• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Election season is dead – there is no doubt whatsoever about that. The signs have been plucked from tidy lawns and stickers peeled from otherwise lifeless automobiles.

The convincing fireworks of the winners and the ever-unconvinced moans of the losers are now mute. Even Bruin Walk is eerily without clamor. And, in the end, America seems uninspired again.

But the respite in excitement has bestowed upon us an important new sentiment – whether winner or loser, we are no longer impelled to defend our hopelessly mediocre candidates.

Democrats can now publicly denounce the faults of John Kerry and Republicans can be open with the shortcomings of Bush’s policies. In this brief period, self-criticism doesn’t matter.

The self-critical Democrat comes off as an intelligent and introspective model loser, while the self-critical Republican appears to be a mild-mannered winner, accepting the trophy but wishing his foe a genuine “better luck next time.”

By criticizing our own candidates now, we will be more influential when we support them later.

This inter-seasonal time will help columnists like me feel honest and fair – virtues we do not experience unless dreadfully intoxicated or in the presence of a politician.

So, in all honesty and fairness, President Bush’s victory has landed him some heavy work and no excuses.

The slowly ending Iraq War – whether measured in energy spent or in public attention paid – demands that the president address several key domestic issues.

With majorities in the House and the Senate, a lame-duck president, a sympathetic Supreme Court and a cooperative set of governors, Republicans must set the national agenda and take it on.

Their chance to prove themselves is now, as is their chance to expose their worthlessness. Reform in public education and social security will be useful indicators of the Republicans’ progress in the next four years.

Americans agree with emotive ardor that a national religion is detrimental to society, but what they fail to understand is that federal control of education is equally detrimental for precisely the same reason – one set of ideas should not be imposed upon everyone.

With public education, the federal government has the ability to spread its ideas as well as a captive and impressionable audience on which to spread them.

There is no mention of a Department of Education in the Constitution. Originally, there were no public schools, and, in later years, the decision was left up to the states.

But in the mid-20th century, education became a nationalized matter, with the federal government’s increasing control over the curriculum. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 started the trend; a bill increasing the level of federal aid per year and other 1994 statutes furthered it; and, though sugar-coated in impressive language, the No Child Left Behind Act signed by Bush advanced federal control even more.

Since 2001, federal spending (and thus control) on education has increased by $15 billion.

Whether the opposition lies in economic or moral grounds, there is ample reason to stand against federal public education, even if one supports local public education.

The commander-in-chief must meet similar expectations in reforming our social security system.

According to Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, “In less than 15 years, social security will begin running a deficit, spending more on benefits than it will take in through taxes. Overall, social security faces unfunded liabilities of more than $26 trillion in constant 2004 dollars. That will require much more than a tweak to fix. And the longer we wait to fix it, the worse the problem becomes. In fact, every two-year election cycle that we wait costs an additional $320 billion.”

So what is the solution proposed by the president? It includes, according to Whitehouse.gov, “helping future generations to achieve the American dream” and “spurring national saving and economic growth.”

This is all groovy, but a stronger stand might be necessary. To his credit, the president proposed the creation of individual accounts within the social security system.

But he needs to go further and give hard-working citizens full control over their own income. For, in an adaptation of an ancient Republican slogan, “individuals can save their money better than the government can.”

Republicans believe in property rights, individual choice and individual responsibility – which means, by extension, limited government. Yet under Bush, federal spending increased by the fastest rate in 30 years. This regression is most apparent in the continuously floundering public education system and the ailing social security system.

And it is in these venues that the president must take decisive action to restore the values of his party. If he cannot do it now, I doubt any Republican will do it in the future.

If in four years Bush leaves America unchanged, you can pin me with my own column and ask me why I still vote Republican. But you’ll probably forget, and I’m feeling rather fair and honest right about now.

Hovannisian is a second-year history and philosophy student. E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.