaltered. I recognize that the public has a narrow sense of recent history and is easily forgetful, but it is helpful to remind Americans that it was these tax cuts that sprouted the current deficit in the first place.

    But nonetheless, a slight majority of Americans believe the deficit can be solved without altering Social Security and Medicare or dramatically decreasing the bloated size of our military budget and by cutting taxes as well. It is simple as one, two, three, get rid of Obamacare, PBS/NPR, and Planned Parenthood.  This solution will provide o progress. Getting rid of a deficit this size isn't easy, it requires sacrifices from everyone. It requires higher taxes for both the Upper and Middle Classes, it requires massive cuts in the military, and a complete reform of our nation' entitlement system. But instead of a united effort, we have only heard calls for a solution through separation. In fact, the very idea of creating a better community through a united effort has been incorrectly labeled as socialism. 

    While public sector pensions, unemployment benefits, and public broadcasting have been marketed as excess, mass consumerism, tax cuts, and and petroleum subsidies have been defined as the elements of progress. As a nation we must recognize that we cannot buy ourselves out of a crisis by the "virtues" of greed and self interest. 

     What really is the goal here in taking this approach to government? In my observation, it is a fundamental demolition of our system of governance, and a complete disintegration of our cohesion as a union. If I were a public official I would certainly be loathed for admitting this, but this country needs government. I trust a publicly elected body to make decisions on public welfare, education, and civic infrastructure far more than I do a group of shareholders primarily concerned with an efficiency that must result in maximum net profits as opposed to maximum public good. This doesn't make me a  socialist, a communist, or even a progressive. 

    I think this makes me a citizen. PBS, NPR. Food stamps, and Medicaid funded by taxation all provide a sense of duty to our nation no less important than military service or the purchase of war bonds. It provides a mechanism for citizenship and community, which is the primary element of a nation-state and humanity in general. What does it mean to be a people? A number of suburban units only concerned with their purchased property? That merely surmounts to animal nature apparent within any other grouping multi cellular organisms. Even Adam Smith admitted that a nation made up of only shop keepers would fail to succeed. 

     As humans we are inherently political, and desire the exchange of ideas in public life, and the security that government provides. In the modern world, threats are more fluid and global as well as local. If anything, government should be made more efficient as opposed to smaller. Conservatives will argue that all a government requires in this regard is basic police enforcement and a military. But such precautions only cover a limited amount of threats. Hunger, desperation, economic oppression, and ignorance are equally dangerous since they are internal rather than external. They are harder to recognize and easier to dismiss. Without the sense of union and community that government provides the result is separation and a boiling distrust and hatred for the other side. 

     This a nation does not make. From the civil war, to the workers riots of the 1910s-1930s, to the violence that erupted from the civil rights movement, history has taught us that if  government fails to intervene in preventing injustice, civil disobedience is forsaken for anarchy. As for education, a democracy cannot function without an educated polis. PBS, NPR and yes Big Bird all contribute to public education as well as community cohesion. I firmly believe that President Obama approaches the the role of government pragmatically in effort to provide unity and enforce community ethics we all hold as Americans. No one should be denied the right to succeed because college is too expensive or because they cannot afford their medical bills. This is the audacity the president alludes to in his speeches and ideals. It is not a desire to impose big government but rather smart governance. Smart governance is government that knows when to intervene for the sake of protection of its citizens, and when to abstain from involvement for the sake of the civil rights of it's citizens. 

Proposals of Smart Governance:

     Government must respond to the past decades of greed and recklessness in the banking sector by imposing new laws and restrictions. Government must respond to the challenges of environmental destruction by removing subsidies for all energy industries and imposing carbon taxes on gasoline and coal to encourage the use of cleaner energy sources. Government must respond to the poor performance of US primary education scores on international assessment tests by investing in skilled teachers, encouraging study of foreign languages, expanding the role of the arts, and most importantly fostering in our public schools what makes America so great; the free exchange of ideas which will lead to creativity and ingenuity. Government must respond to the growing mountains of student debt that separate young Americans from joining the ranks of the Middle Class by providing more grants and lowering the interest rates of student Pell and Stafford loans. Government must respond to the decadence of our national healthcare system by crafting a national plan that pools America's citizens into an insurance community so that those who need insurance most are not denied coverage. Government should also encourage preemptive healthcare by providing parks for recreation, personal fitness programs in our schools to avoid obesity, and healthier food initiatives such as Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign. Government must respond to the coming entitlements crisis by crafting a solution that will require equitable sacrifices from all citizens young and old, and Americans have certainly proven able to do so in the past. Government must respond to the immigration crisis this country faces by employing humility and understanding as opposed to vigilance and wrath. Government must respond to the wave of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans coming home to a slim jobs market with devastating health problems by insuring they receive the best publicly funded care and, if needed, publicly funded secondary education to pursue the career of their choice. The government must respond to the challenges of an increasingly uncertain Middle East, unstable Euro Zone, offensive Russia, and influential East Asia by employing our armed forces pragmatically rather than liberally and expanding our soft power through aid, diplomacy, and trust as opposed to force and paranoia. 

        Government must not be used as a tool for religious persecution and cultural purity. Government must not be used as a reactionary cog in a clock that turns back time. Government must not be used to promote the sale of prescription drugs while simultaneously suppressing the use of natural and cheaper alternatives. Government must not be used to define abstract concepts such as marriage and God. Government must not be used as a tool to prevent the participation of minorities and the poor in the political process in the name of preventing so called voter fraud. Government must not be used to define how someone can use and understand their body be they male or female. Government must not be used to invade other nations without reason or moderation. Government mud not approach statecraft with the maturity of a school yard bully. Most importantly, government should not be used as a scalpel to separate us as partisans, muslims, atheists, christians, aliens, 47 percent free loaders, or 1 percent snobs. It should be used as forum to unite us as citizens and as Americans. 

    As a result, America will continue to provide more opportunity than any nation on the planet because we dare to believe in a society where everyone benefits through the creativity and ingenuity of our citizens. We can build a nation that continues to rival all others if we invest in long term solutions to combat present challenges. Taxpayer spending in public education and general welfare contribute to this brighter future, and as a member of the current generation of youth I can safely say we have more to lose than most in this election. We lose our right to the pursuit of happiness once we ignore our duty as citizens to preserve that pursuit for all Americans.  So think twice before you vote to kill Big Bird. As Thomas Jefferson once said "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." 

2012 election review

  Well it's finally over. The 7 month political menstruation period which occurs every four years we call the presidential election will not hover over the American citizenry like a screeching harpy again until 2016. Of course, the media will continue to obsess over the possible list of candidates for 2016, but such foresight only serves as poor substitute for sensational media dope the American punditry has been smoking over the past year. In reality, the only subjects worth discussion are those observed through hindsight. What did Tuesday mean for the Democrats and for the Republicans, and what does it reflect upon the current and future American electorate? 

     At this point, Democrats should be elated that a new American electorate is shifting in favor of a center left majority coalition. Women, African Americans, Hispanics, and the Youth vote were clearly the winning strategy for President Obama and Democrats in the Senate during this election. The former white male majority who voted consistently Republican in this election, with a significant margin favoring Mitt Romney at 52%-45%, failed to bring Mitt Romney to the White House. Hispanics are now a Democratic voting block, which provided blue victories in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. Furthermore, demographic shifts in the southwest should improve the chances for Democrats to take Arizona and Texas in future presidential elections, thereby robbing Republicans of their electoral foundation. 

     Democrats need to reflect upon this victory, and materialize the values Hispanic voters supported them on in the form of policy. As healthcare was in his first term, President Obama must make comprehensive immigration reform the primary goal in his second term, thereby crystalizing Hispanic support for Democrats for a generation to come. Women will continue to be a valuable component in the coalition as long as Republicans continue to support a medieval approach to women's reproductive rights and employment opportunity. The binder of women ended up slapping the Republican Party in the face during the 2012 election. 

       As for the young vote, these past two elections cannot be simply discounted as a two time blip concerning the trend of support Democrats receive from younger voters. Younger voters participated in 2012 election with the same level of enthusiasm as they did in the last election. The youth of 2012 generally care more about politics than generations before them disenchanted by the world of politics due to the turbulent Vietnam-Watergate era. Young voters are morally and politically invested in such issues as women's rights, marriage equality, job growth, and Climate Change, and they are far more likely to be liberal than conservative concerning these subjects. Young voters are not as likely to take part in a religious institution and are more apt to follow a personal spiritual journey. Furthermore, it is evident from the high support Obama received among 24-40 year olds that age did not make this generation more conservative been 2008-2012 despite the disappointments many of them had with Obama's first term. Therefore, the liberal social trends of the current generation are likely to continue as this generation gets older. 

     Social Conservatives should be the most alarmed by this past election. Minnesota's anti-marriage equality initiative failed as did the pro-life referendum in Florida to ban the use of public revenue to pay for abortion. At the same time, a sweep of gay marriage referendums passed in three states, Maryland, Maine, and Washington. Additionally Marijuana Legalization passed in Colorado and Washington. Tuesday represented a nationwide rejection of the social conservative platform, a strong message that would behoove the Republican Party to take into consideration. Social conservatives are slowly becoming a retirement home waiting to join that big evangelical breakfast buffet in the sky. For the survival of the Republican Party, it is essential that conservatives reflect upon the last election. 

     A large portion of young conservatives, while no fan of Obama, recognize Climate Change, and are socially liberal. In the eyes of young conservatives, who identify with libertarians as opposed to Republicans, the social conservative agenda and the Obama Administration are both fruits from the same sinful tree of Big Government. For young conservatives, Mitt Romney can only serve as a somewhat less terrible alternative to Obama as opposed to an inspiring statesman like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Therefore, its easy to see why young voters overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats. Social Conservatives also helped to tip the women's vote in favor of Obama with outrageous statements from Senate candidates such as Todd Akin and Richard Murdock. The Republican Party must dump the pro life movement's crusade to reverse Roe vs Wade if it wants to win the support of female voters. Of course, such a change in mindset is nearly impossible for those who think through the lenses of a  1952 social construct. With hispanics, the rift with the Republican party is still repairable, but it will require a good portion of congressional Republicans to come on board with a compromised immigration reform bill that includes amnesty. 

     The worst possible strategy the Republicans can make is the one employed over the past two years; obstruction and ideological extremism. According to several conservative pundits, President Obama's reelection is the result of a double conspiracy ignited by the media and Hurricane Sandy, which leads me to believe that Republicans have not learned their lesson. Unlike what Republicans predicted, their was no big victory that would spark the 2nd American conservative renaissance in 2013. In fact, it was one big sweep for the more moderate and compromising Democrats who not only took every swing state and retained the majority in the Senate but gained seats in the currently GOP controlled House. There was a mandate in this election, a mandate for compromise, and a mandate for a more moderate Republican Party.

      In my assessment, Obama will be far more assertive in pushing his agenda during his second term. An obstructionist GOP will be unable to hold back President Obama as effectively as they have the past two years, and the image of the white aging party of NO will continue to saturate the Republican brand if they chose to continue to do so. This will erode the GOP's ability to hold on to the House and 2014 and will make it certain that a Democratic president will succeed President Obama in 2016, especially if Hillary Clinton runs. 

     On CNN, former Utah Governor John Huntsmen provided the best critique for his party that I have heard during the post election analysis. Huntsmen submitted that the party must refocus its efforts on promoting solutions for the 21st Century rather than lecturing Americans about moral purity and so called shared values. This is not a country where ideas and culture are homogenous. To express such a fallacy is equivalent to a concession to failure, and that's what this election meant for the Republican Party. All the Super PAC money, Karl Roves, and Sheldon Adlesons can't erase that reality. The people have spoken, and they have called for change. Change in government, and change within the Republican Party.