HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Oct. 25, 2005 Republicans have been very smug for the past few years after several recent victories--the past two presidential elections, taking control of Congress, and that they'll soon be taking control of the Supreme Court (so much for checks and balances...). Several columnists on U-K have also described this as saying that it is final proof that the Democrats are wrong and that the Republicans are right. Oh boy. First of all, to say that is to immediately turn one's back on any kind of change whatsoever, because if one party is already right, then what point is there to change? People have said things like that for hundreds of years. The Christian church said the same thing about the world being flat and being 6,000 years old. Well, we know how that turned out. Secondly, further claims that "Republicans are in control and in control to stay" are absolutely false. American politics has always followed a sort of fluctuation (a theory which can be explained in depth by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.), alternating between tides of conservatism and liberalism. From the Roaring Twenties to the New Deal--from the protests of the 60's and 70's to the Reagan Era, No party has consistently dominated in the past. Generally, Republicans come out on top. Why? Because they're conservative. Although society does generally move in a leftward manner, Republicans will generally have an edge over Democrats because of their conservative base. People like to latch onto old ideas and traditional values, generally attributed to Republicans. Republicans also present a strong family image. Look at Reagan. Democrats, with their left-leaning tendencies, usually are faced with a large obstacle, particularly with divisive issues like abortion and gay rights. All of this, of course, is besides the fact that past Democratic politicians have had the emotional appeal of a dead snail. More important than any political standpoint or shady background is a politicians ability to inspire people and generate emotional support for them self. Barack Obama had a clear advantage not only in the primaries, but in the Congressional election because he was inspiring. His speech at the Democratic Convention, calling for unity between red and blue states was something that every American should take to heart. But I digress. The reason that Al Gore and John Kerry could not win is because the two of them are about as inspiring as, well, a dead snail. This is not to say that dubya is particularly inspiring, but he certainly had a much better family image and greater emotional appeal than the stern-faced Gore or Kerry. Again, we can look at someone like Reagan, who was very inspiring and presented a family image to a country in a crisis situation. Bill Clinton did the same thing by reaching out to the ordinary American and presenting himself like another "average Joe." When it really comes down to it, it's not really where a politician stands on certain issues (although that does make a difference). What really wins elections is their ability to convince people that they are someone that they would want to "have a beer with"--or however the saying goes. Democrats should be able to project a positive image to the working man that they say they represent. But, then again, we're talking about politicians, and when it really comes down to it, nobody really represents the working man. ------------ About the author: Jack Lepiarz is a senior at Madison High School. Born in Waco, Texas, he lived with the Big Apple Circus for much of his early childhood, eventually moving to Madison, New Jersey, where he now resides. Although he is often described as stubborn and egotistical, he tries to keep an open-mind towards new ideas and treat people the way he would like to be treated. Email: Jackwuzhere42@aol.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
