My general topic for this marking period is religion. I looked into Israeli-Palestinian conflict columns but had some trouble finding recent articles, so for now my focus will be the way religion fits into national society.
Henry G. Brinton of USA Today writes about the good versus evil mentality of American politics.
Brinton begins by using twentieth century examples of the US banding together against foreign enemies in times of war, but in times of peace we turn against each other. He cites this "duality" as religious in nature and present for the purpose of pinning blame on others. Its relevance is clear in the upcoming 2012 Election, where the concept of political extremes as a source of evil has come into play. A poll by the Center for Political Participation revealed that 61% of Americans think this good-versus-evil is unhealthy for our democracy. Brinton then cites New Testament professor Susan Garrett on two examples of Christians calling other Christians evil (I have to wonder what this means for non-Christians...), using this as a lead-in for his belief that there are no devils running for president in 2012. Rick Perry called our moderate president a "socialist," crossing the line into straight demagoguery. Gingrich called Romney dishonest for his work as a venture capitalist. Although creating an enemy can get votes, making other Americans into enemies is a waste of energy. Brinton believes we should focus this energy instead on foreign enemies or internal problems, such as "substance abuse, racism, sexual addiction, domestic violence or the disintegration of the American family." (As a pastor of the Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, the religious nature of his examples is to be expected.)
I'm only sixteen, but in my life I have on some level witnessed this concept of "duality" in action: from a young age it was drilled in my head to Osama bin Laden is - was - a terrible person, and as I've grown older I've become more aware of Democrats and Republicans attacking each other like two sides of bitter civil war. This topic of duality in the government of a fairly religious country might be able to be applied to the governments of other countries, and not just primarily Christian countries, either. Mr. Brinton called it a very Christian style of thinking, but Islam has a very good-versus-evil mentality as well.
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Marking Period 3: Monday #4
(I needed another post with analysis and didn't feel like using one of the articles I had already summarized...)
Page writes about whether independent voters are truly independent.
Clarence Page points out in this article that voters listed as independents aren't actually that "independent" of the Democrat-Republican mentality, and he backs this up by quoting political analyses from various credible sources. He begins by quoting the statistic that voters registered as Democrats and Republicans have dropped 2.5 million since 2008, but that many still vote for one party or the other. Respecting that politics aren't the only reason, Page notes that since the 1960s both parties have lost members because "television and suburbanization have liberated voters from reliance on precinct captains and other party favors." But, with evident sympathy for the independents, he explains that they are independent in hopes that they are voting for a person or an idea, not a party (this is the first of two instances that prove Page himself is a registered independent.)
Page then cites USA Today's report on voter numbers: Democrats have 42 million registered, Republicans have 30 million, and 24 million are independents. Out of the 2.5 million voters dropped out since 2008, the Democrats have lost 1.7 million. Continuing on to prove the independents have grown in rank, Page points out that in the eight swing states, Democrats and Republicans are down 800,000 and 350,000 voters respectively, while independents are up 325,000. Provided that Obama won all eight states in 2008 ("Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (sic - I support the use of the Oxford comma) and Pennsylvania,") it was predicted by North Carolina's election director that the 2012 election will be determined by independents.
Purposely contrasting his previous point, Page explains that independents generally know which side of the left-right debate they're on; election scholars have proved this and have questioned whether independents make a difference at all. A 1992 book called "The Myth of the Independent Voter" deduced that only 10% of independents actually vote for neither Democrats nor Republicans, and that these authors also found independents were often less informed on politics. In a sidenote Page comforts his "fellow self-declared independent voters," pointing out that the fact that they read his column suggests they should not be counted as "underinformed." That Page is an independent explaining the ineffectiveness of independents as a whole should be noted - he is commenting on the strength of the polarization in today's government.
Connecting back to his USA Today example, Page quotes from an Emory University study that although independents were 40% of eligible voters in 2008, they only made up 33% of the election votes, and only 7% of those people actually voted independently. Driving home the point that independents are ineffectual, Page notes that in the in the five presidential elections since 1972 that had a win margin of less than five, the independents actually voted for the loser (some examples being 1976, 2000, and 2004.) Page concludes by suggesting that perhaps some independents are hoping for a third party in the future. But, as this article proved how different independents' opinions are, a party will not satisfy their needs.
Page writes about whether independent voters are truly independent.
Clarence Page points out in this article that voters listed as independents aren't actually that "independent" of the Democrat-Republican mentality, and he backs this up by quoting political analyses from various credible sources. He begins by quoting the statistic that voters registered as Democrats and Republicans have dropped 2.5 million since 2008, but that many still vote for one party or the other. Respecting that politics aren't the only reason, Page notes that since the 1960s both parties have lost members because "television and suburbanization have liberated voters from reliance on precinct captains and other party favors." But, with evident sympathy for the independents, he explains that they are independent in hopes that they are voting for a person or an idea, not a party (this is the first of two instances that prove Page himself is a registered independent.)
Page then cites USA Today's report on voter numbers: Democrats have 42 million registered, Republicans have 30 million, and 24 million are independents. Out of the 2.5 million voters dropped out since 2008, the Democrats have lost 1.7 million. Continuing on to prove the independents have grown in rank, Page points out that in the eight swing states, Democrats and Republicans are down 800,000 and 350,000 voters respectively, while independents are up 325,000. Provided that Obama won all eight states in 2008 ("Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (sic - I support the use of the Oxford comma) and Pennsylvania,") it was predicted by North Carolina's election director that the 2012 election will be determined by independents.
Purposely contrasting his previous point, Page explains that independents generally know which side of the left-right debate they're on; election scholars have proved this and have questioned whether independents make a difference at all. A 1992 book called "The Myth of the Independent Voter" deduced that only 10% of independents actually vote for neither Democrats nor Republicans, and that these authors also found independents were often less informed on politics. In a sidenote Page comforts his "fellow self-declared independent voters," pointing out that the fact that they read his column suggests they should not be counted as "underinformed." That Page is an independent explaining the ineffectiveness of independents as a whole should be noted - he is commenting on the strength of the polarization in today's government.
Connecting back to his USA Today example, Page quotes from an Emory University study that although independents were 40% of eligible voters in 2008, they only made up 33% of the election votes, and only 7% of those people actually voted independently. Driving home the point that independents are ineffectual, Page notes that in the in the five presidential elections since 1972 that had a win margin of less than five, the independents actually voted for the loser (some examples being 1976, 2000, and 2004.) Page concludes by suggesting that perhaps some independents are hoping for a third party in the future. But, as this article proved how different independents' opinions are, a party will not satisfy their needs.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Marking Period 3: Monday #2
About the rise of Newt Gingrich and the fall of the Tea Party
In this column, Clarence Page writes about how Newt Gingrich's rise in popularity signals the fall of the Tea Party Movement. Page begins noting that Gingrich has gained so much attention with the help of tea party supporters. As a movement that formed to remove "fat cats and wheeler-dealers who line their pockets while raising taxes," that they would support Gingrich, who is known to have made millions by "advising, promoting and lobbying for big corporate and public policy interests" with companies such as Freddie Mac doesn't fit with their mission statement. He also reminds us that Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House in history to be disciplined on ethics violations, driving home that the Tea Party is ignoring quite a bit of Gingrich's history. Why are they doing this? Because they'd rather Gingrich rise to beat out Romney for the Republican nomination and usurp Obama, whose administration led to the founding of the Movement in the first place.
Page explains that the tea partyists want him for his confidence and understanding of what the GOP is in support. He reasons that Gingrich's announcement of candidacy was perfectly timed because "the right was energized and the left [...] was demoralized," and Gingrich showed a decisiveness of yet Obama had not. From there on Gingrich had to contend with the indecisiveness of Republican polls - in particular, Mitt Romney's spot as the GOP favorite. But, with his own wit and Herman Cain's "stumbles," suddenly he was tying with or passing Romney in polls. Page notes that although this could be an example of "the latest GOP flavor-of-the-month," it being so close to the Iowa caucuses, this surge of popularity could prove pivotal.
Connecting back to the question of the Tea Party's pull, Page wonders if the Movement is buying into Gingrich possibly beating Obama in the 2012 Election or selling out on their ideals - he decides it is probably some of both. That they are beginning to blend in with other Republicans suggests to Page that "the name remains, but the spirit is fading."
In this column, Clarence Page writes about how Newt Gingrich's rise in popularity signals the fall of the Tea Party Movement. Page begins noting that Gingrich has gained so much attention with the help of tea party supporters. As a movement that formed to remove "fat cats and wheeler-dealers who line their pockets while raising taxes," that they would support Gingrich, who is known to have made millions by "advising, promoting and lobbying for big corporate and public policy interests" with companies such as Freddie Mac doesn't fit with their mission statement. He also reminds us that Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House in history to be disciplined on ethics violations, driving home that the Tea Party is ignoring quite a bit of Gingrich's history. Why are they doing this? Because they'd rather Gingrich rise to beat out Romney for the Republican nomination and usurp Obama, whose administration led to the founding of the Movement in the first place.
Page explains that the tea partyists want him for his confidence and understanding of what the GOP is in support. He reasons that Gingrich's announcement of candidacy was perfectly timed because "the right was energized and the left [...] was demoralized," and Gingrich showed a decisiveness of yet Obama had not. From there on Gingrich had to contend with the indecisiveness of Republican polls - in particular, Mitt Romney's spot as the GOP favorite. But, with his own wit and Herman Cain's "stumbles," suddenly he was tying with or passing Romney in polls. Page notes that although this could be an example of "the latest GOP flavor-of-the-month," it being so close to the Iowa caucuses, this surge of popularity could prove pivotal.
Connecting back to the question of the Tea Party's pull, Page wonders if the Movement is buying into Gingrich possibly beating Obama in the 2012 Election or selling out on their ideals - he decides it is probably some of both. That they are beginning to blend in with other Republicans suggests to Page that "the name remains, but the spirit is fading."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)