Election 2008

History is a funny thing. People often say "history is written by the winners." I always felt the most profound part of that statement is not the realization that the successful have the ability to document their own greatness, but the implication that history continues to be written. History is written. People all over the world are talking about how today's US presidential election has changed history. I disagree. Obama said "change has come to America." I disagree. Yes, of course Obama is different from Bush. However, McCain is also different from Bush. Both campaigns pushed the image that their candidate was different. This is made clear through Obama's "change" and McCain's "maverick." The one who holds the office the president will change on January 20, 2009. This is inevitable. I hope with this straightforward change, the transferring of a position from one to another, will bring with it more change. Congratulations America, we no longer feel the need to elect a white male president. However, there is still change to come.

This past year, two strong women in the national political spotlight were criticised for being inappropriately feminine, for neglecting their families, for spending too much on their clothes. Political commentators focused on outfits, hairstyles, and even made remarks about weight, while often neglecting experience and policy. There is a fifty year gap between the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) and the Nineteenth Amendment (1920). Fifty years passed after African-Americans were given the right to vote before women were given the same right. Today women can run for president. This year's election proved that women are more than capable of running a tough race for the White House. However, it is by no means the same race that a white man runs. Hillary Clinton was forced to simultaneously disprove claims that a woman is too weak and too emotional to run a country while remaining a mother, a wife, and a woman. Her "strong female" approach caused some to call her unfeminine. Sarah Palin often seemed the complete opposite. She often referred to her role as a mother and her children made national headlines. Some journalists focused on her history as a beauty queen and her "hotness" while neglecting to pose serious questions of her policies and credentials. Change is happening, as it has been since the birth of America, but the nation is still by no means a perfect union.

Prior to November 4th, journalists and the country worried about the Bradley Effect. We were concerned that people would say one thing in the public polls and do another in the privacy of a voting booth. Barack Obama led in most polls leading up to election day, but polls and the actual vote are different entities. The Bradley Effect concerns me deeply. I don't understand what would motivate a person to announce a choice publicly while secretly harboring other feelings. Furthermore, polls are usually anonymous except in the fact that you're declaring your opinion to another person directly instead of to a touch screen or piece of paper. True, some worry about judgement, but really, the job of pollsters is not to judge. America was founded for freedom, not judgement. Ultimately, many breathed a sigh of relief when it was made clear that the Bradley Effect didn't alter the outcome of the presidential election. However, I'm far from convinced that this fear of judgement paired with secret bias is no longer an issue in America. One issue this year polled well for freedom and social change. Polls indicated as high as a 55% majority against discrimination. However, in reality, equality lost. This measure in California would have assured same-sex couples the right to marry. Discriminaton comes not only in the forms of racism and sexism, but also in heterosexism. The Bradley Effect is still affecting the way Americans vote and voice their opinion.

I am saddened, but not shocked, that amendments to three state constitutions legally defining marriage as between one man and one woman passed yesterday. Proponents of these amendments argued for "strong family values" and "traditional family" and accused their opponents of forcing their "homosexual agenda" while simultaneously forcing their own beliefs. Yes, the Bible says homosexual activity is a sin (Leviticus 18:22, among others). However, I challenge anyone to truly lead a Biblical life today. True, it's much easier not to covet your neighbor's slaves (male or female) and to refrain from literally throwing the first stone, but I believe many would find the other lessons of the Bible a little more difficult. Do we keep the Sabbath holy? Refrain from touching or eating the carcass of a pig (Leviticus 11: 7-8)? Yes, some people refuse to work on Sunday, and others don't eat pork or play football, but are these decisions required by law?

"Pro-family" supporters contend that one man, one woman, and children make an ideal family. Is this true? Maybe. Perhaps I would have been better off with both a mother and a father for my entire childhood. Does that mean my family is a weaker or lesser family? I believe a family is as strong as the love that encompasses and surrounds it. Furthermore, I believe if a family is made weaker by the love of another family, then there are much larger issues. Proponents of Proposition 8 in California, Amendment 2 in Florida, and Proposition 102 in Arizona claim that a vote to legalize same-sex marriage will destroy families. I fail to see how this will happen. Instead, families that are led by two women or two men instead of one of each are told that they are inferior and thus are not allowed the same rights. Separate but equal has not worked in the past. A pro-Prop 8 commercial in California claimed that churches could lose their tax exemption and children would be forced to learn about gay marriage in public schools. Since these amendments passed, hospital visitation, property inheritance, and adoption will be denied to families headed by same-sex couples. I don't understand how an amendment against gay marriage promotes families as severely as it harms them. In the past, the arguments against interracial marriage also claimed to be protecting families as they imprisoned people for loving a person with different colored skin. It wasn't until 1967 that Loving v. Virginia abolished the horrible laws restricting people to marry only those of the same race. Ninety-seven years passed after people had the right to vote regardless of race until people had the right to marry regardless of race. How long will we have to wait until people have the right to marry the person they love regardless of gender?

Change is coming, and history continues to be written. Yes, Barack Obama's ascension to the office of the President of the United States is a milestone in American history. However, we as a country cannot relax and congratulate ourselves for stepping past our history of discrimination by electing a president with a dark skin tone. Tonight Barack Obama declared "This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change." We must continue to fight against the arrogance that we confuse with pride, and the condescension that we confuse with acceptance. Yes we can change the world, but only if we continue to fight for it.