A Very Fitting Inaugural Last Lecture

Tuesday night, Americans for Informed Democracy sponsored the inaugural lecture of the Last Lecture Series at Boston College. The premise of the Last Lecture series is a challenge to the professors speaking to give a lecture on the final message they would wish to impart on students, were it their last chance to speak. AID and the BC community at large were immensely honored to have the premier speaker in this series be Rev. Michael Himes, who is, without a doubt, one of the best lecturers on campus. This fact was not only very aptly demonstrated by the speaker himself, it was also reflected in the huge audience that turned out for the event and the rapt attention they paid to the lecture, despite many seated on the floor or standing for the duration. Regardless of their positions, the entire audience was deeply moved by Father Himes's outstanding Last Lecture.

It was an important event for the Americans for Informed Democracy club on several levels. Father Himes emphasized the need to ask the right questions, which is especially meaningful for AID. As a non-partisan club seeking to inform students about the important issues, AID strives to provide information and let the students make their own decisions. Many AID events on campus involve having guest speakers who talk about the issues that they care about. From these events, attendees can learn from the questions and answers the speakers present. This kind of constant conversation was another emphasis of Father Himes's lecture, which all in attendance could take to heart.

Father Himes's Last Lecture was a powerful and moving event that drew a crowd bigger than the venue could contain. This excellently delivered and emotionally charged oration was an incredibly influential event for AID; a jumping-off point of sorts, in terms of getting attention for the club. Now present in the BC consciousness, the Americans for Informed Democracy club is wrapping up this semester with big plans for Spring!

Inaugural "Last Lecture" A Success

AID sponsored its inaugural "Last Lecture" event Tuesday night, headlined by Reverend Michael Himes.

It was the first in a planned series of orations inspired by Randy Pausch's popular book, The Last Lecture. Rev. Himes was asked to reflect upon what he would say were he giving the final lecture of his life and then give that lecture to BC students. 

Originally scheduled to be held in Higgins 300, it was eventually moved to the Murray Function Room due to the anticipation of a large crowd. Truth be told, the size of the audience ended up being better suited for Robsham Theatre, with an estimated thousand people packing into every inch of available space. 

After jokingly proposing a solution to the problem of providing the promised desserts to everyone in attendance (it involved a few loaves of bread and some fish), Rev. Himes discussed the importance of giving ourselves to others and how we can go about doing it. Paradoxically, he said that if we try to hold on to life, we will lose it; it is when we give our lives away that we are truly living. 

During the discussion Rev. Himes suggested that the best way to learn something is to teach it. In addition, he expressed that it is not enough to reflect on reality; we must be actively engaged in life to gain a full appreciation for and understanding of it. He also explored the concept of friendship and its immense value. But all of his lecture spoke in one way or another to the overarching concept of giving oneself to others. 

...

Rev. Himes's lecture was truly amazing. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to do it justice in my own words. What I can say is that his speech was one of the most remarkable experiences I have had in my first year here at BC, one that I will not soon forget. The next "Last Lecture,"planned for Spring 2009, will have a tough act to follow. 

Why You Really Should Listen to Your Professors

Although an election is not really over until all the votes are counted, and one of the candidates concedes to the other, this election had, in many minds, been decided for a good time prior to the results on the Fourth. This idea came out especially strongly in the panel discussion on foreign policy, hosted by AID last week (October 28). Of the three professors on the panel, Marc Landy, Mike Chapman, and Mark Sheetz, the two former stated outright that they believed that Senator Barak Obama would win the election. Despite this, the panel was well-balanced ideologically, and ended up being a fascinating event that all in attendance appreciated and enjoyed.

First to present his opinion was Professor Sheetz, who gave the most even amount of time to the foreign policy positions of both candidates in this election. He began his analysis of the policies by explaining that he would try to use as much of the candidates own words as possible, and also touched on the idea that agreement on certain issue between the candidates was not necessarily a positive thing as both candidates could be wrong. The analysis then went across the subject areas of diplomatic hotspots, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, and humanitarian issues. One of the similarities between the candidates' positions that Professor Sheetz emphasized was their common belief in the moral and cultural supremacy of the United States. More than once, Professor Sheetz referred to Senator Obama's more idealistic notions as derived from some "airy-fairy land," and he also expressed his regret that Senator McCain appears to want to return to a Cold War stance toward the world at large. The comparison of the two candidates concluded with the explanation that both candidates seemed to want to get back to the US being the leader of the free world, and in the pursuit of this, expanding the military.

The second panelist to speak was Professor Chapman, who introduced himself again as a history professor and explained how from his perspective, he was much more concerned with the long-term picture of things. He went on to say that he did not particularly believe that presidential issues tend to have much to do with the real way that foreign policy operates at any given moment, mainly because of the imbedded issues at work. In that sense, Professor Chapman explained that much of US policy is directed toward perceived hotspots which may or may not necessarily be useful allies or campaigns. The emphasis in this explanation was mainly on the ethical burden the US carried based on its self-assigned need to police the world, and how the true effects of things happening now will not be seen for years to come. Some of the urgent problems Professor Chapman spoke on, that he felt the new president would face, were the issues of such a strong Israel and weak Pakistan, oil issues, Turkey and the Kurds, and the Balkans. He also expressed the European sentiment toward the US, the idea that what gives the US the right to meddle with the world. Throughout these explanations, there was no particular emphasis on a specific candidate, as the professor said early on that he fully expected Senator Obama to win the election and so there would be no point in talking about the two sides.

Last but not least to voice and opinion on the state of foreign policy in the US was Professor Marc Landy, who introduced himself as the interesting part of the panel; the dissenter of sorts. He also agreed from the beginning with Professor Chapman, that Senator Obama would win the election easily. Professor Landy then went on, with plenty of spirit, to talk about how the US has been and will continue to be a global leader, and that the next president should continue to employ such a policy in dealing with international affairs. Using one of the words both his fellow panelists had said more than once, Professor Landy talked about how the US has "meddled" in other nations in some good ways, such as the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and possibly even Iraq now. Militarily speaking, he explained that both the Democrats and the Republicans have made some historic mistakes in their policies. Mainly, that the Democrats put too much stock in the "happy talk" of diplomacy and underrate military strength, and that the Republicans overrate the spreading of democracy as a policy and might be overly optimistic on the potential for democracy around the world. Professor Landy, unlike Professor Sheetz, was heartened, he claimed, by the similarities in the candidates. He concluded with a statement of optimism at Senator Obama's appreciation of the role of the US in the world.

The panel concluded with a Question-and-Answer section, where some points were clarified, and some new points were discussed. Professor Sheetz talked about Senator McCain's policy with regards to humanitarian intervention as being very safe, politically - that McCain had set it up so as to have an out so he would not have to commit to any causes that were not immediately beneficial to the US. Professor Landy was asked about who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" were in Iraq, and concluded that once everyone was on the same page as the US, everyone would be a "good guy". Professor Chapman explained that though he did not agree with all of Senator Obama's domestic policies, he was excited about the change Obama would bring to the realm of foreign policy.

All in all, the panel was a huge success, both in the discussion of the state of foreign policy in the US and in getting students fired up about the things to come in the future. And, with the results of the election overtly predicted by two of the three panelists, showed that professors really do know what they are talking about.

A Night for the Ages

On one of the most significant nights in our nation's history, Barack Obama became the first African American to be elected President of the United States of America.

He won in comfortable fashion over GOP candidate John McCain and was declared the winner around 11pm Eastern time. Senator McCain conceded the election with grace, congratulating Obama and urging that all Americans put their support behind him, no matter who they voted for. 

An hour later, Obama gave a stirring victory speech, highlighting the historic significance of the election, the greatness of our nation, and the challenges that lie ahead. 

Key moments on Tuesday were Obama's victories in Pennsylvania and Ohio, two states that McCain had hoped (and maybe needed) to win. Obama also won Virginia and Florida, all but sealing the end result. 

In addition, Democrats gained seats in both the House and Senate. As of today they have a 57 - 40 advantage in the Senate and a 259 - 176 majority in the House of Representatives. 

...

No matter how you feel about Mr. Obama's ideology, no one can deny the significance of his win. Only 60 years ago African Americans had a difficult time voting in this country, but now we will have an African American in the White House. We are far from an end to racism in America, but surely Tuesday was a giant leap in the right direction.

Tuesday night was significant in another way in that it likely signaled the dawn of a new era in American politics. In a startlingly consistent demographic trend, the younger the voting block, the more heavily it supported Senator Obama. The election in this way seems to be an ushering in of the younger generation. 

But the greatest gift that President-Elect Obama has bestowed upon America is inspiration. Not since JFK and MLK has America seen a leader with such ability to inspire and unite a people. Not convinced? Watch his speech. If it doesn't give you goosebumps, check your pulse. 

Clearly, we now have a great opportunity to bring about great change in our country. But in Mr. Obama's own words, "This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were." Our next President cannot bring change alone - it is up to us to make it happen. 

Hey Liberals, Don't Worry

Cushioning the blow, in case of an upset. Opinion from William Kristol.

From the New York Times, November 3, 2008.

Barack Obama will probably win the 2008 presidential election. If he does, we conservatives will greet the news with our usual resolute stoicism or cheerful fatalism. Being conservative means never being too surprised by disappointment.

But what if John McCain pulls off an upset?

I’m worried about my compatriots on the left. Michael Powell reports in Saturday’s New York Times that even the possibility of an Obama defeat has driven many liberals into in a state of high anxiety. And then there’s a young woman from Denver who “told her boyfriend that their love life was on hold while she sweated out Mr. Obama’s performance in Colorado.” Well, what if Obama loses Colorado? Or the presidency? As a compassionate conservative, I’m concerned about the well-being of that boyfriend — and of others who might be similarly situated. I feel an obligation to help.

So let me tell liberals why they should be cheerful if McCain happens to win.

1. It would be a victory for an underdog. Liberals are supposed to like underdogs. McCain is a lonely guy standing up against an unprecedentedly well-financed, superorganized, ExxonMobil-like Obama juggernaut. A McCain upset victory would be a classic liberal happy ending.

2. It would be a defeat for the establishment. Obama’s most recent high-profile Republican endorser was D.C. insider Kenneth Duberstein. Liberals should be on the side of hard-working plumbers, not big-shot lobbyists — oops, sorry, big-shot strategic advisers and consultants. And Duberstein said that Colin Powell’s endorsement was “the Good Housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama.” Doesn’t that comment embody everything that liberals (and many conservatives, including me) find creepy about smug establishment back-scratching and gatekeeping in America?

3. It would be a victory for the future. With President Bush’s approval rating at about 25 percent, a McCain triumph would mean Americans were making a judgment on two future alternatives, not merely voting on the basis of their resentment at the past performance of George W. Bush. It would mean voters were looking ahead, not back. Liberals should therefore welcome a McCain win as a triumph of hope over fear, of the future over the past.

4. It would be a victory for freedom. Obama supporter Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic writes that “tyrants and génocidaires would sleep less soundly during a McCain presidency.” Liberals should be opposed to tyranny and genocide. Wieseltier also acknowledges that McCain “was splendidly right about the surge, which is not a small thing; and the grudging way Obama treats the reversal in Iraq, when he treats it at all, is disgraceful.” The surge advanced not only our national security but the cause of freedom in the world. Liberals should be votaries of freedom.

5. A McCain victory would be good for liberalism. Look at recent history. Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress begat Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress produced Newt Gingrich. Who knows what would follow a President Obama and a Democratic Congress? Here’s one possibility: President Sarah Palin.

So liberals shouldn’t be too upset at the idea of McCain winning. Could it happen?

It’s possible. What if the polls, for various reasons, are overstating Obama’s support by a couple points? And what if the late deciders break overwhelmingly against Obama, as they did in the Democratic primaries? McCain could then thread the Electoral College needle.

McCain would have to win every state where he now leads or is effectively even in the polls (including North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri). He’d have to take Florida and Ohio, where he’s about four points down but where operatives on the ground give him a pretty good shot. That gets him to 247 of the 270 votes needed.

McCain’s path to victory is then to snatch Pennsylvania (which gets him to 268), and win either Virginia, Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico (states where he trails by about four to seven points) — or New Hampshire, where he’s 10 points behind but twice won dramatic primary victories.

As for Pennsylvania, two recent polls have McCain closing to within four points. Pennsylvania is the state whose small-town residents were famously patronized by Obama as “bitter.” One of Pennsylvania’s Democratic congressmen, John Murtha, recently accused many of his western Pennsylvania constituents of being racist. Perhaps Pennsylvanians will want to send a little message to the Democratic Party. And that could tip the election to McCain.

It’s an inside straight. But I’ve seen gamblers draw them.

If McCain wins, think of this column as a modest contribution to cheering up distraught liberals. If Obama prevails, I’m confident there are some compassionate liberals out there who will do the same for hapless conservatives as they hobble out to the wilderness.