Well, dear reader, I did vote on November 4th, and it was a humbling experience. I shall leave my vote confidential, although some may be able to make educated guesses as to whom I chose for the Presidential race.
Finally, all of those campaign workers and volunteers can catch up on their sleep, spend extra time with their families, and perhaps even have time to watch that film about George W. Bush that came out recently. Students, the election is no longer a valid excuse for playing hookie, and all those political junkies out there… maybe patches?
A friend of mine recently sent me a link to a satiric video about the condition of overly-dedicated political groupies. Published by The Onion, a satirical online news source, the video hilariously depicts this sudden "problem" of among some stark Obama supporters who now have nothing to do.
But although some may be experiencing withdrawal and wander around aimlessly in a lethargic state, do we really have nothing to do? The election may be over, but as Obama, himself, stated in his inauguration speech, "...this victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice...". Obama continued saying that each of us needs to "pitch in" and "work harder." Whether you support Barack Obama or not, however you may feel about his upcoming administration, we all together must make this country more prosperous and fruitful. We have elected a leader that will hopefully point us in a good direction, but who is a leader without people to lead?
The question then becomes, how exactly we can work to better our country? The message was clear during the election what we could do to help: make phone calls, register voters, knock on doors, talk to our friends and neighbors, donate money, sport campaign buttons and t-shirts, keep candidates accountable by blogging our concerns, etc. But now, what shall we do? I believe this question must really be asked on an individual basis, as each individual has particular concerns, needs, abilities and resources. But one thing that I believe is very important with any government is transparency, and it is all of our responsibility to pay attention.
This morning on National Public Radio (NPR) I heard a short report about how the Obama administration plans to appoint a chief technology officer or "technology czar." Part of the role of this initiative is to increase transparency, for example, by promoting broadband Internet access in all areas in the U.S. and also creating an online database in which anyone on the Internet can read about federal grants and contracts, earmarks, and lobbying contracts. Obama has already appointed a technology expert to his transition team and teamed up with Republican Tom Colburn to work on this google-like database.
For all you political junkies out there--and those of you who just like the occasional buzz--this initiative by Obama should provide an intriguing outlet for your curiosities. I've always had my doubts about those patches anyway.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Don't Vote, Its Your Duty
A neighbor of mine recently mentioned to me that after witnessing the past presidential election, he will never again "throw away" his vote on a third-party candidate. At the time I heard my neighbor say this, I immediately concurred and thought it a wise choice on his part. But later on I had the chance to speak with Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason.com and Reason.tv, which are Libertarian websites. I mentioned my neighbor's comment to Mr. Gillespie and asked him his opinion about it. He said something very interesting that I've never fully considered before. He mentioned that voting is a symbolic act that expresses one's beliefs. One vote will not decide who becomes elected, nor does Mr. Gillespie see a lot of differences between many Democrats and Republicans. Rather, he feels his vote for a third-party candidate matters to him personally and also that it demonstrates that there are more than two options for political orientation.
Taking Mr. Gillespie's answer into consideration, I came to the conclusion that if I were to consider voting for a third-party candidate, I would be making a choice between two things: 1) to vote for the Democrat or Republican whom I want to win, or 2) to decide that I am willing to give up my one vote for someone who has a chance at winning and vote for a third-party candidate, because it is more important to show that there are other options besides blue and red in the political spectrum.
I have also talked to individuals this election season, who openly admit that they will not be voting. It was interesting to hear their reasoning: from “I don’t really care about the election” to “my chosen candidate lost in the primaries” to “I don’t see any difference with anyone who gets elected.” I encourage everyone to vote, but at the same time I can’t force anyone to vote. Should we vote even if we lack conviction for a particular choice?
On the other hand I have also heard some this election season call voting a “duty” or “responsibility” or “obligation.” This is quite different from “the right to vote,” which I’ve heard most of my life. Should we consider voting more than a right? Is it a duty?
Another interesting idea about voting that caught my attention in 2006 was the Don’t Vote Campaign initiated by the AARP. Using a bit of reverse psychology, the campaign’s message is all about being informed when one goes to vote. In other words, Don’t Vote (until you know the issues and candidates’ platforms). It is a more thoughtful message than simply, “Go vote!”
All of this philosophy on voting has caused me to think about why I am voting and what it truly means to me. I have to admit that I’ll be proud to sport the “I Voted Today” sticker on November 4th, but at the same time if I don’t go and vote, it probably won’t change the outcome of the election.
What do you, dear reader, think about voting?
Taking Mr. Gillespie's answer into consideration, I came to the conclusion that if I were to consider voting for a third-party candidate, I would be making a choice between two things: 1) to vote for the Democrat or Republican whom I want to win, or 2) to decide that I am willing to give up my one vote for someone who has a chance at winning and vote for a third-party candidate, because it is more important to show that there are other options besides blue and red in the political spectrum.
I have also talked to individuals this election season, who openly admit that they will not be voting. It was interesting to hear their reasoning: from “I don’t really care about the election” to “my chosen candidate lost in the primaries” to “I don’t see any difference with anyone who gets elected.” I encourage everyone to vote, but at the same time I can’t force anyone to vote. Should we vote even if we lack conviction for a particular choice?
On the other hand I have also heard some this election season call voting a “duty” or “responsibility” or “obligation.” This is quite different from “the right to vote,” which I’ve heard most of my life. Should we consider voting more than a right? Is it a duty?
Another interesting idea about voting that caught my attention in 2006 was the Don’t Vote Campaign initiated by the AARP. Using a bit of reverse psychology, the campaign’s message is all about being informed when one goes to vote. In other words, Don’t Vote (until you know the issues and candidates’ platforms). It is a more thoughtful message than simply, “Go vote!”
All of this philosophy on voting has caused me to think about why I am voting and what it truly means to me. I have to admit that I’ll be proud to sport the “I Voted Today” sticker on November 4th, but at the same time if I don’t go and vote, it probably won’t change the outcome of the election.
What do you, dear reader, think about voting?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Ice Cream and Democrats
I recently was in the area of a Barack Obama rally, and I couldn’t help but laugh at some of the creative ways supporters showed their enthusiasm. There were, of course, the array of t-shirts and buttons and hats and stickers—one of my favorite stickers stuck to the side of an older Caucasian lady’s purse and boasted, “OLD WHITE WOMEN FOR OBAMA.” I also witnessed a small dog that happily wore an Obama button attached to its sweater. I have to admit that the small, patriotically decorated dog pulled at the heartstrings, but I think the many children that eagerly followed their parents and guardians for a fun day of celebrating Barack Obama surpass the dog any day. Despite the fact that the children were undeniably adorable—especially one small girl whose tiny t-shirt spelled out “OBAMA” in multicolored toy building blocks—I can’t help but wonder what sort of implications exposing children to strong political feelings might have on their young and moldable minds.
Unlike the dog, the children will be voters someday. Are we already at such an early age destined to adhere to a certain political identity? Many scholars agree that one of the biggest indicators of political preference is the political preference of one’s parents and family. What percentage of the children who attended the rally will vote primarily Democrat in the future? And in voting so, do they actually think rationally about their decision, or does somewhere in the forgotten channels of their brains a flicker of positive emotion flair up, because of an ice cream cone they had at a Barack Obama rally 20 years earlier?
I don’t mean to simplify the matter and suggest that ice cream will make a Democrat out of a child, but I do suggest that years of persuasion and positive associations encouraged by trusted individuals can and does greatly influence how one may vote. Before the Barack Obama rally, I heard Karl Rove speak at a nearby university. Inbetween the attacks on Barack Obama’s “lack of experience” he mentioned that Abe Lincoln gave some advice about persuading voters: among other things, undecided voters should be talked to by someone whom they trust. For many children, the people whom they trust the most are their parents and other family members. If mommy says “Barack Obama is better than John McCain,” the child forms a positive association with Barack Obama and a negative association with John McCain.
Having no children of my own, I cannot offer advice as to how to raise a child. I believe that parents have the right to choose how to raise their children and the obligation to ensure that how they raise their children contributes to the prosperity and growth of the children. I’m not about to tell someone that he or she cannot express their opinions to their children, but I do think it is important that parents and other family members realize the enormous influence they have on their children. Does anyone (perhaps who actually has had the amazing experience of guiding a child in this strange world) have any suggestions? How can we, as adults, encourage critical thought concerning politics in our children?
Unlike the dog, the children will be voters someday. Are we already at such an early age destined to adhere to a certain political identity? Many scholars agree that one of the biggest indicators of political preference is the political preference of one’s parents and family. What percentage of the children who attended the rally will vote primarily Democrat in the future? And in voting so, do they actually think rationally about their decision, or does somewhere in the forgotten channels of their brains a flicker of positive emotion flair up, because of an ice cream cone they had at a Barack Obama rally 20 years earlier?
I don’t mean to simplify the matter and suggest that ice cream will make a Democrat out of a child, but I do suggest that years of persuasion and positive associations encouraged by trusted individuals can and does greatly influence how one may vote. Before the Barack Obama rally, I heard Karl Rove speak at a nearby university. Inbetween the attacks on Barack Obama’s “lack of experience” he mentioned that Abe Lincoln gave some advice about persuading voters: among other things, undecided voters should be talked to by someone whom they trust. For many children, the people whom they trust the most are their parents and other family members. If mommy says “Barack Obama is better than John McCain,” the child forms a positive association with Barack Obama and a negative association with John McCain.
Having no children of my own, I cannot offer advice as to how to raise a child. I believe that parents have the right to choose how to raise their children and the obligation to ensure that how they raise their children contributes to the prosperity and growth of the children. I’m not about to tell someone that he or she cannot express their opinions to their children, but I do think it is important that parents and other family members realize the enormous influence they have on their children. Does anyone (perhaps who actually has had the amazing experience of guiding a child in this strange world) have any suggestions? How can we, as adults, encourage critical thought concerning politics in our children?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Senator Obama and John
I hope everyone was as excited as I was to see the first Presidential Debate this past Friday between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain—I mean, between “Senator Obama” and “John.” Glad to be watching and not under the pressure of being on stage, I tried to pay close attention to the framing used by both candidates. (See previous blog entry for a definition of “framing.”) Although the debate never seemed to have a defining moment, in which one candidate clearly won or lost, there were a few things that stood out to me.
John McCain kept using the phrase “Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand.” I lost count of the number of times John McCain said it, and, to me, it seemed like overuse. I assume the goal in using such a phrase is to paint Barack Obama as “inexperienced,” which has been a major argument against Barack Obama for many months. Although, I do believe that the focus on Barack Obama’s “lack of experience” may be trumped by that of Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin. (I’m sure Saturday Night Live is grateful to her for such rich material.) But despite the fact that I found John McCain’s words rehearsed and repetitive, I believe John McCain’s framing reassured his base and perhaps further drilled into the brain of the public, this idea of Barack Obama’s “lack of experience.”
I’ve been reading the book The Political Brain by Drew Westen, who is a clinical, personality and political psychologist and Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University. Dr. Westen argues that “reason is slave to emotion” (pg. 15), especially when it comes to politics. He writes that when it comes to an election, voters tend to develop an emotional connection to their preferred choice and don’t really use critical thought or reasoning to decide which candidate to support. He’s not talking about Youtube’s Obama Girl who gleefully sings how she’s “got a crush on Obama.” Westen means that this emotion is based on what our values are and how a candidate appeals to those values, and once we develop an emotional connection to a particular candidate, we shape our reasoning to support our emotional connection.
Supporters of Barack Obama hear John McCain’s repetitive rhetoric and probably find it an obviously rehearsed and weak attempt at trying to undermine Barack Obama’s credentials. Supporters of John McCain feel reassured that they’ve chosen the better-qualified candidate with real experience in Washington. Where this sort of framing might truly matter is with the swing voters. How do they interpret John McCain’s words? Do they buy into his framing? We won’t know until Election Day.
Barack Obama had his signature phrase, as well: “John is right…”. This seemed a wise move to me, although criticized by some as foolish for validating his opponent’s viewpoint. I felt that the use of the less formal “John” (rather than the more formal references made by John McCain, who always said “Senator Obama”) combined with an acknowledgement of John McCain having said something of worth suggested a familiarity that did three things: 1) it presented Barack Obama as a colleague and equal of John McCain and NOT somebody who “doesn’t seem to understand”; 2) it presented Barack Obama as someone who is willing to “reach across the isle” and work for the common good; and 3) it made Barack Obama seem more approachable to the average American citizen, who likely feels more comfortable when on a first-name basis.
It is possible that some stark supporters of John McCain may view saying “John” as too informal and even disrespectful of the veteran senator. But then again… our current President Bush, during his campaigns, seemed like “the guy you’d sit down and have a beer with.”
John McCain kept using the phrase “Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand.” I lost count of the number of times John McCain said it, and, to me, it seemed like overuse. I assume the goal in using such a phrase is to paint Barack Obama as “inexperienced,” which has been a major argument against Barack Obama for many months. Although, I do believe that the focus on Barack Obama’s “lack of experience” may be trumped by that of Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin. (I’m sure Saturday Night Live is grateful to her for such rich material.) But despite the fact that I found John McCain’s words rehearsed and repetitive, I believe John McCain’s framing reassured his base and perhaps further drilled into the brain of the public, this idea of Barack Obama’s “lack of experience.”
I’ve been reading the book The Political Brain by Drew Westen, who is a clinical, personality and political psychologist and Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University. Dr. Westen argues that “reason is slave to emotion” (pg. 15), especially when it comes to politics. He writes that when it comes to an election, voters tend to develop an emotional connection to their preferred choice and don’t really use critical thought or reasoning to decide which candidate to support. He’s not talking about Youtube’s Obama Girl who gleefully sings how she’s “got a crush on Obama.” Westen means that this emotion is based on what our values are and how a candidate appeals to those values, and once we develop an emotional connection to a particular candidate, we shape our reasoning to support our emotional connection.
Supporters of Barack Obama hear John McCain’s repetitive rhetoric and probably find it an obviously rehearsed and weak attempt at trying to undermine Barack Obama’s credentials. Supporters of John McCain feel reassured that they’ve chosen the better-qualified candidate with real experience in Washington. Where this sort of framing might truly matter is with the swing voters. How do they interpret John McCain’s words? Do they buy into his framing? We won’t know until Election Day.
Barack Obama had his signature phrase, as well: “John is right…”. This seemed a wise move to me, although criticized by some as foolish for validating his opponent’s viewpoint. I felt that the use of the less formal “John” (rather than the more formal references made by John McCain, who always said “Senator Obama”) combined with an acknowledgement of John McCain having said something of worth suggested a familiarity that did three things: 1) it presented Barack Obama as a colleague and equal of John McCain and NOT somebody who “doesn’t seem to understand”; 2) it presented Barack Obama as someone who is willing to “reach across the isle” and work for the common good; and 3) it made Barack Obama seem more approachable to the average American citizen, who likely feels more comfortable when on a first-name basis.
It is possible that some stark supporters of John McCain may view saying “John” as too informal and even disrespectful of the veteran senator. But then again… our current President Bush, during his campaigns, seemed like “the guy you’d sit down and have a beer with.”
Friday, September 12, 2008
Tax Relief
I am very curious to see the upcoming presidential debates and how both the Republicans and the Democrats will frame their arguments. But until the debates, there is plenty of rhetoric that provides foreshadowing. Considering the powerful and ever-increasing role of the Internet in the election and presidential politics, I looked at both John McCain and Barack Obama’s websites and did some searching on Google in order to analyze how both campaigns frame the debate about taxes.
In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff explains that “framing” one’s debate is key to convincing others that one has the best viewpoint. What is framing? On page 4 Lakoff describes, “Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary—and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas.” So it’s not necessarily what one says but how one says it. In addition, Lakoff explains that by using the language of one’s opponent, even if one negates the opponent’s argument, one actually reinforces the opponent’s frame. Lakoff gives the example of the two words “tax relief,” a conservative creation that in one-second’s time does a whole lot:
“When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor. Taxation is an affliction. And the person who takes it away is a hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy. This is a frame. It is made up of ideas, like affliction and hero. The language that evokes the frame comes out of the White House, and it goes into press releases, goes to every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper. And soon the New York Times is using tax relief. And it is not only on Fox; it is on CNN, it is on NBC, it is on every station because it is “the president’s tax relief plan.” And soon the Democrats are using tax relief—and shooting themselves in the foot.” (pg. 4)
As Democrats traditionally support higher taxes in order to fund a plethora of social programs and Republicans traditionally support lower taxes and borrowing lots of foreign money, “tax relief” makes the republican party the “hero” and the democratic party the “bad guy.”
Just out of curiosity, I decided to do a brief search of where the term “relief” is used in reference to taxation in the current election. On John McCain’s website on the page about the economy (http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/) it says that “John McCain has a comprehensive plan that will [ . . . ] bring relief to American consumers [ . . . ].” Listed in the subtopics on the same webpage is also “Relief for Families.” Okay. Republicans using a republican frame. On Barack Obama’s website on the page about the economy (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/) one of the subtopics is “Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief.” Bang. In the foot.
A Google search for “obama says tax relief” turned up about 620,000 results. A second search for “mccain says tax relief” turned up about 593,000 results. Obama has 27,000 more results than McCain.
If the Democrats want to stop reinforcing the Republican frame and strengthen their own debate, they need to drop phrases like “tax relief,” decide what their values and beliefs are, and come up with their own definitions and framing.
In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff explains that “framing” one’s debate is key to convincing others that one has the best viewpoint. What is framing? On page 4 Lakoff describes, “Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary—and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas.” So it’s not necessarily what one says but how one says it. In addition, Lakoff explains that by using the language of one’s opponent, even if one negates the opponent’s argument, one actually reinforces the opponent’s frame. Lakoff gives the example of the two words “tax relief,” a conservative creation that in one-second’s time does a whole lot:
“When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor. Taxation is an affliction. And the person who takes it away is a hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy. This is a frame. It is made up of ideas, like affliction and hero. The language that evokes the frame comes out of the White House, and it goes into press releases, goes to every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper. And soon the New York Times is using tax relief. And it is not only on Fox; it is on CNN, it is on NBC, it is on every station because it is “the president’s tax relief plan.” And soon the Democrats are using tax relief—and shooting themselves in the foot.” (pg. 4)
As Democrats traditionally support higher taxes in order to fund a plethora of social programs and Republicans traditionally support lower taxes and borrowing lots of foreign money, “tax relief” makes the republican party the “hero” and the democratic party the “bad guy.”
Just out of curiosity, I decided to do a brief search of where the term “relief” is used in reference to taxation in the current election. On John McCain’s website on the page about the economy (http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/) it says that “John McCain has a comprehensive plan that will [ . . . ] bring relief to American consumers [ . . . ].” Listed in the subtopics on the same webpage is also “Relief for Families.” Okay. Republicans using a republican frame. On Barack Obama’s website on the page about the economy (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/) one of the subtopics is “Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief.” Bang. In the foot.
A Google search for “obama says tax relief” turned up about 620,000 results. A second search for “mccain says tax relief” turned up about 593,000 results. Obama has 27,000 more results than McCain.
If the Democrats want to stop reinforcing the Republican frame and strengthen their own debate, they need to drop phrases like “tax relief,” decide what their values and beliefs are, and come up with their own definitions and framing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
