Many of my friends do not vote, do not watch political coverage and are overall disinterested in the entire political process. However, when the issue of Barack Obama is brought up, not only does everyone know who he is and his two favorite words of "hope" and "change", but they have very strong opinions for or against him, most are for him. He speaks to the youth by those two classic words above, we are more concerned with the future than the now. When growing up in my family, both of my parents always voted, but there was by no means a political discussion at every dinner table, as it now whenever I am home. We knew who our parents were voting for and I always asked why they decided to vote for that person (often they disagreed with the best candidate), but that was often the end to the discussion. It was a right they had and they took advantage of that right once, sometimes twice a year. That value of participating in the political process was engrained in my head and something that was expected out of me.
Therefor, when I see my peers who do not participate in voting I cannot help but to ask why. Not only for the reason of me being a political science major who will devote my life to elections and politics, but voting for me is a ritual such as going to Church weekly is for so many Americans. I have gotten an array of answers when trying to bring up the issue of politics with others, "I hate politics", "I don't care", "All they do is lie anyway to you" and "The elections are rigged" are all answers I will commonly receive when asked why someone does not vote. Since bloggers are typically dedicated people who care about the issues, I tend to believe anyone reading this does vote. I ask you to answer the same question I attend to answer, why do young people not vote?
As the title suggests, there are two reasons in my mind, that can be possible explanations for why young people do not participate in the political process. Many will call us "apathetic." Apathy simply means having little or no interest or concern. Talk to young people about issues and the great majority do care. They tend not to get hooked on these little arguments about non-issue disagreements such as a lapel pin, but they do care about more than just sex, drugs and alcohol... which many seem to think that is all we think about. Therefor, the description of my peers being apathetic to politics does not jive with my real life experiences. The other choice is that they feel ignored by either the policies and/or the politicians. Listen to most politicians and other than stating "college should be more affordable," they have little to say to us. That comment, in my mind, is more geared towards to parents who pay for tuition and not the students.
Why should any politician ever ignore young people? When our generation gets motivated behind a cause or person, watch out! We have no families and we are king and queen of procrastination, therefor, we have plenty of time to campaign for or against, to rally for or against and to speak praise or disgust pertaining to an individual. Time is money and we have plenty of it... the time of course. :) I blame my fellow youth for not being more involved in the process and we can only thank ourselves for why the cuts in Frankfort are unfairly being pushed on us and we can only thank ourselves for politicians who seem to have no care for our future economy and environment and instead will live for the now. We are the one's who will be paying off the 3 trillion dollars spent in Iraq, we are the one's who will be trying to save this Earth from years of neglect by citizens and we are the one's stuck with the college debt that is growing and growing and growing and will probably be the barrier between us and a loan for our first home. Wake up students, the time to get involved was years ago... but, late is better than never. We have a voice, we can force politicians to listen to us if and only if we become involved both on the ground and at the ballot box.
I ask all of you again, why do you think so few young people participate in the electoral process? Are you in the group that feels we just do not care about such "trivial" matters, or that we have lost faith in government or do the politicians just not speak to us? I strongly believe that the more people who participate, the more people this nation will benefit and that to me should be the ultimate goal of our country.
23 comments:
Nicholas, my only comment to your post is:
Why are you a Republican?
You stressed two issues, education and the environment.
Yet you follow a party the wanted to abolish the Department of Education, and has an abysmal record on the environment.
What's up?
I wish Republicans still wanted to abolish the Deptartment of Education. Instead, they grew it way more than Democrats.
Being for education and getting the federal government out of the way are not mutually exclusive.
Excellent post, Nicholas.
Re: anonymous #2, if you want to send your kid to religious school, fine by me, just don't try to use my money to do it. (Seems like that's what it ultimately comes down to when discussing vouchers, etc.)
To the first anon:
I will never doubt that on most issues I lean Democrat, down the board. The major one that I do not lean Dem on is national security and none of these other factors matter if we are not safe. The issue of environmental protection (or lack thereof) from the Republicans will hurt them for yrs to come. Hope that helps you understand why I am a Republican... who has voted for the Gov to be a Dem and a couple local offices to be a Dem as well.
Re: Jean #1, No, I'm for the 50 states all trying to figure out what works and what doesn't and the good ideas spreading and the bad ideas dying. Not Washington telling all 50 states to do something that isn't working.
NIcholas says, "The major one that I do not lean Dem on is national security and none of these other factors matter if we are not safe. "
I'm curious, Nicholas -- what in the performance of the Republicans as to national security to you find impressive? I find nothing in the performance of the Republicans in which to take great comfort. That we've not been hit in this nation since 2001 seems like a combination of dumb luck and more dumb luck. Certainy I am not comforted by the Bush Administration's 'efforts.' But what you see there?
The fact that Republicans are willing to use force against our enemies is enough for me to be with them. Both parties mess up a lot, a whole lot. But the Dems seems as if force is not an option at all. I understand you do not like the Bush Admin. and you feel what they have done has made us worse off. I disagree with the way they have fought the war by shooting at someone on one block and then playing Mr. Nice Guy right around the corner, however, I agree with the original mission. (We have argued this point on multiple occasions and neither of us will agree, this will not become a pro against anti war comment page)
But for me, having someone in office who at least keeps that ultimate option of military force on the table is reason enough for me. I should go on and state that the issue of social welfare is another reason why I am a Repub. These handouts for nothing makes no sense to me. The biggest though is national security.
"But the Dems seems as if force is not an option at all."
And upon what do you base this statement? Seems like World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, were all rather forceful.
I am a Republican today, not bc of what the great Dems in prior yrs were willing to do, but the dems of today. You cannot tell me that Pelosi, Clinton and Obama would be as tough on national security against our enemies, as McCain, McConnel and Bush were. As you well know from following this blog and reading my comments on Pat Crowley's blog that I am not a fan of the Republican leadership either. I just think the Republicans are less wrong on national security than the Dems.
I disagree with everyone, but bw the leaders of both parties, one wants to punish my family for being successful in order to hand that money away to others who are not. One wants to sit down with leaders of foreign nations that cannot even admit the Holocaust happened in hopes of bridging peace between us. Again, I have major pblms with both parties. I can ridicule both sides, but since KY does not have cross over voting, I have decided to be registered in the party that I am most likely to vote for, hoping that my one vote in the primary will help to make sure at least one candidate in Nov will be someone I can vote for and be satisfied. Wishful thinking maybe from a person who still has hopes for this nation.
If cross over voting was allowed, I would be an independent!
But you did not answer my question: What have these people, McCain, McConnel and Bush, done to impress you? Afghanistan, where Osama escaped? Iraq, where Osama isn't and has cost so much in life and money? Just what have they done but screw up?
I am picking the less of two wrong directions and I vehemently believe that McCain is better for the defense of this nation than Obama or Clinton is. We can argue the war all day long, we are safer in the long run without Saddam in power and furthermore, Bush has kept us safe since 9/11. That is by no accident either.
If I were to tell you in 9/12/01 that we still would not have been attacked in our homeland by terrorists in April of 2008, you and everyone else would call me nuts. We have taken the fight to the enemy, even if not all the information we received prior to going in was correct... he has fulfilled his most important job which is to keep us safe. The cost of the war is very worrisome for me and when the end of the war is another concern of mine, but Bush's ability to keep us safe is one that I can applaud him for.
"Osama Bin Laden determined to strike the U.S."
What do you do when you receive this mwessage?
Go on vacation in Texas
Do you give Bill Clinton no credit for doing so and for a longer period? No attacks on US between 2/93 and 9/11. Bush has some way to go to beat that record.
Bill, come on. You do not think the planning for the attacks began Jan 2001, do you?
I have a question for ya Bill, you read this blog often and you read Crowley's blog often as well, what party do you think I should be? You read my posts and my comments, do you think as the first anon does that I should be a Dem?
"Bill, come on. You do not think the planning for the attacks began Jan 2001, do you?"
I see -- so you think George HW Bush is responsible for the first WTC bombing in February 1993, less than a month after Clinton's inauguration: Waco and the Davidians that began on February 28, 1993 and ended on April 19, 1993; and let's not forget that George HW Bush put 28000 Americans in Somalia that led to Black Hawk Down in October 1993 -- are those all the things Clinton isn't responsible for because the planning began during George HW Bush's administration?
As for your party affiliation, there were once honorable moderate (and that's not a pejorative) Republicans. McCain used to be one. I'm a moderate Democrat, but there are some who believe Republican is synonymous with rightwing nut and Democrat means left wing socialist. And a great majority of those who inhabit Washington consist of that ilk. My point is you have no basis for supporting Republicans because they are stronger on national security. That myth is revealed as such by the military idiocy of this administration. You don't seem opposed to social programs, taxes are the price you pay for services, certainly we all desire responsible spending and none of us want our nation Jack AbramOFFed.
No, Nicholas, you should not be a Democrat, you are not ready for that. Stay in the GOP and try to run the religious fanatics, and the neo-con war mongers out of your party. Then, maybe then, you can create your economic utopia where everyone is a rich entrepreneur, who relies on nothing or no one to prosper. The Great Society. You can do it.
Thanks Anon! lol.
This entire string illustrates why Nicholas is wrong that more voter participation equals progress for our nation. Bill Adkins is an old-style Labor Democrat, a noble tradition in its time but one which has long outlived its relevance to society. Jean is today's prototypical liberal, and "Anon"'s views are straight out of Daily KOS.
Meanwhile, Nicholas borrows from some of Jean's platitudes about preserving the educational status quo (except with more and more tax dollars), and throws in a few Republican "security" talking points for good measure.
Since all the above represents a fairly good cross-section of American opinion, somehow I'm not very optimistic that our greatest need is "increased participation". As Daniel Moynihan used to say, we've defined deviance down.
BTW, the "Anon" I referred to wasn't the one in posts #'s 2 and 5. He had some excellent points.
Nicholasville says:
"This entire string illustrates why Nicholas is wrong that more voter participation equals progress for our nation."...LOL
And they call Obama an elitist?
Oh the sight of all of right wingers, proudly waving there "purple fingers" during the State of the Union address,
Priceless!
Anon/KOS - I am indeed an elitist on several issues. For example, I don't believe passing out more watered-down diplomas, absent improvements in educational quality, will make us better off.
But you're wrong that I was enamored with the purple fingers - in fact, that would be contrary to my original post. (Short-term display of euphoric bravery, Yes; representation of long-term progress for a stable Iraq, No. I'm a paleoconservative, not a neocon.)
I can't tell from here who will be the Democrat nominee, both Obama and Clinton are certainly excellent prospects.
However, George W. Bush's blunders have killed over 4000 Americans, we've p-issed away trillions of dollars, the national debt has doubled under his administration, countless people are losing their homes, fuel costs have doubled and on their way to triple what they were since Bush took office, food shortages have appeared in the last few months, wages aren't keeping up with inflation, Bush is well on his way to delivering The Great Depression II ... and the list goes on. Al Qaeda hasn't damaged us to the degree George W. Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress have damaged us.
And John McCain as Republican nominee offers more of the same in the form of George W. Bush's third term. How do you think that's going to work out for him? He may as well use "Heckuva Job, Bushie" as his campaign theme.
Can Bush award himself the Presidential Freedom Award, before he leaves office?
Because it will be the last positive thing said about him for the next 500 years.
Post a Comment