The Hypocrisy of Liberals and Conservatives

The huge amount of people killed by
guns is unique to America in the
developed world.
Source: BBC

According to the CDC in 2013 there were 11,208 firearm homicides, or 70% of the total homicides committed in the United States.  This number is not even close to the total number of people who were killed by firearms in 2013, which stood at a colossal 33,363. Despite this huge problem, the debate over gun laws is a hugely divisive debate.

Many Americans, mostly on the conservative side of the spectrum, will attack any law that restricts the proliferation of firearms as unconstitutional due to the second amendment. Whilst federal gun laws are arguably the weakest they have ever been, for many gun lovers, they are still too strong. Furthermore, despite the failure of the Senate to pass new gun regulations in 2013, many gun rights activists are terrified that the government is going to confiscate their guns.  As a result of the hysteria, many red states have gone ahead and tried to nullify federal gun laws.

In 2014 the Washington Post pointed out that “In Idaho, the Legislature unanimously passed a law to keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. In Kansas, a law passed last year says federal regulation doesn’t apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting “firearms freedom” from the U.S. government since 2010.”

The nullification of federal laws outraged many liberals who decried the efforts as unconstitutional. However I find that many of these same liberals are perfectly happy to advocate nullification in an area that suits them: Marijuana laws.

Source: Pew Research

The federal government classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, which means that it has a high potential for abuse, it has no medical value, there is no way to use the drug safely consume it under medical supervision, and no prescriptions may be written for it. Now whilst you may take issue with this classification (I believe marijuana should be legalised), that is not what this article is about. Whether you like it or not, this is federal law in the United States as it stands today.

As a result of the federal government’s ridiculous laws on marijuana, many states have effectively tried to nullify federal law on the issue. As it stands now 19 states have legalised medical marijuana, 14 have decriminalised possession and four (plus Washington D.C.) have legalised marijuana for recreational purposes. This is a direct violation of federal laws. Many conservatives have railed against the wave of marijuana legalisation in states across America, frustrated that they have effectively nullified federal law.

So my question to liberals is this: why is it acceptable to nullify federal laws on marijuana but totally unacceptable to nullify federal gun laws? And for conservatives, why is it acceptable to nullify federal laws on guns but totally unacceptably to nullify federal marijuana laws?

These questions have totally stumped me, I can't think of a way for liberals or conservatives to justify their respective beliefs. If anyone would be kind enough to offer me an explanation, other than the obvious that people support whatever results in them getting their way, that would be great! 

If You Thought 2012 Was Messy, Just Wait For 2016

If you remember anything from the 2012 Republican primaries, it is likely that you remember just how much of a mess it was. The debates were especially memorable, in part because there were so many of them, but mostly because of the gaffes of the candidates and the actions of the audiences.

The crowded field hurt the Party significantly in 2016
source: www.slate.com

Rick Perry completely derailed his bid when he declared “It’s three agencies of government when I get there that are gone; commerce, education and the… um…” it took him 15 minutes to remember that the third was energy. Mitt Romney showed himself to be completely out of touch with the ordinary American when he offered Perry a bet of $10,000. When one of the moderators asked Perry about the huge amount of executions that he had signed off on as governor (234, by far the largest amount of any governor in modern times) he received a resounding applause from the audience. The audience also booed a former solider because he was gay and when Ron Paul was asked whether or not he would be prepared to let a man die because he didn’t have health insurance, the audience enthusiastically shouted “YES”! I could go on, but I feel you get the picture.

The primary was also a mess due to the huge amount of candidates that led the polls for a short amount of time. Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum all led the polls for periods of time leading to absolute media frenzy. Michele Bachmann was also considered to have a real chance after she won the Iowa Straw Poll (despite the fact that it has no indication of real support, as votes are effectively bought).

Will the 2016 primaries be any different to the mess that was 2012? Well yes and no. Firstly the Republican Party has learnt from the mistake of having far too many debates, in 2016 there will only be ten official debates. Any candidate who decides to participate in unofficial debates, will be “sanctioned”.

However the cavalcade of comedy that was the Republican Primary will likely repeat itself in 2016. One of the problems is that there is no ‘obvious’ candidate for the Republican Party in the way that Hilary Clinton is the ‘obvious’ candidate for the Democratic Primary. As a result the field is wide open to any Republican with presidential ambitions. At the moment I would say there are no fewer than 11 potential front runners. That number is about double the amount of front runners in 2012. This would make it an even bigger farce than 2012. The crowded field also means that Republicans will coalesce around their candidate far later than Democrats (assuming Hilary does win), further weakening their chances of winning the presidency.

Jeb Bush: He is the former governor of Florida and son of former President George H.W. Bush. Despite his family name, his moderation and support for comprehensive immigration reform make him the best hope the Republicans have of winning in 2016. Whether they actually choose him is another kettle of fish entirely. Very likely to run

Ben Carson: Carson is a Tea Party hero and a very smart guy (he is a neurosurgeon after all), and as a black man he is frequently held up by the Tea Party as evidence that they are not racist. However he has never held elected office before and I doubt will actually win the primary. If he did he would lose the Presidential election to even the weakest Democrat.  Very likely to run

Chris Christie: Before his administration (he’s governor of New Jersey) became engulfed in scandal after scandal, most people felt that he had the best shot of winning the primary. Unfortunately for Christie several scandals have completely jeopardised his chances. Despite this I rate him very likely to run.

Ted Cruz: Another darling of the Tea Party, Cruz has established himself as one of the most conservative and radical Senators since he won election in 2012. In 2013 he was one of the primary causes of the government shutdown that infuriated Americans. It is interesting that so many of the birthers that considered Obama ineligible to be President because they believed, without evidence, that he was born in Kenya, support Cruz despite being born in a foreign country (Canada). Of course the colour of their skin totally doesn't have anything to do this inconsistency. Almost certain to run

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee first ran for the Presidency in 2008 before losing to John McCain. He recently left his lucrative job at Fox News, leading many to speculate that he was preparing himself for a Presidential bid in 2016. Probably will run

Bobby Jindal: He is the current governor of Louisiana and has been rumoured to have been mulling a run for the Presidency for years. He recently attended a prayer rally held by the American Family Association (which the Southern Poverty Law Centre defines as a hate group) in Louisiana; Rick Perry used a similar event to help launch his (first?) failed presidential bid. Might run

Rand Paul: He is the son of Ron Paul and has inherited a lot of his father’s support from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. However he is both more moderate and electable than his father. Interestingly if he does run he will be unable to run for re-election to Senate, even if he loses in the primary. This means that he takes a huge risk by running in 2016! Almost certain to run

Rick Perry: Yes, he is seriously hoping to run again in 2016. His chances, however, are slim to none. Might run

Marco Rubio: For the first half of 2013 Rubio looked like he had a real shot at the presidency, easily outpacing his opponents according to the Huffington Post’s average of polls. However since then he has largely dropped off the radar. Might run

Paul Ryan: Despite being a member of the establishment, Ryan is on good terms with the Tea Party base. This kind of support could work very well in a primary election; add to that the visibility he was lent when Mitt Romney chose him as his running mate in 2012, he could be a strong candidate. Despite this he is not polling strongly, which could result in him skipping the race. Considering his relative youth (he’s 45), there will be plenty of future potential races. Might run

Scott Walker: The governor of Wisconsin could prove a real player in next year’s primaries if he decides to run. However the scandals in his administration would receive far more news coverage than they have currently, which could trough a spanner into the works for Walker. Might run