Saint Mary's College-Political Communication

Upper division Communication Studies course discussing politics from a communication perspective.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

*Disclaimer: Prepare to be angered by my political views*

We all, at one time or another, have expressed some measure of disappointment in American political practice. Incivility among politicians, negativity in advertisements, all this and more should make us look at our political system with, at the very least, unease.

I am listening/watching to yesterday evening’s democratic debate via YouTube right now. I will admit that I did not watch it when it aired. I will also admit that I toe the line separating the politically apathetic from the rest of the world. I say that because as I listen to the debate, I know that the arguments from both Clinton and Obama fall on my nearly deaf ears and the ears of those like me. Political apathy does not mean undecided, it means uninterested; therefore, out votes do not need to be courted or enticed. A desire to take an active part in our government is what the apathetic lack.

But, we know all of this. We know that it is hard enough to attract the votes of voters who are undecided, let alone indifferent. But let me tell you something about my own personal brand of borderline apathy – I desperately want to care about the politics of these issues. I think people who are disenchanted with political practice want to be involved. Especially those of us who do not want to commit ourselves fully to the arduous task of not caring about policies and practices that effect our daily lives. But somehow, even the politically savvy seem to miss that we are a unique constituency.

The issues themselves are important to me. They are important to a lot of people. I know health care and education reform are important. I know our industries must seriously consider the economic ramifications of outsourcing jobs to developing nations. So, in an effort to care about the process, I logged onto YouTube, hoping to hear something of last night that will give me a clear reason to invest my time and energy into a system based as much on policy making as it is on marketing.

Well, by now the debate has ended and I can deliver my response. I heard a 16-minute argument on whose health care plan is better with little clarification as to why, a discussion of the source and impact of a photograph of Senator Obama in traditional African dress and its potential to be a sort of smear campaign (by Clinton or another party), and a dialogue regarding whether or not it is the same to denounce Louis Farrakhan’s support and anti-Semitic remarks as it is to reject them.

After sixteen minutes, neither Clinton nor Obama’s health care objectives are any clearer to me. But the state of the American political debate is apparent. It must have been so stirring to listen to the Lincoln-Douglass Debates in 1858. With seven debates at three hours apiece, I think I could have been supportive of listening to two candidates going at each other for 21 hours on the obvious problem of extending slavery into the territories because it was an actual issue. A photo of a political candidate immersing himself into another culture is not an issue and if a political candidate consistently denounces the Anti-Semitic stance of any supporter, the point is moot. So, our politics becomes about sensationalism as much as it is about stratagem. I feel as if last night lacked substance, particularly for Clinton who grabbed at every moment to say “look at me, listen to me.” Obama, I think the cooler of the two, emerged as last night’s clear winner, though this is up for debate (as is health care). It was an odd and uncomfortable combination of a Rogerian Argument (“Senator X is a very worthy candidate for the presidency and that is why we are both here Tim, and by the way our health care plans are very similar, so I’ve just confused the borderline apathetic girl even more”) and something else. It wasn’t lacking civility, but neither Clinton nor Obama’s cup overflowed with courtesy, if you ask me.

So, I get discourage with politics, probably because it seems that any candidate will do whatever it takes to get a nomination. The lack of discretion is staggering.

But, really, what do I know? I’m borderline apathetic.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger Michael R. Kramer said...

The point Laura makes--that while intense incivility might turn off interested voters, mild incivility still has the negative effect of keeping apathetic citizens apathetic--is interesting. As I asked in class, how can a politician break through that indifference?

7:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My question is, WHY is it the politician's responsibility to instill caring into potential voters? MOst of the time, that interest only lasts one election, then goes down the drain. We can see this in the McGovern campaign, when his "Triple As" were inspiring youth; then, after he lost, a good portion of the youth tuned out politically, sold out, and traded Birkenstocks for Lacoste. I feel that this is the case with Obama- It'll be short-lived for most people. If you're already apathetic, good for you- you're already ahead of the game for some people. Now THAT'S offensive!

1:04 PM  
Blogger Kristen Edelen said...

Apathy is sorta how I'm feeling too. This is the first election I will get to vote in because I was still 17 in 2004. I'm not even registered yet and have no idea who will get my vote.

11:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home