College Voters - Apathetic or Patriotic?
As I am writing these words, presidential caucusing in Iowa is just beginning.
But as you are now reading, the top Democratic and Republican candidates have already been chosen and dutifully reported throughout the media.
Allow me to make a prediction: the Democratic winner will be a current U.
S.
senator.
The Republican will be a former governor.
Think for a second.
Am I correct? Keep in mind that I am writing this article before the respective winners have been identified.
The fact that you're reading this implies several possible realities: a) you're my mother; b) you've stumbled across this website during a routine web search for "donkey" and "caucus;" or c) you are at least mildly interested in presidential politics.
If you fall into the first two categories, stop reading.
You will be sorely disappointed.
However, if you're in the last category and especially of college age, keep on reading.
This column may actually prove to be useful to you.
Countless talking heads on television- as well as suicidal high school civics teachers- have said that young people aren't politically aware.
Actually, they use a more ominous term: young people are "apathetic.
" Is this true? My CNN/NPR/Larry Craig fetish would seem to indicate otherwise.
After all, check out my daily routine.
Wake up at 6 a.
m.
Turn on talk radio.
Turn on the computer.
Google search for "donkey" and "caucus.
" Read New York Times.
Watch CNN.
Google search for "Anderson Cooper" and "caucus.
" Go to sleep.
Dream about Anderson Cooper's caucus.
I know, it's a pathetic existence, but it satisfies my daily thirst for all things political.
It may sound trite or even narcissistic, but I consider myself far-distanced from youthful, political apathy.
And since you're still reading, you must be at least slightly similar to me: way too interested in Anderson Cooper...
or...
er...
politically aware.
So, why the bad rap for young people? Are the talking heads right? Are you and I the exception rather than the rule? If so, what can be done to keep the college cohort from descending into the annals of history as the reason why George Bush was reelected? After all, the likes of Bruce Springsteen, assisted by P.
Diddy (is that still his name?), who told our age group to "Vote or Die" (whatever the heck that means) tried to rock the vote in 2004.
It turns out that our age group didn't vote much in 2004, which theoretically led to the reelection of Bush.
I got the "vote" part down, but I'm still waiting for that death thing to arrive, Diddy.
Let's step back and look at this from a wider angle.
Did the college crowd refrain from voting in 2004 (or any year, for that matter) because of apathy? Perhaps, but can we take a more academic approach (which is something I've been told that college students are supposed to do)? If there is one thing our age group has been historically good at doing (other than taking bong hits and test-cramming), it is demonstrating the art of protest.
From Vietnam-era marches on Washington, D.
C.
to standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square, it's our age group that consistently leads the way in protest and major social movements.
Heck, it's almost expected of us.
I often hear people lament that current students have not taken as noticeable a stand against the Iraq War as our counterparts did against Vietnam.
But that may have more to do with circumstances than anything else.
After all, there are no draft cards to burn this time around, and the social outcries formerly seen on the National Mall in Washington take a more technological approach on YouTube and blogs.
Have you seen the movie Hackers? It shows youth leading the electronic dissidence movement.
Dissent, as some believe that Thomas Jefferson has said, is the highest form of patriotism; no group voices its dissent for national policies and trends quite like the college crowd.
Therefore, rather than writing off the voting habits of our college population as evidence of political apathy, why not view it as our exuberant and youthful form of political participation? Could it be that in 2004 our age group cared not about Bush or Kerry, or is the problem more systemic? Could it be that we took a serious look at both candidates, each with his respective record and plan for America, and decided that neither would be fit for command? Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a rationale used all too often, and quite frankly, it's a disturbing one to hear.
A refusal to vote is just as valid, if not more so, than settling for a "less bad" candidate.
If college students remain politically disengaged during this campaign season, let's dispense with the "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" campaigns.
Instead, let's recognize the great contributions that college students have made towards refusing to partake in voting sorely for the sake of fulfilling a School House Rock notion of civic duty.
When students all over the country protest the November general election, let's congratulate them for their refusal to engage a system that consistently only allows well-endowed senators and governors a chance to win.
Now, if you'll allow my indulgence, I've got some internet searching on Anderson Cooper to do.
But as you are now reading, the top Democratic and Republican candidates have already been chosen and dutifully reported throughout the media.
Allow me to make a prediction: the Democratic winner will be a current U.
S.
senator.
The Republican will be a former governor.
Think for a second.
Am I correct? Keep in mind that I am writing this article before the respective winners have been identified.
The fact that you're reading this implies several possible realities: a) you're my mother; b) you've stumbled across this website during a routine web search for "donkey" and "caucus;" or c) you are at least mildly interested in presidential politics.
If you fall into the first two categories, stop reading.
You will be sorely disappointed.
However, if you're in the last category and especially of college age, keep on reading.
This column may actually prove to be useful to you.
Countless talking heads on television- as well as suicidal high school civics teachers- have said that young people aren't politically aware.
Actually, they use a more ominous term: young people are "apathetic.
" Is this true? My CNN/NPR/Larry Craig fetish would seem to indicate otherwise.
After all, check out my daily routine.
Wake up at 6 a.
m.
Turn on talk radio.
Turn on the computer.
Google search for "donkey" and "caucus.
" Read New York Times.
Watch CNN.
Google search for "Anderson Cooper" and "caucus.
" Go to sleep.
Dream about Anderson Cooper's caucus.
I know, it's a pathetic existence, but it satisfies my daily thirst for all things political.
It may sound trite or even narcissistic, but I consider myself far-distanced from youthful, political apathy.
And since you're still reading, you must be at least slightly similar to me: way too interested in Anderson Cooper...
or...
er...
politically aware.
So, why the bad rap for young people? Are the talking heads right? Are you and I the exception rather than the rule? If so, what can be done to keep the college cohort from descending into the annals of history as the reason why George Bush was reelected? After all, the likes of Bruce Springsteen, assisted by P.
Diddy (is that still his name?), who told our age group to "Vote or Die" (whatever the heck that means) tried to rock the vote in 2004.
It turns out that our age group didn't vote much in 2004, which theoretically led to the reelection of Bush.
I got the "vote" part down, but I'm still waiting for that death thing to arrive, Diddy.
Let's step back and look at this from a wider angle.
Did the college crowd refrain from voting in 2004 (or any year, for that matter) because of apathy? Perhaps, but can we take a more academic approach (which is something I've been told that college students are supposed to do)? If there is one thing our age group has been historically good at doing (other than taking bong hits and test-cramming), it is demonstrating the art of protest.
From Vietnam-era marches on Washington, D.
C.
to standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square, it's our age group that consistently leads the way in protest and major social movements.
Heck, it's almost expected of us.
I often hear people lament that current students have not taken as noticeable a stand against the Iraq War as our counterparts did against Vietnam.
But that may have more to do with circumstances than anything else.
After all, there are no draft cards to burn this time around, and the social outcries formerly seen on the National Mall in Washington take a more technological approach on YouTube and blogs.
Have you seen the movie Hackers? It shows youth leading the electronic dissidence movement.
Dissent, as some believe that Thomas Jefferson has said, is the highest form of patriotism; no group voices its dissent for national policies and trends quite like the college crowd.
Therefore, rather than writing off the voting habits of our college population as evidence of political apathy, why not view it as our exuberant and youthful form of political participation? Could it be that in 2004 our age group cared not about Bush or Kerry, or is the problem more systemic? Could it be that we took a serious look at both candidates, each with his respective record and plan for America, and decided that neither would be fit for command? Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a rationale used all too often, and quite frankly, it's a disturbing one to hear.
A refusal to vote is just as valid, if not more so, than settling for a "less bad" candidate.
If college students remain politically disengaged during this campaign season, let's dispense with the "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" campaigns.
Instead, let's recognize the great contributions that college students have made towards refusing to partake in voting sorely for the sake of fulfilling a School House Rock notion of civic duty.
When students all over the country protest the November general election, let's congratulate them for their refusal to engage a system that consistently only allows well-endowed senators and governors a chance to win.
Now, if you'll allow my indulgence, I've got some internet searching on Anderson Cooper to do.