A speech well deliveredFormer New York Governor George Pataki Shines

I was born in New York on March 2nd, 1988, and have remained a resident of New York for most of my life. As a consequence, I was ecstatic when I heard that my former governor was scheduled to speak for Brown’s annual “Kreiger Lecture” on November 7th, 2007. George E. Pataki had always been a common television icon during my childhood; after all, his three terms as New York’s governor spanned from 1995 to 2007. To me, Pataki has always resonated as a beacon of unity. In a blue state, the Republican governor consistently found the common ground between members of opposing parties in order to enact successful policies – a skill he developed during his thirteen years as a New York state legislator (1981-1994). Cumulatively, after various elections and even more re-elections, Pataki served twenty-six effective years in the public sector. He was clearly not a divider.

When he arrived on campus, Governor Pataki channeled this crucial personal trait into his speech, as it was entitled: “A House Divided: An Insider’s View of the State of National Politics.” Pataki initially intended to comment on the fragmented state of our nation’s current political arena. Pataki’s assertion, that Americans are currently divided, certainly rings true. From New York to California, divisions occur possibly due to the highly controversial situation in Iraq, or possibly due to social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Even seemingly distant issues like our deteriorating relationship with Iran, the Russian Federation, and China continually polarize Americans.

Despite this assertion, however, is it not true that throughout the history of our glorious nation, contentious issues have always existed? Certainly the 21st century is not unique in this regard; our nation has overcome even more divisive and contentious issues, like slavery, civil rights, women’s suffrage, and the Vietnam War. Why are divisions important now? Pataki insisted that the politicians themselves are exploiting these divisions in order to bolster their own support. Instead of focusing exclusively to benefit America, politicians are using contentious circumstances to fuel their self-interest.

To a certain extent, this is definitely true. Take last year’s midterm elections for instance; at the time, deaths in Iraq were high, and the nation was slowly recovering from the Abu Ghraib Iraqi-prison fiasco. Democratic senators, and legislators, despite having voted for the Iraq war originally, and in droves, used the political situation to their advantage and slandered Republicans for engineering such disasters. The midterms resulted in a successful toppling of the Republican majority in both houses: Democrat Nancy Pelosi assuming the Speaker of the House position, Democrat Harry Reid assuming the Senate Majority Leader position, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. A full year later, the fact that Democrats have done little since then actually to mitigate, or even end the Iraq war, arguably shows that they used a contentious political situation to their advantage. Once they actually won their seats, they took a backseat and defaulted on their campaign promises. Sure, many will blame the ineffectiveness of Congress itself, or even allege that President Bush’s veto power mitigates their influence, and these are legitimate points.  Yet, the fact remains: most Democratic members of Congress have been unwilling to stake their careers on ending the occupation of Iraq.  It is clear that Pataki’s overall claim has much validity: politicians are using divisive issues to gain influence.

Pataki went further to suggest issues that politicians should really consider. Although the current war, the future of Iraq, and our relations with Iran are certainly important American issues, Governor Pataki pointed towards a particularly domestic issue with international roots: American dependence on foreign oil. Pataki asserted that politicians are dodging the issue, and subsequently nothing is being done. Keeping in mind that this speech was given during a time when oil was rapidly approaching the dreaded 100 dollars per barrel marker, Pataki’s urgent tone certainly indicated that the issue was of immediate importance. Our country only uses oil to fuel approximately 20 percent of total energy usage; however, despite this humble statistic, 97 percent of cars in America are fueled primarily with oil. After citing this fact, Governor Pataki suggested various alternatives, and emphasized the usage of bio-fuels.

Pataki insisted that our friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia needs to cease. While the oil-consuming community pays upwards of 98 dollars per barrel for oil, Saudi Arabians are paying about 2 dollars per barrel. It is no coincidence that price mutations also occur in Venezuela, and other oil producing nations that provide cheap oil to their own citizens at the cost of the international community. Regardless, Pataki’s assertion is completely true: we need to change the way our automobile industry is structured. Cars should be bio-fuel equipped; after all, companies can accomplish this feat for less than 50 dollars per car. By reducing our dependence on foreign oil, not only will we improve the actual fuel efficiency of our cars, but environmentally destructive emissions will also diminish.

As Governor Pataki concluded his address, he confirmed that he had not yet picked one presidential candidate to support. He added, however, that he would support the candidate that addressed the aforementioned issue of reducing dependence on foreign oil, and more importantly, the candidate that focused on uniting the country. I applaud Pataki’s stance, and would like to second his thoughts. Instead of focusing on party affiliations – who is endorsing whom, and how much money is being raised – Americans should truly look towards the future and realize which candidate will ensure that American interests remain protected at home, and abroad.