|
Elizabeth Kate Switaj
|
|
Elizabeth Kate Switaj
|
|
Read my latest story, "The All-Nighter", at 52|250. A New York Times article notes that a recent poll shows that Americans aged 17-29 are leaning left, and while I suppose I should be gratified to read that my age group is moving in the direction of my own political beliefs, there are enough specifics in the article to make me come to the cynical conclusion that the article should really be about how young Americans remain easily swayed and continue to have a shallow understanding of politics (though I will grant you that a shallow understanding is probably better than none). The article starts out by saying that this demographic is more likely than the public as a whole to support “a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage”. And yet, later in the article, we learn that “[t]hey hold a markedly more positive view of Democrats than they do of Republicans”. Now, how many of the Democrats running for their party’s nomination have come out in favor of these things? Certainly not the ones young Americans know much about: “they appeared to be really familiar with only two of the candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton”. So yes, maybe US citizens between the ages of 17 and 29 have some vaguely progressive ideals, but they don’t even educate themselves enough to have any clue about how to work towards them. Instead, they swallow the mainstream media portrayals of the political situation whole. They don’t seek out candidates who might better fulfill their ideals, because they accept that the race in the Democratic primary is between Obama and Clinton. They have to have a much higher opinion of Democrats than of Republicans, because they believe that there is no other choice. The energy of youth, then, gets wasted pushing for a choice that doesn’t make a difference instead of trying to redefine the options. And I can’t help but wonder if this connects with another popular New York Times stories about women staying tied to their mothers through their 20s and 30s. Don’t get me wrong. Familial closeness can be a positive force, but that’s difference from dependence. (I’m also not talking about economic dependence, though in some cases, that can be intertwined with other types. ) You can’t change the world if you can’t even stand on your own two feet, afterall. And if you never learn to think for yourself and to handle your emotions on your own, how can you learn to critically consider what’s presented in the media? Possibly Related Classroom Projects From
DonorsChoose.org
Powered by Social Actions
Related Ways to Take Action:
Related posts: Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. |
|
 |
© 2008 Daughter of the Ring of Fire StarScape Theme (1.5.6: Scorpius) | Design by: GDragoN Powered by: Wordpress Valid XHTML Valid CSS |
Posted on 03:46, June 29th, 2007 by 
Posted in 
“So yes, maybe US citizens between the ages of 17 and 29 have some vaguely progressive ideals, but they don’t even educate themselves enough to have any clue about how to work towards them. Instead, they swallow the mainstream media portrayals of the political situation whole.”
I agree with that. I hate when I try to talk to people about their beliefs… then when I question anything aside from their opinions on gay marriage I am met with a blank stare.
P.S. Go Obama!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s not so much single-issue voters I have an issue with as those who honestly believe that their choices are so limited that they have to support someone who does not, in fact, share their progressive values. When people accept that the front runners that have been anointed by the media and the party establishment (sorry, but this does include Obama) are their only choices, they end up using their energy in a way that actually opposes their supposed beliefs. I don’t care how many speeches a candidate made against the war: if they voted to fund it, they voted to keep it going. Both Clinton and Obama did this. They did, finally, vote against the bill that lacked timelines, but they didn’t do anything to encourage others to do the same. Obama, in fact, made statements early in the “stand-off” that would seem likely to have had the opposite effect, considering that he basically conceded the major propaganda point used against those who would cut off funding for the war.
I don’t mean to attack you in any way, because you may have a better reason for supporting him than I’ve heard elsewhere, but I have to say that most people who I’ve heard explain their reasons for supporting Obama talk about his positivity and his ideas about bringing people together. Sure, that sounds nice, but voting for someone on the basis of their rhetoric seems a bit shallow. And there are times when arguing against other people is a little more important than coming together: those times include when you need to get out of a war in which people are dying every day and when you’re struggling for your civil rights or the rights of others
I support Dennis Kucinich, and one big reason for that is how thoughtful and detailed the information on his issues pages is– and, of course, that I agree with most of what he has to say. He also has shown again and again that he is willing to stand up for those beliefs, even if it means casting politically unpopular votes. I even believe he can win (but only if people stop allowing themselves to be spoon-fed image in place of reality).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0