"I want to know more about the Iran- Contra scandal. I will learn when it was, where it happened, and who was involved. What did Oliver North do? How was he convicted on trial? "
The Iran Contra Scandal took place in November 1986 under the Reagan Administration. In 1985 guns and other weapons were sold to the hostile Iran government in secret in order to retrieve hostages from the Lebenon Hostage Crisis. Americans, when they found out that there was an arms-deal between Iran and American from a Lebenon magazine that later lead to search of the American government, they were outraged. Not only had their government sold weapons to a country that to this day, is the singlemost threatening country to the United States, they did it without congress's permission. It was an unconstitutional act. To make matters worse, all of the profits from the arms sales went to aid the Nicaraguan guerilla "Contras" in a civil war they were fighting in their country. Congress had issued a statement that had decided not to get involved in world affairs such as these, but some members of the United States Military decided override this issue and filter millions of dollars and guns to aid the Contras.
The main men involved in the scandal were Lt. Col. Oliver North, who later ran for the Virginia senate seat in 1994, National Security Advisor John Poindexter and Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, as well as many other high ranking officials. President Regan was stated to never have known nor been involved, and no evidence could prove differently. North had been the main negotiater of these deals as an aid to the National Security Council. In May 1989, North was convicted of misleading Congress and unlawfully destroying government documents. At first, North stated he was under command of his superiors to do so, and then later, he stated he was doing it for the betterment of our country. That is the greatest argument of the Iran-Contra Scandal. All of the three majmor players in the scandal were convicted, and later were issued presidential pardons from George Bush in 1992. They were pardoned because the were acting in patriotism, accoriding to Bush. Later in the 1994 elections North used Iran-Contra as a campaigning line by saying "lives were saved" in the scandal. That is true, 36 hostages had been taken by Lebenon during the Hostage Crisis, and because of Iran-Contra, 28 made it home. But how do you justify the Nicaraguan scandal? Going against are highest government power's decision to benefit the military? It is possible that the men who decided to issue the guns didn't no all that was going on in our government at the time? Why is it okay for a few men to take control of our country without the consent of the governed? Or were they acting patriotically and hoping for the betterment of our country by being upstanding citizens? These are the questions that are the basis of controversy concerning the Iran-Contra affair.
In class this week:
A)
We began this week studying the principles of propaganda in order to highlight then in Chuck Rob's and Oliver North's campaigns. The principles were easily saw and very common in campaigns around the nation. For starters, the simple issue of "name-calling" where one person links someone to something with a negative connotation. Rob's speech right before voting day in the Perfect Candidate is a perfect example of this. Then, glittering generalities come into play. Politicans use this technique more than any, with "virtue words" that people can take many different, but positive, meanings to. Obama's campaign this year was full of "Hope" and "Change" both seriuosly glittering generalites. We also studied false connections, which is kind of like "slippery slope" and name calling fallacies, and special appeals. When a politican dresses in flannel and jeans to go huntin' with his voters, he is making a speical appeal to the people. Politicans do this to say "hey im just a normal guy like you" because it makes them more likeable. We also discussed bandwagon, which has become a major way of campagining because of the show the media puts on at rallies, showing thousands of people screaming one candidates name. After discussing propaganda methods, we finished "The Perfect Candidate."
B)
I thought the film's main theme was to show the people that campaigning is entertaining instead of honest. Why has a political race become all about the glamour and action instead of what each candidate is actually going to do for our country. This film was filmed in 1994, what do you think a political race is like now? Showing Oliver North's campaign headquarters brought a unique insight to a campaign the voter never gets to witness. The bloodthirsty competition and negative campaigning are especially brought to life. According to sources, there are conflicting effects on negative campaigning and voters. Some studies say that negative campaigning enhances a candidates chances of winning and increases voter turnout, while other studies have found that negative campaigning makes candidates equally likely to lose and decreases voter turnout. From these studies, my guess is it depends on who are the voters, what you are voting for, and the nature of each election. Voters only consider a few things to be "personal attacks" at voters, for example: lack of military service, past alchohol or drug abuse, past finacial issues and family problems with the candidates are all considered "low blows." Everything else, from the voters' mind, is fair game. Another interesting statisic I found was that voters mostly do not trust Washington. Here are the statistics conducted by a survey of voters corcerning the trusting fo candidates and negative campaigning by "thenation.com":
- 59% believe that all or most candidates deliberately twist the truth.
- 39% believe that all or most candidates deliberately lie to voters.
- 43% believe that most or all candidates deliberately make unfair attacks on their opponents. Another 45% believe that some candidates do.
- 67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the time or never.
- 87% are concerned about the level of personal attacks in today's political campaigns.
Question for next week:
What is the most "honest campaign" ever in politics? Who was involved? What were the issues? Why is it the most "honest campaign" ever?
Sources:
"ThisNation.com--Do Negative Campaign Ads Work?" ThisNation.com-American Government & Politics Online. 16 Oct. 2010. Web. 16 Oct. 2010. http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html.
"Iran Contra Scandal." Web. 16 Oct. 2010. http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/s98/usarab/icscandal.htm.
"The American Experience | Reagan | People & Events | The Iran-Contra Affair." PBS. Web. 16 Oct. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment