Not so fast. Do not make up your mind about this article yet. Read it patiently; evaluate its merits as well as its demerits. When that is done, make up your mind.
How many times have you been told to make up your mind about something immediately and take action breathlessly or else catastrophe will ensue? How often must you make up your mind without carefully weighing both sides? More pertinently, how often are you told that one side is the only right one, a particular view the only correct view, and any other idea heresy?
The practice of modern politics is the art and game of rhetoric, of persuasion. It is not in the interest of persuaders to present both sides of an issue, and any who represent both sides are only presenting that which is convenient, or that which will appeal to your trust of that source.
The target of modern politics is you. If the practice of politics these days is a game and you are its target, then they are trying to play you. Politicians have forsaken the painstaking practice of dialectic for the simpler and more to-the-point rhetoric. This is not limited to politics, however. It has permeated classrooms, churches, and the clumsily named “blogosphere,” and threatens to present you with nothing but a continual flow of propaganda, in essence, to make your decisions for you. And all you have to do is sign on the dotted line.
Al Gore wants you to believe that the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting, but according to recent reports, ice loss is more likely due to solar radiation and water vaporization. You would not know that if you only listened to him. Scientist Richard Dawkins would have you believe that the fossil record presents a smooth transition to higher-level organisms, but Dawkins cannot respond to the discovery of the Cambrian fossil bed - a giant reservoir of fossils that have no apparent predecessors and about which even Dawkins himself remarked, “It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” He chooses not to mention those fossils because they undermine his argument. Michael Moore promotes the British National Health Service in his newest propaganda documentary, “Sicko,” but fails to inform viewers of the almost one-year wait for some basic procedures, the low quality of treatment, staffing shortages, and the conversion of many Britons to private insurance and private healthcare.
Al Gore, Richard Dawkins, and Michael Moore are all asking the same thing of you, just in different ways. Al Gore wants you to lay down your modern lifestyle for a return to Gaia worship. Richard Dawkins wants you to convert to his world view. Michael Moore wants you to trust your health to the state. They are different in words only. They, and all modern masters of rhetoric, are assaulting your autonomy with their propaganda, asking you to sign yourself over in the name of calamity, hopelessness, and unfairness. Their target is not the older population. They are targeting the future, the youth, trusting in their naïveté and idealism to advance their agendas with no questions asked.
The point of this article is not to incite cynicism about politics. It is not even to inform you that politicians intentionally misrepresent their cases. The point is to caution you that rhetoric is how information is presented in today’s world, and if the whole truth is what you seek, then you need to do your own research, dig deeper, and once you have heard both sides and weighed them, carefully make your decision. Question alarm and drastic calls for action. Dispel uncertainty with curiosity. Do what the modern masters of rhetoric absolutely do not want you to do - think for yourself.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
"Who Will Stand For This?"
Most funding for public education in America comes from the states, but the legislation and guidance for how to allocate those funds comes from the federal government. Currently, this influence is embodied in the mandates, impossible accountability goals, and all-important high-stakes standardized testing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Strong guidance from the executive and legislative branches of the federal government is necessary to bring about the school and community reforms needed to begin to pull American public schools out of the uninspired quagmire that they are in. Our next president must address this dire American need.
I combed the office and presidential committee website of Republicans Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback. My goal was to determine the candidates’ stances on education, and my findings were unsatisfying. McCain had not a word about education on his presidential committee website, and the other three offered what I felt were cursory, superficial suggestions on what Giuliani rightly identifies as “one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time.”
No Republican candidate recognized the empty promises and counterproductive, draconian mandates of the NCLB.
My attention turns to the Democrats, and reviews of the positions on education of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich.
Both Obama’s Senate and presidential committee websites make zero mention of NCLB. Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, former Congressman and U.S. Secretary of Energy, does not list education among the seven issues on his presidential committee website. Hillary Clinton’s Senate website contains 4,200 words and 11 links dedicated to the issue of education. Former Senator Edward’s presidential committee website interestingly lists “Strengthening Education” under the banner of “Eliminating Poverty.”
There is one dark horse presidential candidate who actually does speak on the crisis of high-stakes testing, Democrat Congressman from Ohio Dennis Kucinich: The current Administration wants to box our young people in with standardized tests… These days, American students are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in American history and unparalled anywhere in the world. Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking. I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music, and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess.
He couldn’t be more right in emphasizing creative and critical thinking over test taking. Unfortunately, most current polls have Kucinich’s support for the candidacy among Democrats at one percent – when he even appears on the poll.
Al Gore’s line on climate change fits just as snugly for public education: “It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue.” High-stakes testing is a high-stakes issue, and America’s children deserve action. High-stakes testing stunts our children’s growth and attacks the culture of learning that must exist in successful schools. I call on all of the candidates to recognize and attend to this critical issue. We must demand our political leaders to act. It is our job to find which candidate will step to the plate.
I combed the office and presidential committee website of Republicans Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback. My goal was to determine the candidates’ stances on education, and my findings were unsatisfying. McCain had not a word about education on his presidential committee website, and the other three offered what I felt were cursory, superficial suggestions on what Giuliani rightly identifies as “one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time.”
No Republican candidate recognized the empty promises and counterproductive, draconian mandates of the NCLB.
My attention turns to the Democrats, and reviews of the positions on education of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich.
Both Obama’s Senate and presidential committee websites make zero mention of NCLB. Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, former Congressman and U.S. Secretary of Energy, does not list education among the seven issues on his presidential committee website. Hillary Clinton’s Senate website contains 4,200 words and 11 links dedicated to the issue of education. Former Senator Edward’s presidential committee website interestingly lists “Strengthening Education” under the banner of “Eliminating Poverty.”
There is one dark horse presidential candidate who actually does speak on the crisis of high-stakes testing, Democrat Congressman from Ohio Dennis Kucinich: The current Administration wants to box our young people in with standardized tests… These days, American students are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in American history and unparalled anywhere in the world. Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking. I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music, and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess.
He couldn’t be more right in emphasizing creative and critical thinking over test taking. Unfortunately, most current polls have Kucinich’s support for the candidacy among Democrats at one percent – when he even appears on the poll.
Al Gore’s line on climate change fits just as snugly for public education: “It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue.” High-stakes testing is a high-stakes issue, and America’s children deserve action. High-stakes testing stunts our children’s growth and attacks the culture of learning that must exist in successful schools. I call on all of the candidates to recognize and attend to this critical issue. We must demand our political leaders to act. It is our job to find which candidate will step to the plate.
"Where Do I Begin?"
Without a doubt, the most difficult problem I encountered when beginning to write this column was how to focus on only one of literally hundreds of topics one could potentially use to easily show how George W. Bush has been the worst president we have ever had. While there is definitely no shortage of information displaying the countless bad decisions—most which have had devastating effects on our country—Bush is responsible for (i.e. going to war for false reasons, turning one of the nation’s largest surpluses into one of the nation’s biggest deficits, creating one of the largest waves of job losses since the Depression, enacting unprecedented legislation catering to the wealthy and corporate America that would even make the Reagan administration do a double take—including both tax cuts and rapidly depleting environmental standards, the list goes on…) I would like to focus my column on a group often excluded in American politics. For women- and especially young women that have just turned of voting age- it is more important than ever to get out there and make your voice heard. Since Bush took office in 2000, American women have begun to experience a perpetual decline in rights and it’s only getting worse.
One of Bush’s rollbacks on women’s rights that was implemented is the Unborn Victims Act. The Unborn Victims Act states that federal law enforcement will be able to bring charges for the harm of a fetus, as well as its mother, during a violent crime. It has also been carefully worded so the bill specifically grants individual, separate legal status to a fetus or embryo beginning at conception. I remember watching the bill being signed on the news as Bush and his collection of post-middle aged men applauded each other with religious zeal for their noble humanitarian effort on the part of women across the country. Obviously, everyone agrees on the need to protect pregnant women but, within a legal context, it becomes glaringly obvious that this law is only the latest element of the religious right’s concerted effort to slowly chip away at Roe vs. Wade (the very foundation of women’s reproductive rights) as anyone who kills a pregnant woman during a violent crime will most likely be going to jail for life anyway.
The act was vehemently promoted by Bush and several other religious anti-abortion organizations- including the National Right to Life Organization. And, in order to solicit support from those not solely concerned with creating a backdoor for the “moral majority” to women’s rights, the Bush administration took advantage of the tragic, yet sensationalist-laden Laci Peterson case by dubbing it the ‘Laci and Conner’s Law’.
Another piece of legislation was signed by Bush less than six months after passing the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (PBABA), thus unveiling a carefully constructed agenda on the part of the steadily encroaching religious right and the drunk driving, semi-literate, corporate lap-dog who has deemed himself “appointed by God” to the American presidency (which might make sense since he wasn’t elected by the people) to disseminate women’s rights across the board.
I know many of you feel powerless and I know that many of you feel as your vote/voice doesn’t count but just remember that you make up the largest percentage of the voting public in America, and if we can all organize and motivate each other just enough to get out there and we can do something about the outrageous decisions happening in the office and in the court.
One of Bush’s rollbacks on women’s rights that was implemented is the Unborn Victims Act. The Unborn Victims Act states that federal law enforcement will be able to bring charges for the harm of a fetus, as well as its mother, during a violent crime. It has also been carefully worded so the bill specifically grants individual, separate legal status to a fetus or embryo beginning at conception. I remember watching the bill being signed on the news as Bush and his collection of post-middle aged men applauded each other with religious zeal for their noble humanitarian effort on the part of women across the country. Obviously, everyone agrees on the need to protect pregnant women but, within a legal context, it becomes glaringly obvious that this law is only the latest element of the religious right’s concerted effort to slowly chip away at Roe vs. Wade (the very foundation of women’s reproductive rights) as anyone who kills a pregnant woman during a violent crime will most likely be going to jail for life anyway.
The act was vehemently promoted by Bush and several other religious anti-abortion organizations- including the National Right to Life Organization. And, in order to solicit support from those not solely concerned with creating a backdoor for the “moral majority” to women’s rights, the Bush administration took advantage of the tragic, yet sensationalist-laden Laci Peterson case by dubbing it the ‘Laci and Conner’s Law’.
Another piece of legislation was signed by Bush less than six months after passing the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (PBABA), thus unveiling a carefully constructed agenda on the part of the steadily encroaching religious right and the drunk driving, semi-literate, corporate lap-dog who has deemed himself “appointed by God” to the American presidency (which might make sense since he wasn’t elected by the people) to disseminate women’s rights across the board.
I know many of you feel powerless and I know that many of you feel as your vote/voice doesn’t count but just remember that you make up the largest percentage of the voting public in America, and if we can all organize and motivate each other just enough to get out there and we can do something about the outrageous decisions happening in the office and in the court.
"Where Are You Looking?"
This is a way of trying to define something that can never be defined by anyone except for the individual themselves:
PUNK
A) Music movement started in the 70's with multiple reasons and causes. There was an American and British "punk" movement. Proto-punk bands such as Iggy Pop and the Stooges, The Motor City 5, and The Velvet Underground were influential in setting the stage for taking the risks bands like The Ramones, The Dictators, The New York Dolls, and Blondie did.
The British movement supposedly was started by one of the following: The economic disaster that occurred in the mid seventies, and the youth's lack of patience with the British Government. A movement made out of boredom by Johnny Rotten, lead singer of the Sex Pistols.
This Movement caused the creation for most genres of music today, it's even represented in the roots of such types as hip hop, rap, pop, modern rock, goth, electro, and two-tone. It did not create these genres, BUT it certainly kicked down the door for them.
B) Culture started in the 70's by the same music movement. The point of the culture was like the music, be yourself and disregard the angry emotions it may stir up. No longer a real culture, only a burned image with the values behind it lost, you can see it in stores such as Hot Topic. People no longer understand it was always about being yourself and not being anyone's shadow!
C) Modern Movement, characterized by some bands that have actually kept the movement alive, some by giving off the image, and pop-punk bands that are, regardless of what people want to say, in way of The Ramones and even The Misfits. Pop Punk is a very melodic form of punk, it's not “pop" because it's popular, it's "pop" because of the style of playing. Bands that try to sell an image alone with no true love for the music are the ones made fun of the most, with little or no time together before being popularized by mainstream TV. These are the same bands that promote a pre-made image that's ready to sell to a pre-teen to early adult demographic. For the most part it works, and this entire culture has been referred to as " Mallcore" or " mallxcore," because these are the same people that have never heard of The Ramones, The Clash, or Sex Pistols but think they're punk because they shop at Hot Topic and listen to MTV's Flavor Of The Week " band." Feel free to laugh at these people, most people who know what the music is about do.
The Current culture is in a sad state because it's focused on replicating the 70's instead of being itself. There are a few who understand it and refuse to subscribe to the image mold.
D) Music Structure. Many like to characterize this genre with power chords only and simple drum beats. These "people" are complete and utter idiots and should be regarded as IMBECILS. They more than likely know nothing about music in the first place, or are just that type of idiot that doesn't understand other types of music can be good, and that music, like other things, is all about opinion. Punk has had it's fair share of complicated guitar solos, insane drumming performances, all while keeping a melody, which most " jam bands" sorely lack, along with talent and lyrical prowess. Many of the early punk bands did utilize simple chords and beats, but like all types of music, it branched out and has many styles, from simple to complex, traditional to exotic, it all has to do with where you're looking.
PUNK
A) Music movement started in the 70's with multiple reasons and causes. There was an American and British "punk" movement. Proto-punk bands such as Iggy Pop and the Stooges, The Motor City 5, and The Velvet Underground were influential in setting the stage for taking the risks bands like The Ramones, The Dictators, The New York Dolls, and Blondie did.
The British movement supposedly was started by one of the following: The economic disaster that occurred in the mid seventies, and the youth's lack of patience with the British Government. A movement made out of boredom by Johnny Rotten, lead singer of the Sex Pistols.
This Movement caused the creation for most genres of music today, it's even represented in the roots of such types as hip hop, rap, pop, modern rock, goth, electro, and two-tone. It did not create these genres, BUT it certainly kicked down the door for them.
B) Culture started in the 70's by the same music movement. The point of the culture was like the music, be yourself and disregard the angry emotions it may stir up. No longer a real culture, only a burned image with the values behind it lost, you can see it in stores such as Hot Topic. People no longer understand it was always about being yourself and not being anyone's shadow!
C) Modern Movement, characterized by some bands that have actually kept the movement alive, some by giving off the image, and pop-punk bands that are, regardless of what people want to say, in way of The Ramones and even The Misfits. Pop Punk is a very melodic form of punk, it's not “pop" because it's popular, it's "pop" because of the style of playing. Bands that try to sell an image alone with no true love for the music are the ones made fun of the most, with little or no time together before being popularized by mainstream TV. These are the same bands that promote a pre-made image that's ready to sell to a pre-teen to early adult demographic. For the most part it works, and this entire culture has been referred to as " Mallcore" or " mallxcore," because these are the same people that have never heard of The Ramones, The Clash, or Sex Pistols but think they're punk because they shop at Hot Topic and listen to MTV's Flavor Of The Week " band." Feel free to laugh at these people, most people who know what the music is about do.
The Current culture is in a sad state because it's focused on replicating the 70's instead of being itself. There are a few who understand it and refuse to subscribe to the image mold.
D) Music Structure. Many like to characterize this genre with power chords only and simple drum beats. These "people" are complete and utter idiots and should be regarded as IMBECILS. They more than likely know nothing about music in the first place, or are just that type of idiot that doesn't understand other types of music can be good, and that music, like other things, is all about opinion. Punk has had it's fair share of complicated guitar solos, insane drumming performances, all while keeping a melody, which most " jam bands" sorely lack, along with talent and lyrical prowess. Many of the early punk bands did utilize simple chords and beats, but like all types of music, it branched out and has many styles, from simple to complex, traditional to exotic, it all has to do with where you're looking.
"Voting Matters"
I'm here because voting matters. Why else would our circus animal in the White House go so far out of his way to steal the last election?
But even when the national races smell like a stage managed cartoon contest between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber, local elections are where it is at. Mayor, city council, county commissioners, school boards, sheriffs, state legislators- these are the people who decide in our back yards how to spend our tax money collected by Washington and the states. Should we build a homeless shelter or a golf course? Computers for poor kids or pollute science classes with the Bible?
So few people vote in local elections, that when good candidates run and we show up, there's a very good chance of winning. If we don't show up Bushcroft bozos and Christian-Coalition-types run things instead.
Paying attention and showing up to vote is also crucial because of ballot initiatives. Where would rent control, medical marijuana, living wage laws, etc.., be unless people like us show up? We are lucky we have the right to ballot initiatives. Canada & Europe don't. My favorite is the sheer joy of voting down sports stadiums.
I'm all for insurrection in the street. But it doesn't accomplish much without insurrection at the ballot box. So why not use it?
Being patriotic doesn't mean blindly following a criminal president into illegal and dangerous wars. It means doing our part to take our country back from corrupt corporate puppets that get into office because we sit on our butt and let them.
But even when the national races smell like a stage managed cartoon contest between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber, local elections are where it is at. Mayor, city council, county commissioners, school boards, sheriffs, state legislators- these are the people who decide in our back yards how to spend our tax money collected by Washington and the states. Should we build a homeless shelter or a golf course? Computers for poor kids or pollute science classes with the Bible?
So few people vote in local elections, that when good candidates run and we show up, there's a very good chance of winning. If we don't show up Bushcroft bozos and Christian-Coalition-types run things instead.
Paying attention and showing up to vote is also crucial because of ballot initiatives. Where would rent control, medical marijuana, living wage laws, etc.., be unless people like us show up? We are lucky we have the right to ballot initiatives. Canada & Europe don't. My favorite is the sheer joy of voting down sports stadiums.
I'm all for insurrection in the street. But it doesn't accomplish much without insurrection at the ballot box. So why not use it?
Being patriotic doesn't mean blindly following a criminal president into illegal and dangerous wars. It means doing our part to take our country back from corrupt corporate puppets that get into office because we sit on our butt and let them.
"Risking Lives To Save Lives"
Something tragic happened on the day of September 11, 2001 that would affect us for years to come. It’s still affecting us at this time, possibly more than ever. The families of military men and woman are affected the most right now. In case you haven’t figured out what I’m talking about, I’m speaking of the war in Iraq and the idea of sending over more than 20,000 troops overseas.
Coming from someone who grew up in a military family, a grandfather who served in his younger years, a brother in the Army, a cousin in the Air Force, an uncle in the Army, and another brother who served in the Marines that I lost overseas in 2003, I am not happy with George W. Bush’s proposal at all. Not only am I upset about the fact that it could be my family sent over, I’m upset that my friends could go overseas as well.
When this war first started in 2002 I supported it for the most part. Now in retrospect, I believe it was my anger that supported it, not my intellect. I was so enraged about what had happened on September 11, 2001, I was willing to support anything at that moment. When my brother got shipped off in 2002 my views slowly started changing. I think mainly due to fear at that point. But I stuck to my initial views of supporting it. When I lost my brother in 2003 I had no clue what to think anymore. Eventually I came to realize that, in my opinion, we have been over in Iraq for way to long.
Is risking American lives to save foreign lives worth it? That is the million dollar question I keep asking myself. Don’t get me wrong, I am proud that our country uses its resources to help other countries, but there is a time when enough is enough. One country can only do so much. We have been fighting in this war for over five years now, that’s longer than many of us expected. So overall, I don’t believe that sending more than 20,000 troops to Iraq is the wisest decision, but it may be a decision we have to make.
Coming from someone who grew up in a military family, a grandfather who served in his younger years, a brother in the Army, a cousin in the Air Force, an uncle in the Army, and another brother who served in the Marines that I lost overseas in 2003, I am not happy with George W. Bush’s proposal at all. Not only am I upset about the fact that it could be my family sent over, I’m upset that my friends could go overseas as well.
When this war first started in 2002 I supported it for the most part. Now in retrospect, I believe it was my anger that supported it, not my intellect. I was so enraged about what had happened on September 11, 2001, I was willing to support anything at that moment. When my brother got shipped off in 2002 my views slowly started changing. I think mainly due to fear at that point. But I stuck to my initial views of supporting it. When I lost my brother in 2003 I had no clue what to think anymore. Eventually I came to realize that, in my opinion, we have been over in Iraq for way to long.
Is risking American lives to save foreign lives worth it? That is the million dollar question I keep asking myself. Don’t get me wrong, I am proud that our country uses its resources to help other countries, but there is a time when enough is enough. One country can only do so much. We have been fighting in this war for over five years now, that’s longer than many of us expected. So overall, I don’t believe that sending more than 20,000 troops to Iraq is the wisest decision, but it may be a decision we have to make.
"The Importance Of Politics In A Younger Generation"
Without revolutions the United States would still belong to the British. Without individual revolutions, politics would not be an important factor in our government. Where there are people there are differences of opinions, and what would government be without disagreements? Would we even need government?
Every election season, politics proves an important factor when determining the nation’s leaders. This shows that politics has a strong influence on the opinions of citizens, including long-term issues and current affairs. Young people today think little about politics and how politics affects them.
I assumed for a long time that politics was over my head. To me there was no point to politics and no reason to try and understand them. As I learn more about its importance to the health of our country I find it is important to be aware of political issues. Also, I have begun to develop my own beliefs about politics and the government, including its leaders, judicial system, and the military.
Young people often overlook the significance of understanding the relevance of politics in their lives. Being a young adult myself, I know I sure did. Young adults do not know what they’re missing when they assume politics is not as essential to them as it is to our older generation. Younger people tend not to care for politics for a few reasons. First and foremost a word cherished by so many Americans is taxes. My age group can’t realize the impact of taxes because a lot of younger people don’t work and don’t pay taxes – an issue which greatly affects politics. Today’s generation is being raised to praise the dollar, taxes is something that will have a huge impact on our future as we grow older. Second, politics is sculpted around our leaders – the president, the senators, and the governors – not young adults.
So politics, though it affects teens and young people, is shaped by adults. The average young adult is not interested in the terms of the budget summary nearly as much as football season. Plainly put, politics is on a different level of intelligence and interest than what we are used to.
When choosing between the Braves and the Yankees on ESPN and the electoral debate on CSPAN, I know which one I would choose. If a young adult was asked the following day if he or she watched the baseball game and responded with, “No, but did you hear what Bush said when asked about the budget cuts?” calls for oxygen would echo through the halls. Basically, it’s normal for a young adult to not care about politics, even though I believe we should. Up until a few years ago, if I were asked to define politics I would have been forced to respond with, “Some government stuff?”
Now that I know something about politics, I realize that it is important to have at least some understanding of what is happening in our current society. Politics is vital to our society since it is present issues that affect us all. Strong political parties are necessary for a healthy government. Thomas Jefferson believed that, “The duty of an upright administration is to pursue its course steadily… and to cherish the good principles of both parties.” This shows that it takes more than one political party to make a well balanced government. Having at least two ensures the exclusion of the weaknesses of each, and uses both parties’ strengths for one prosperous government.
In the United States, political parties have guided us through times of hardship to triumph; however politics can become a liability if the parties’ only focus on what they think is important. In this case two groups of politicians with a narrow path toward individual goals may exclude the needs of the nation. As long as there is free speech there will be multiple political parties. They are necessary to the strength of our government. Our founding fathers proved it could work, and it has thus far.
For our political system to flourish, older adults must realize that younger people must be educated about politics: why it exists, why it is important, and what our generation can do. Soon enough, it will be our turn to lead.
Every election season, politics proves an important factor when determining the nation’s leaders. This shows that politics has a strong influence on the opinions of citizens, including long-term issues and current affairs. Young people today think little about politics and how politics affects them.
I assumed for a long time that politics was over my head. To me there was no point to politics and no reason to try and understand them. As I learn more about its importance to the health of our country I find it is important to be aware of political issues. Also, I have begun to develop my own beliefs about politics and the government, including its leaders, judicial system, and the military.
Young people often overlook the significance of understanding the relevance of politics in their lives. Being a young adult myself, I know I sure did. Young adults do not know what they’re missing when they assume politics is not as essential to them as it is to our older generation. Younger people tend not to care for politics for a few reasons. First and foremost a word cherished by so many Americans is taxes. My age group can’t realize the impact of taxes because a lot of younger people don’t work and don’t pay taxes – an issue which greatly affects politics. Today’s generation is being raised to praise the dollar, taxes is something that will have a huge impact on our future as we grow older. Second, politics is sculpted around our leaders – the president, the senators, and the governors – not young adults.
So politics, though it affects teens and young people, is shaped by adults. The average young adult is not interested in the terms of the budget summary nearly as much as football season. Plainly put, politics is on a different level of intelligence and interest than what we are used to.
When choosing between the Braves and the Yankees on ESPN and the electoral debate on CSPAN, I know which one I would choose. If a young adult was asked the following day if he or she watched the baseball game and responded with, “No, but did you hear what Bush said when asked about the budget cuts?” calls for oxygen would echo through the halls. Basically, it’s normal for a young adult to not care about politics, even though I believe we should. Up until a few years ago, if I were asked to define politics I would have been forced to respond with, “Some government stuff?”
Now that I know something about politics, I realize that it is important to have at least some understanding of what is happening in our current society. Politics is vital to our society since it is present issues that affect us all. Strong political parties are necessary for a healthy government. Thomas Jefferson believed that, “The duty of an upright administration is to pursue its course steadily… and to cherish the good principles of both parties.” This shows that it takes more than one political party to make a well balanced government. Having at least two ensures the exclusion of the weaknesses of each, and uses both parties’ strengths for one prosperous government.
In the United States, political parties have guided us through times of hardship to triumph; however politics can become a liability if the parties’ only focus on what they think is important. In this case two groups of politicians with a narrow path toward individual goals may exclude the needs of the nation. As long as there is free speech there will be multiple political parties. They are necessary to the strength of our government. Our founding fathers proved it could work, and it has thus far.
For our political system to flourish, older adults must realize that younger people must be educated about politics: why it exists, why it is important, and what our generation can do. Soon enough, it will be our turn to lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)