Commentary: Obama Should Listen to Biden

On the topic of commentary, I decided to direct my attention to Julian E. Zelizer’s article titled “Obama Should Listen to Biden.” As a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, Zelizer is more than qualified to speak his opinion on such matters concerning politics and government. He has written numerous articles on our current state as a nation and will soon publish a book about Democracy, terrorism, and national security.

Zelizer’s intended audience for this particular commentary is the American public, and perhaps even Barrack Obama himself. America’s involvement can candidly influence political representation. Also, we are the ones that would be directly influenced if President Obama decided to send 21,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Furthermore, Obama is the foremost person that can decide whether to repeat the mistake of Lyndon B. Johnson in the Vietnam War, or to avoid and correct what former President George W. Bush has done. Zelizer is not directly concerned with what decision Obama makes, but instead stresses that Obama should listen openly to his inner circle of friends and close advisors; to their opinions in the alternatives to keeping Americans safe. In his commentary, Zelizer uses the consequences of disregarding alternatives and the absence challenging authority as prime examples to support his opinion. Back in the 1960’s, Democrats made the vital mistake in waiting until after the war was initiated to publicly raise challenges against a set of decisions. Repetition once again presented itself during President Bush’s term, when Democrats regrettably failed to induce Bush with more vigorous challenges on the war with Iraq in 2003. In my opinion, Zelizer has successfully addressed the majority of the concerns related to the current decisions of President Barrack Obama on behalf of the war in Afghanistan. Although the goal to satisfy everyone is highly unfeasible, the most any president is keep his options open for the sake of America. In fact, the worst he can do is fall prey to the sense of misjudgment and disregard. Evidently enough, history’s continuous occurrences provide a steady backbone for present and future issues on any matter, often offering substantial advice waiting to be heard.

High Cost of Death Row

The author of this editorial found in the New York Times, targets his argument towards the attention of politicians and most importantly, us the taxpayers of course. Politicians like Carolyn McGinn, a republican state senator in Kansas, made a crucial point in the decision to replace capital punishment with a less expensive alternative, life without parole. Senator McGinn stated that the state had not executed anybody in more than 40 years, therefore, the high cost for such a useless measure was simply debilitating our economic state and budget more than improving it. Later in February, she introduced a bill to replace capital punishment with life without parole. Taxpayers are the most relevant part of the puzzle because they are the ones putting out millions a year, for the death row inmates. In the editorial, it is made clear that eliminating the death row and replacing it with life without parole would save "us" hundreds of thousands of dollars. If our government followed New Mexico’s lead, we, as a nation, could spend more money and time focusing on schools, health care, hospitals, and government agencies.
The author also makes a valid argument with enough substantial evidence against maintaining capital punishment, and instead abolishing it. At first, I was mortified and a little skeptic of what the possible outcome would be without such law, but I soon realized that with or without it, we the public were still paying a price, literally. Up until now, I was completely oblivious to the real cost of death row versus the cost of holding inmates for life. The difference in numbers completely influenced my new perspective in this matter. In Florida, the cost for keeping prisoners on death row cost an extra $51 million more than maintaining them in cells for life. In North Carolina, about 43 people have been put to death since 1976, with the average cost estimating nearly $2.16 million per execution. Over at Maryland, between 1978 and 1999 only five executions have been made, costing the state approximately $186 million. In the golden state of California, death row cost taxpayers $114 million more a year than imprisoning convicts for life. Since 1976, only 13 people have been executed in this state, with the average cost of $250 million per execution. Looking at the high cost of capital punishment at our expense can makes you wonder about other alternatives we could benefit more from.

The author of this article is credible because they are an editor for the New York Times, one of this country’s leading popular newspapers. Their publication must be profusely read and peer edited before it can be published to the public. Therefore, their credibility is validated.