Although not always #1, the loud-mouthed leader of OFWGKTA made serious waves this year with the release of his album Goblin. If you’re a 16-year-old white male or particularly engaged in the indier-than-thou music world, you’ve known about Tyler’s unique, offensive, and brutish style since his self-released album Bastard. But for many of us, his fame really came into light when he won MTV’s Best New Artist for his song “Yonkers.” It’s cooler than cool to think of Tyler as the next great visionary, with provocative lyrics and a sound unlike anything else.

And before I start: yes, I “get” it. His overall sound is reminiscent of good old-school hip-hop, with no auto-tuning. I appreciate how real his music sounds without industry frills or needing a Nicki Minaj verse or two to get people to listen. That’s not why you should hate him.

What MTV (and what seems like a majority of the hip music critics out there) fails to find fault in is Tyler’s sickeningly violent persona steeped in his lyrics – which many in the industry praise obscenely for being so innovative and creative. “Although these lyrics are violent, that’s the point,” says Olivia Sledzik of The Blue and Grey. That seems to be the argument of many music reviewers, at least. The industry can’t seem to get enough of his edginess, dripping with violent homophobic and misogynistic lyrics. And when he’s not making a joke about killing himself, he’s rapping from a perspective of a rapist, or making jokes about rape and domestic violence in general.

Tyler, the Creator — “Yonkers”

His lyrics are at time cringe-worthy, with rhymes like “I’ll crash that fucking airplane that that fucking nigga B.o.B. is in /
And stab Bruno Mars in his goddamn esophagus.” And while at times the hipsters of the world agree that auto-tuning and Top-40 jams are killing music as we know it, his overtly aggressive lyric – featured in the song that earned Tyler an MTV award in the first place – is deemed by the industry to be so raw and real that we should be praising his free speech, not demonizing it. Consider these telling lyrics from his eloquently titled “Bitch Suck Dick:”

Beat your bitch in her mouth just for talkin’ shit
You lurkin’ bitch? Well, I see that shit
Once again I gotta punch a bitch in her shit
I’m icy bitch, don’t look at my wrist
Because if you do, I might blind you bitch

It’s not just his lyrics – it’s his personality, too. His Twitter account is drenched in homophobic slurs such as “faggot” and “gay” (as an adjective). In any interview I have watched of him, such as this one in Interview magazine, Tyler drops the f-bomb like it’s his job.

I don’t think Tyler, the Creator is actually a bad guy. In one interview in particular, he even seems harmless: “Everyone thinks about dark shit, why when somebody fuckin’ says it is it such a big deal, you know?” His jokes about rape, he says, are supposed to be “a storyline.” “I’m writing this song from the mind of some fuckin’ serial killer from thirty years ago who’s a white male. Like, really? If they sit back and actually listen to the fuckin’ coolness and genius of it, like, shit, that’s what irks me.” He even compares his “art” to that of Quentin Tarantino, claiming that the violence in both Tarantino’s iconic films and his music that of the same genre of “art.”

Tyler also says that he’s not homophobic. “I just say ‘faggot’ and use ‘gay’ as an adjective to describe stupid shit.” He goes on to explain that things just do not offend him the way it might offend someone else, that he just “doesn’t give a shit.”

Perhaps the most public condemnation of Tyler’s music came from Sara Quin of the band Tegan and Sara. She wrote a very eloquent piece titled “A Call for Change,” saying that “In any other industry would I be expected to tolerate, overlook, and find deeper meaning in this kid’s sickening rhetoric? Why should I care about this music or its ‘brilliance’ when the message is so repulsive and irresponsible?” to which, Tyler responded with a simple Tweet: “If Tegan And Sara Need Some Hard Dick, Hit Me Up!”

And yet, this still is not why you should hate Tyler, the Creator.

To be perfectly honest, Tyler’s just a kid. He has no idea what impact his lyrics have on society, especially when his music is praised so openly by a plethora of young minds, listening to his songs as an example of how to think and act. Perhaps, you say, someone should combat this young and disturbed rapper’s culture of violence with words of wisdom; something like, “Now Tyler, even though the industry is praising your innovation, this gives you more power than you really know what to do with, and your violent, homophobic and misogynistic lyrics, even if they are with a twistedly ‘good’ intention, are perpetuating a culture which is accepting of these offenses and makes them seemingly okay to your fans, other listeners, and society as a whole.” But alas, Tyler would probably retort with a similarly juvenile comeback that he gave Sara Quin.

You shouldn’t hate Tyler, the Creator for being sexist, or homophobic, or violent because in the end, we as a society of listeners are merely making it okay for him to keep making music by accepting this culture of violence into our Top 50 Albums of the Year, et cetera. Tyler isn’t edgy, he isn’t fighting the system, he’s an obnoxious kid, who thinks making art consists of taking all of the confused feelings or jokes he and his friends think are clever and making music with them. In the end, we should hate ourselves for even paying attention to him.

Photo by mehan via Flickr.

Even the campus itself, enclosed by two updated buildings on either side, reinforces the domination of The School of International Studies and The School of Public Affairs. For many of us, the lives of chemistry and biology majors remain a mystery shrouded in intimidating equations and chemical compounds. However, the budding success of the Public Health major may mark a resurgence of science at American.

Although it’s not the usual selling point, American boasts flourishing math and science departments. According to its annual newsletter, the pre-medical program had 88 percent of its students attend medical school after the 2011 school year.  And under the direction of Professors Jeffery Adler and Joshua Lanksy, two undergraduate mathematics students proved a complex theory that may have implications for the natural world and other branches of mathematics.

But how do professors attract humanities students to these programs who have strong aversions to math and science? The answer may reside in the rise of interdisciplinary programs that bridge social and natural sciences.

The Public Health program, launched as a major this fall, is the most recent example. Professors from CAS across several disciplines came together and combined psychology, history, and education, finally pitching the idea to the associate dean.

According to the major description, public health constitutes “one of the greatest mandates of our time.” History Professor Alan Kraut echoed this idea. As an expert in the history of medicine in the United States, Kraut was an essential member of the CAS initiative.

In its infancy, Kraut is hopeful about the new major. “It’s a really terrific initiative,” he stated. “I’m really very high on the program.”

The program requires that students take classes ranging from biology to philosophy, providing a holistic core program. And to bolster the science aspect of the major, the university just hired an epidemiologist. Within the program, students choose focuses in Global Health, Health Science, and other policy tracks.

Kraut sees strength in this interdisciplinary approach. Learning about an issue from a multitude of perspectives is “very stimulating.”

For instance, studying the history of public health movements, for instance, is important to understand how health care systems continue to evolve.

“Think of what your life would be like if water wasn’t pure, your food wasn’t pure,” he commented.

This comprehensive approach constitutes a growing trend among students. According to Professor Maria de Jesus, who teaches courses in International Relations, the public health classes are gaining traction: “I’ve had more students ask me about health and how to pursue careers in health.”

In her own studies, the intersection between health and culture always fascinated De Jesus. She saw value in consulting economists, political scientists and anthropologists to investigate the multidimensional nature of health care, as well as synthesizing different epistemologies.

“To me, it’s the perfect marriage,” she said. “There is a demographic imperative for understanding culture; we are a part of a global village.”

De Jesus is a strong advocate of the multidisciplinary approach. By taking a variety of classes, students grasp the determinants that affect health, such as socioeconomics and cross-cultural communication. She sees strength in the fact that American offers a public health major instead of a traditional pre-med program.

By looking at health issues not solely from a biomedical standpoint, students learn to understand health within broader issues. This major, she asserts, is on the cutting edge of interdisciplinary fields: “AU is in a particularly strong position to do that. What we do have is a broader social context.”

For students, the program provides a unique opportunity to study both science and international relations. Nicole Cultuli, a freshman, wrestled between the two disciplines as she tried to pin down a major.

“My senior year I took Advanced Placement biology and Current Issues, [an introduction to International Relations] and I absolutely loved both of them. I thought I would have to choose between science and IR, and I came in as an IR major. I started rethinking my choice and considering medicine again and wanted a way to combine them,” she said.

Although she concedes that science majors are unpopular at American, the buzz around the Public Health program suggests the discipline is on the rise.

After attending an informational meeting, Cutuli learned more about the interdisciplinary approach to the program, and was encouraged to see a strong turnout. The audience included undergraduates, graduates, and even alumni.

After the meeting, Cutuli was visibly and audibly enthused by the program’s potential. “The possibilities are looking good because of the resources and the professors.”

Photo by Amin Tabrizi via Flickr.

In 2008, 67% of undergraduate students in the US took out loans in order to finance their educations. That number is an increase from previous years, up 27% since 2004. Another increase has been tuition rates at public and private universities. Here at American University, tuition will increase 3.8% for the 2012-2013 school year. According to the published university budget, this is the lowest tuition increase in the last 15 years. According to this estimation, AU tuition has almost doubled since 1997. Students graduating AU in 2009 had, on average, $40,966 in debt, significantly more than students at peer institutions George Washington and Georgetown. In fact, AU is among the top 20 high debt private nonprofit schools.

However, AU’s notoriously high tuition rates are not necessarily to blame for the high debt amongst AU students. Many schools, such as Princeton University, Williams College, and the California Institute of Technology are known for charging similar amounts for tuition as AU but have no-loan or reduced-loan financial aid policies for working and middle class students. Students at these schools graduate with, on average, less than $10,000 in student debt.

Another factor in student debt rates is demographics. 83% of the matriculating freshman class in 2011 received some form of financial aid, merit and need based. The class of 2015 is also one of the most diverse student bodies so far at AU. While the administration has stepped up efforts to recruit students from all sorts of socio-economic backgrounds, it needs to be prepared to provide more financial aid if this recruitment effort is going to be successful.

An additional factor to look at when considering student debt is the cost of living around colleges and universities. AU’s location in the wealthy Spring Valley neighborhood does not help students at all. In the third quarter of 2011, the median price of homes sold in 20016 was over $800,000. The cost of living in traditional dorms at AU is currently $9,144 for two semesters, and meal plans cost between $1,423 and $2,846 per semester. Moving off campus is not especially more affordable either. Studio apartments in the Berkshires, a popular off campus apartment building cost $1,559 per month, and one bedroom apartments cost $1,695 per month. That means that sharing an small apartment for nine months costs over $7,500.

Student debt has already passed credit card debt as the highest form of debt in the United States, expected to reach a total of one trillion dollars in the coming year. Currently, 15% of borrowers default on their student loans. Without action by educational institutions and the federal government to reduce debt, the country will soon find itself in a situation even worse than the recent subprime mortgage crisis.

Want to learn more about the student debt crisis? Come to AWOL’s screening of DEFAULT: The Student Loan Documentary Tuesday 11/15 at 8:30 in MGC 200. Check out the Facebook event for more information.

Photo by EU Social via Flickr.

Miss Representation

Written, directed and produced by actress and activist Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the film explores how the exploitation of women in mainstream media directly contributes to the under-representation of women in government and other positions of power in America. Stories from women in the media, like Rachel Maddow, Margaret Cho, Katie Couric, Condoleezza Rice and Gloria Steinem, punctuate the documentary’s alarming message.

Most startling is the evidence of self-objectification, in which a woman’s poor self-perception makes her more at risk for depression and eating disorders, and less likely to vote and run for office. According to the film, this self-objectification is a direct result of pervasive media messages from an early age. Consider Disney movies, in which every female protagonist only wants to find a husband.

“There’s just as much chance of women wearing revealing clothing in G-rated movies as in R-rated movies,” actress Geena Davis says in the documentary.

This objectification has serious effects on girls’ self-esteem. When polled, 30 percent of children age 7 say they want to be president when they grow up. But when posed the same question at age 15, a gender gap emerges. As a result, the U.S. is 90^th in the world in terms of the number of women in political office.

As one media professional in the film puts it: “We’re a nation of teenage boys. We don’t know what to do when a professional woman is in front of us.”

The film in large part blames capitalism for this phenomenon, saying that painting women in this way by “giving us what we want” perpetuates the stereotype.

In a post-screening discussion, Mariah Craven, director of communications and marketing at the Washington Area Women’s Foundation, said the media is worse now than it has ever been.

“Attainability is the thing,” Craven said. “When I was little, I could grow up and be Claire Huxtable. I could not grow up and be Beyonce.”

Craven echoed the documentary by emphasizing media literacy and being discerning in the media we ingest.

“There are more women on TV this season, but what are the shows? Pan Am, The Playboy Club, 2 Broke Girls.” Craven said. “There’s perhaps quantity, but not quality.”

Youngmin Yi, program assistant at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, said it’s critical to start supporting women’s work in the media.

“Bookmark their blogs!” Yi said, “Gail Collins is my personal favorite.”

Craven said she agrees with the film’s call to boycott misogynistic media sources to stop the stereotype.

“It’s not that women in the media are too sexy,” Craven said. “It’s that that’s all that’s out there. Speaking up is critical.”

Miss Representation will air on the Oprah Winfrey Network at 11 A.M. on November 12.

Miss Representation trailer

Photo by Amberley Romo

New York Magazine — “The Kids Are Actually Sort of Alright”: Noreen Malone on how the twentysomethings are making do in the recession of their generation.

SONG OF THE DAY courtesy of the Occupy Wall Street drummers — and how their beats may be the loudest debate of the protests (via NPR).

The Washington Post says IBM just named its first female CEO.

The Economist — “The Hypocrisy and the West: When to Celebrate a Death”: “The assassination in Pakistan in May of Osama bin Laden, without the Pakistani government’s knowledge, let alone permission, and the Western-backed onslaught on Sirte which culminated in the death of Qaddafi leave an impression of double standards.”

TBD: How the Occupy protests have spread to universities.

From The Chronicle – The possible consequences of Mississippi’s “Personhood Amendment, and why it’s not just about abortion.

And finally: What is the Herman Cain campaign smoking?

EVENTS

The return of the Washington Psychotronic Film Society: The group that brings the weird, bizarre and unacknowledged films to Washington is back in full force with a free “Halloweenathon” at McFadden’s in Foggy Bottom. Monday Oct. 31 at 7 PM

Landlessness in Brazil: A Conversation with Historian and Activist Jonaina Stronzake: Published historian and activist Jonaina Stronzake speaks on land reform, human rights issues and food sovereignty. Tuesday Nov. 1 at 5:30 PM, East Quad Building Lounge

For more AWOL, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

Many have come to classify the Occupy movement as the liberal version of the Tea Party, a principled conservative movement which arose out of a general disgust with the governmental (or Congressional) betrayal of certain essential values like small government and non-interventionism.  In that manner Occupy Wall Street is the principled liberal movement, arising out of disgust with corporate welfare and greed and a general frustration over the unfair and unjust distribution of wealth and the stalled economy.  Following that logic, some suggest that as the Tea Party reenergized the Republican Party and organized its way to a 2010 Congressional victory, so might the Occupy Wall Street movement do the same for the Democratic Party.  To a certain extent Democrats seem to agree with this sentiment, and are trying to harness the energy of these protests. Recently, in fact, the Democratic National Campaign Committee circulated a petition asking 100,000 supporters to stand in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protestors.

Democratic leaders have also come out in support of the movement. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she supported “the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen.”  However, the idea of an eventual marriage between these protestors and the Democratic Party has been a contentious issue. Various profiles on the makeup of this movement reveal that the protestors at Zuccotti Park are not merely disgruntled liberals, but rather an assortment of people with different political interests brought together by a disdain of the status quo.  A status quo which they believe has not only been set by corporate money and interests but reinforced by our two party system.  Because of this Democrats have also tried to temper their support showing general approval but far from linking arms with protestors.

But while Democrats tiptoe around an unclear stance on the movement, its participants are much more resolute about maintaining the small democratic spirit of its processions, betrothed only to the issues of the people, and not of any one party.  Proof of this was seen two weeks ago at the Occupy Atlanta General Assembly in Woodruff Park when protestors rebuffed Congressman John Lewis’s attempt to speak to the crowd. Though the Congressman was later offered the opportunity to speak (he refused due to a time constraint), the deference that one would expect a longtime Democratic congressman and civil rights leader to be paid was not. It was up to the masses gathered there whether he would receive the stage and because some spoke up against the special treatment of any one figure, he was told to wait like everyone else.

YouTube: Occupy Atlanta Silences John Lewis

After a video clip of the event surfaced many commentators were quick to criticize the protestors’ disrespect. But the incident illustrates an important lesson in this continuing saga: the protestors do not care about the validation offered by mainstream Democratic approval or support.  Their goal, unlike that of the Tea Party, is not merely to gain a foothold within a relative party, but rather to collectively figure out ways to combat issues like corporate welfare and social inequality, as cumbersome and unattainable as those goals may be.

Photo by getdarwin via Flickr.

The Occupy Together movement, as the wave of protests has become known, operates without a formal hierarchy, unifying under the motto “we are the 99%”. It’s a direct reference to the distribution of wealth in the United States, in which 1% of American society controls approximately 35% of all the private wealth in America. Decisions are made by consensus on a local level in the individual occupations.

Public opinion has been largely favorable to the protestors, with 33% approving, 27% disapproving and 40% holding no view either way. Even more (79%) say they support the statement “The big banks got bailed out but the middle class got left behind.” Many groups have endorsed the protests, including the major labor unions, and many others, including President Obama, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have expressed their support for the protests.

Occupy Wall Street came to DC on October 1^st with the occupation of McPherson square downtown at 15^th and K streets NW. Since then it has continued, with ‘general assemblies’ twice a day and daily marches to protest various corporate lobbies and events, One of their main targets was the Washington Ideas forum attended by Vice President Biden, former Vice President Cheney, Treasury Secretary Geitner, as well as the CEOs of Bank of America and Exxon, among others.

Also happening this past week in DC: ‘Stop the Machine’, a protest organized since last June has been in Freedom Plaza since October 6^th. Primarily organized to protest the 10^th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, it has since picked up a lot of the rhetoric behind the Occupy Together Movement, such as the “we are the 99%” motto. This has led to a fair amount of confusion between the Stop the Machine protest and Occupy DC.

American University students have been active within both protests, and a large delegation of AU students, organized by the Community Action and Social Justice Coalition (CASJ) joined Occupy DC in the last few days. Junior Jimmy Fagan (CAS/SPA) expressed his reasoning behind participating in the protest.

“We have hope for change, real change, not some empty promise from some politician,” Fagan said.

Junior Chris Litchfield (SPA/CAS), President of AU Democrats and a member of the CASJ organizing collective, has been supportive of the protests and hopes more students get involved.

“This (protest) matters.  Grassroots democratic movements have shaped American public policy in the past ten years,” Litchfield said. “As students, we are invested in the future, and to see folks standing up against our current irresponsible economic practices is refreshing.”

Photos by Ethan Miller

As of now the only path to passing the measures prescribed in the bill is piecemeal; among its components are $240 billion for the extension and expansion of payroll tax cuts and $140 billion for modernizing schools and repairing roads and bridges. However in addressing the dismantling of the bill, Cantor listed few things that both parties agreed on and offered no details on which parts of the bill would soon make it to the House floor. Overall the House Republican message was a rebuke of President Obama’s economic centerpiece and just another example of the increasingly impossible and dysfunctional manner in which our government operates.

What’s truly incomprehensible is that Republicans’ refusal to act on jobs comes in the wake of Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke explaining that long term unemployment is a “national crisis.” An unprecedented 45 percent of Americans have now been unemployed for more than six months, the highest amount since WWII. Not to mention the never ending series of other dismal numbers: an unemployment rate that stays above nine percent, a growth rate barely above one percent and so much more. Over and over economic experts, including those whose job is to lower unemployment (Hello, Federal Reserve) have said that a lack of demand lies at the center of our current economic turmoil, meaning that stimulating demand is key to solving this problem. And how does one do that? By funding infrastructure projects, which in turn create jobs, or by lowering payroll taxes so we can all spend more.

Republicans, though, have yet to accede to the political and economic reality. While aware of the current economic slowdown, they seem confused as to the causes of the downfall, and by extension how to combat it. Most recently, Republicans have come to embrace the fallacy that government regulation is the principle factor holding back employment, due mostly to the new regulations imposed by the Obama administration. Even though there is no evidence supporting this claim, Majority Leader Cantor still advised members of the House Republican Conference to make repeal of job destroying regulation a key element of the Republican jobs agenda. In actuality, research done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on mass layouts in 2007 showed that a lack of demand was a much more common and important reason for layoffs than government regulation or intervention.

But apparently the facts don’t matter. The fact that the nation is undergoing an economic “national crisis” doesn’t seem to matter, and neither does the fact the American Jobs Act is the kind of stimulus required at a time like this. If Friday’s September jobs report reveals further economic stagnation, will the Republicans finally face the facts?

Photo via whitehouse.gov

In last winter’s issue of AWOL, I wrote an article on how AU professors have been involved in Troy’s case. With the help of Professor Gemma Puglisi, I was able to interview Troy by mailing him questions, which he answered articulately and insightfully. I was impressed by the wisdom in Troy’s letter to me, which was free from any bitterness or frustration.

They say that one of the functions of incarceration is rehabilitation. We sometimes hear about convicts who turn their lives around, find religion or start mentoring others. Take for instance the story of Stanley Tookie Williams, convicted killer and founder of the Crips gang who was executed in 2005 despite his efforts behind bars to keep children from joining gangs. Troy himself mentored troubled kids by being a pen-pal, and he had plans to continue mentoring youth once out of prison. It’s clear that he was using his time in prison constructively – but calls for his execution still rang loud and clear.

I am still in shock over Troy’s execution. I began my college career with blind faith in our country’s government and court system, sincerely believing that justice would be served for Troy Davis. Three years later, I have become aware of just how flawed government can be.

In the aftermath of the horrific display of the American justice system gone wrong, we can only hope that Troy’s death was not in vain. All that’s left is the hope that his story starts the national and global conversation on the danger in inflicting the irreversible punishment of the death penalty.

What we know now is that it was not enough. Yes, the major banks were saved and payroll taxes were cut, and those unfortunate millions who lost their jobs received unemployment benefits — but that was only been the beginning. Or rather, it should have been treated as the beginning of ongoing recovery effort. But it seems that as soon as the recession had officially ended (in pure economic terms, at least) the recovery effort was discarded, with politicians and media pundits moving on to the next political hot topic. And though various troubling economic indicators have continually raised questions about the strength of our nation’s recovery, most have been ignored as opportunities to pick up recovery efforts from where they were dumped. That is until now, a period in which an onslaught of negative economic numbers seems to be rousing national ire.

Where last summer was dubbed the summer of recovery by the Obama administration, this summer has become the summer of the unraveling, in which many of the economic gains of the recent past are being negated. While the most recent unemployment numbers released show that 117,000 jobs were created, a higher than anticipated amount, it’s far from the 260,000 jobs that must be created to see the growth the nation desperately needs. To further compound the nature of this grim reality, only 58 percent of Americans are employed: the lowest that number has been in three decades. In addition, 6.2 million Americans have been out of work for more than six months and 46 million Americans are on food stamps — a national record.

These, along with other frightening numbers and statistics, bear a simple, concise economic ruling: the economy is still worse today than it was before the recession. Which begs the question: what happened to the recovery? And to go further, where are the jobs?

These are the questions Americans have been and will be asking themselves as they consider not only the nation’s future, but also the 2012 elections.  Even a recent CBS/New York Times poll confirms that Americans have jobs on the brain: 53 percent of respondents named the economy and jobs as the most important problems our nation faces.  Yet neither party leaders nor the Obama administration seem ready to offer substantive measures to deal with the concerns of the public.

A strong number of economists and commentators have brought up the need for another round of stimulus initiatives, seeing as we now know that the economic meltdown was far worse than expected and that the first stimulus bill was not enough. Many agree that this stimulus should come in the form of the extension of unemployment insurance so as to keep consumer spending going, slashing payroll tax cuts further so as to promote hiring new workers, especially in small businesses, and creating an infrastructure bank which would provide funding for projects meant to improve and rebuild our nation’s roadways, waterways, and overall infrastructure. Another substantive measure to pair with that stimulus would be ending the Bush tax cuts, but extending certain effective measures of the tax code such as marriage relief and certain incentives for children, families, and education. Also necessary is the closing of corporate tax loopholes, which would slash billions in wasted tax subsidies to oil, gas, and coal companies.

Though these suggestions seem to be among the most prevalent ones in economic and political circles, and are, in fact, featured in the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s The People’s Budget, Democratic and Republican congressional leadership have refused to consider such suggestions because of their destructive and unproductive fixation on spending cuts. Congressional leaders are not the only ones to be blamed — President Obama’s demeanor and rhetoric too have shown a willingness to avert his gaze from the problems facing our nation, rather than actually addressing them. Thus the administration has proposed a series of halfhearted measures like payroll tax cuts to businesses that hire veterans and patent reform — measures that do not really have the momentum to accelerate our jobs market or the economy. Not to mention such measures cannot compete with the deleterious effects of the massive cuts mandated by the recent debt ceiling deal. Already economic forecasts of the effect of the deal predict the plan would further slow economic growth. The progressive think tank Economic Policy Institute estimates a 1.5 percent drop in our already stagnating GDP next year.

What we have here is a failure in representative governance. In trying to maintain a spirit of compromise and a sense of civility, the president and his party have avoided confronting the challenging jobs crisis facing the nation. On the other hand, in trying to maintain party unity and political dogma, Republicans have equally failed in handling the tough economic situation we face. What both parties must do now is listen, not only to the major concerns of the American public, but also to the substantive measures being offered as solutions to those concerns.

Photo via Flickr.