The Election's Over! What Now?

Max Quinn & Aidan Gardiner

Americans erupted onto the streets to celebrate the victory of President-elect Barack Obama. For many, the President-elect embodies the realization of Hope, which has suffered under President Bush's administration. The economy has realigned itself to exploit the discontentment we all felt for the past eight years. We could buy a witty t-shirt, watch The Daily Show, and feel that if not Congress, at least someone was opposing the president. Although multi-faceted, the Obama campaign was in large part supported by this same sentiment. Both Bush discontentment and Obamarama grew to the point where the economy couldn't ignore them and even our personal lives couldn't help but center around them. The conclusion of the President's improprieties and of the 2008 campaign has left millions to ask, "What now?" Did we stop to consider the repercussions of voting for change? Of electing a half-decent president? There comes a new dawn to America, but what does that dawn look like?

Under President Bush, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and other financial giants fell due to poor management and a lack of governmental regulation. Contrary to popular expectations, however, the era of President Obama will undoubtedly damage a number of other industries essential to our economy.

With the fulfillment of Obamarama, Union Square's vastly profitable prObama T-shirt Industrial Complex will endure heavy losses in the weeks and months to come. Now that Obama has been elected, the activist punch of "Yes, We Can" t-shirts has since diminished. It is unlikely that even the slightly modified “Yes We Did” t-shirts can fill the gap. Continuing to wear these is the kind of faux-pas equivalent to wearing pro-suffrage or "Repeal the 18th Amendment" shirts. Wearing a prObama t-shirt is like wearing your complete Megadeth wardrobe to every stop on the Megadeth Gigantour '93. Don't be that guy.

Pins, posters, beach towels, and countless other novelty apparel slandering President Bush will lose its relevance. By January 20, the popular "Not My President" t-shirts bearing President Bush's image will no longer be an indication of resistance, but merely a statement of fact. Across the nation, hippies and limousine liberals alike will mournfully peel "Bush's Last Day In Office" bumper stickers off their Priuses, overflowing our landfills to the point of ecological catastrophe. The departure of President Bush and the subsequent President Obama jubilee will sink profits for anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medications, and other de-stressing commodities like yoga and Whole Foods.

Despite the precarious position in which this post-election market puts us, there are options for President Obama. It's unlikely Congress would be willing to organize a bailout plan for Union Square's political paraphernalia vendors. One potential course of action, however, would be to require the purchase of these items regardless of their lack of temporal relevance. President Obama can mandate every citizen to annually purchase at least one item featuring his shimmering image, until Union Square vendors recover by selling substitute goods like Che Guevara and "Homeland Security" Indian shirts.

While the economy was a central issue during the campaign, many Americans feel that more personal aspects of life are now being threatened as well. The eight years of the Bush Presidency and the two of the Obama campaign have been the glue of many relationships throughout the country. Each respectively brought people together by their mutual resistance of one man and/or hope for the other. While once being able to rely on the conflicts of the world, now couples and friends will be left to discuss their mutual contentment. For the first time since its construction, Lang revolutionaries will sit around the courtyard agreeing with each other. "Remember that time we got what we wanted?"

Having found that most of the nation is in fact on their side, the rebellious image of countless students is crippled. Popular cynic blogger, Blognigger recognized his own obsolescence declaring, "Obama victory renders hipster 'movement' obsolete." Contrarians are left with nothing else but to approve of the status-quo, stripping them of their ever-so-hip-dissidence. That guy who would always whip out the Bush witticisms will be left humorless. While during the election, he could at least rely on Palin quips and Clinton barbs, the token "political joke guy" will have little option else mock his idol or "shut the fuck up."

Professionals in the media too will face a major personal conflict. Whereas before, progressive political pundits such as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher could rely on the absurdities of the Bush agenda to make a profit, they will now be forced to choose between "making bank" by betraying their beloved President, or supporting the status-quo with decidedly less funny jokes. Perhaps the esteemed Dennis Miller will re-emerge as the king of political comedy.

Even more legitimate news sources will experience a vacuum of reportable news. Without Bush's presidential ineptitude, media outlets will have to dig to unexplored depths in search of fresh dirt. Once Obama succeeds in fixing everything (poverty, healthcare, international relations, global warming, etc.), what will remain? Even we at the New School Free Press are beginning to experience a drought of article ideas. The end of all conflicts will inevitably lead to the end of history itself.

In order to revive the already struggling news industry, President Obama will have to act radically. Iran, North Korea, and Russia will become new frontiers of United States police actions that will once again give Americans something about which to constantly bitch. Perhaps it's time to relieve Canada of its vastly profitable oil fields with a mild military occupation. Such a war would re-employ soldiers who'd been out of a job in peace time, re-employ Union Square vendors by allowing them to sell protest shirts again, and give news media something to follow.

What now? America is fueled by discontentment. The possibility of a relatively stable America may in fact be detrimental to our way of life in ways we never could have fathomed. The fabric of both our t-shirts and our society will be torn asunder by the catastrophic hope and joy that we are about to endure. The capacity of this man we have elected to solve our problems is small. The disaster of an Obama presidency will be caused by those who maintain wearing a t-shirt is the same as doing something. What now? Now, we work.

My NS Free Press Illustration for a Che OpEd

Differing Education Policies Between Senators McCain and Obama

Each candidate is quick to remind us that education is key to our future prosperity, but they offer differing fundamental ideologies on the issue. Senator McCain's education plan incorporates free market principals to foster competition between schools, to reward the best and eliminate the worst. Senator Obama's plan would use the federal government to expand educational opportunities and raise every school to a higher standard. Where Senator McCain brings choice, Senator Obama brings right.

"School choice stimulates improvement and creates expanded opportunities for our children to get a quality education," said Senator McCain at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Later, defending vouchers, he argued, "Exciting things are happening in Milwaukee and Cleveland, where school voucher programs have been put in place. There, minority schoolchildren are being given a chance to succeed. The early signs are good: test scores and performance are up." Senator McCain supports the voucher program because it lets parents determine their child's education rather than relying on public schools. Vouchers are given out by school districts to allow families the option to spend their tax money that would've been spent on public school to pay for private school tuition instead. This would create a competitive environment between schools, giving each the incentive to be the best.

From the public education's perspective, Senator McCain's support of NCLB, Centers for Excellence, and vouchers would create "sink or swim" education. This ideology, however great for business, is disastrous for schools. Good schools will prosper and attract students, poorer schools won't turn students away. Because of employment opportunities, many low income families have limited mobility. The students who will be left are those who have nowhere else to go, stuck to flounder in terrible schools. These children's families can't move to other school districts, even if their local school is incompetent. If they did get a voucher, there would be nowhere to redeem it. Senator McCain would force families to choose between their child's education and putting bread on the table—no family should have to make that choice. Every school needs to swim because those that sink won't just sink into obscurity, but will perpetuate bad education. Public schools were originally intended to create informed citizens of the republic, which is essential to democracy. The voucher system and increased competition that Senator McCain proposes would leave many students behind and create an even more uninformed public.

Senator McCain's program proposals for compulsory education are sparse, but his plans for higher education are nearly non-existent. For the most part, higher education in the United States is a private endeavor. Senator McCain's earlier education proposals limit government involvement to promote business. In the same vein, he proposes to simplify tax benefits, simplify federal financial aid, make more information available, fix student lending programs, and of course, cut earmarks. Each of these proposals may streamline the process, but in reality, they do little to help struggling families send their children to college.

In stark contrast, Senator Obama wants an overall increase in federal involvement. "No Child Left Behind left the money behind!" has become a slogan on the campaign trail. While Senator McCain would create one Early Head Start Center for Excellence per state, Senator Obama would quadruple the budget for the program across the board. His massive increases in funding and the creation of many programs demonstrates his belief that education is a right and no one should be deprived of it. His website reads, "Quality public education is the heart of the American promise."

The arguments against Senator Obama's plan fall into three main categories, but can be easily summed up in one conservative slogan, "Big Government Bad." Opponents often argue that first, bureaucracy is ineffective. Second, government doesn't work. And third, free market is better.

Senator Obama plans to create at least six new programs, not to mention expanding some that already exist. This would establish an even more massive bureaucracy than exists today. Bureaucracies are slow, ineffective, and waste taxpayers' money. In a time when our economy is so damaged, we can't afford more wanton spending.

Even if the bureaucracy succeeded, it would still be centered at the federal level and completely detached from the realities on the ground. Education is a highly localized practice because the knowledge students garner needs to reflect the values, needs, and practices of their locality. You don't need to learn Eskimo poetry in Flint, Michigan. You need trades.

Any resolution of these problems would be temporary. Big government is slow to react to sudden needs. Free market is better equipped to regulate education. It can penalize poorly performing schools and teachers, and reward high performance. In a "sink or swim" system, there is more incentive than exists in a welfare state.

Countering Senator McCain's higher education plan, Senator Obama would offer a $4,000 dollar tax credit, a welcome relief for struggling families, but possibly ineffective in the long term. Given the state of the economy, universities are cutting costs and relying more on revenue from tuition. It's not a stretch to imagine tuition rising to a cost that dwarfs the small $4,000 aid.

At times, this election has seemed like a contest of impacts—what will lead us to our ruin first—without any resolution. Education, as any other issue, has a profound effect on the future of our society. Both candidates present their beliefs on how best to solve the problem, but each plan, depending on how you argue, has flaws. It's entirely possible that they're both right, and November 4 will usher in a new dawn of humanity. But it's equally possible that neither can wholly fix our education system, regardless of who wins.