OPINION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9,2004
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
www.kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD
Democracy needs more substance, less MTV hype
While experts are busy attaching the "biggest loser" label of the 2004 campaign to John Kerry and the Democratic Party for failing to upend President George W. Bush last week, perhaps we should consider the biggest loser to be the demographic that was supposed to turn the election on its head: us.
While the number of young people a catch-all term for those under the age of 30 did rise in this election,it wasn't by the numbers that some had hoped.
Though there was a raw numerical increase in youth turnout, our proportion of the electorate didn't rise at all. Yes, the number of voters from other age groups did go up as well. This election saw the largest turnout in 40 years. But the failure by this generation to show up as predicted and expected will further insure the marginalization of young voters and their concerns in the various levels of government, both federal and state.
The most predictable part of any election is the inevitable letdown afterwards. It's understandable, considering just how much time and energy has been spent on these races by significant portions of the population. But tomorrow morning senior citizens will still be writing letters to their representatives about their Medicare and Social Security, and middle class families will still be anxious about the economy and education.
Politicians know this, and thus those segments of the electorate will still get their attention. Will this generation continue to be engaged in politics and democracy during the next few years as they were during the past year and so prevent the perpetual cycle of disengagement on the part of young people and their representatives alike?
We want to hope so, but given the attitude of many young people even before the election, there is much reason to doubt their willingness to partake in the democratic process again — at least until they're 60.
The catalyst of a record youth turnout was supposed to be the celebrity movement. MTV's "Rock the Vote" and P. Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaigns were just a few of the attempts to raise the political consciousness of young people. They were admirable in some ways, but we'll soon find out if perhaps this route to participatory attitudes was a hindrance to young people's connection to democracy rather than a boon.
Even the concerted attempts to raise issues during the Democratic primaries served to underline the attention and focus that these movements and celebrity endorsements placed on this one presidential election. It was presented as the most important, crucial, momentous choice we could face in decades. In other words, they hyped it up.
But does a democracy that needs hype have a chance when the choices are not as sexy but still fundamentally vital to the Republic? And where was the attention for Congressional races? Why was there not a distinct celebrity voice saying, "Learn about your local candidates"?
Voting has become a marketing trend that comes around in four year cycles. But our democracy needs to be more than that.
Will there be "Vote or Die" T-shirts seemingly everywhere in the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections when control of Congress will again be contested? Probably not.
Only the issues will consistently bring people to the polls. Despite the best efforts of MTV and the celebrities, voting is not "hip," nor was it ever supposed to be. But without our generation demanding issues and solutions, the large turnout last week will be a one-time blip. It's up to us now, and we can't afford to fall behind.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com.
Free forAll
Call 864-0500
Has anybody else noticed that Law Perkins looks alarmingly like Uncle Fester?
OK, OK, OK, when did straight guys start wearing pink shirts?
rree tor All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansas editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
Why are my pants on backwards?
Drop it like it's hot. Drop it like it's hot. Drop it like it's hot.
People who go to the games and read fashion magazines while the game is going on should just not go.
TALK TO US
Henry C. Jackson
editor
810 or hickson@kansan.com
Donovan Atkinson and Andrew Vaupel
managing editors
864-4810 or datkinson@kanans.com and
avaukel@kanan.com
864-4810 or hjackson@kansan.com
Anna Clovis and Samia Khan opinion editors 864-4924 or opinion kansan.com
Justin Roberts business manager 864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Stephanie Graham
retail sales manager
864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864.7667 or mgibson@kansan.com
Jennifer Weaver
sales and marketing adviser
864-7668 or jewever@kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Laura Rose Barr, Tyler Bean Good, Anna Gregory, Jack Henry-Rhodes, Kelly Hollowell,
Nate Karlin, Jay Kimmel, Stephanie Lovett,
Taylor Price, Noel Resar, Ryan Searrow, John
Tran, Anne Weltmer and Michelle Wood
The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions. Letters to the editor should be no longer than 200 words and guest columns should not exceed 650 words. To submit a letter to the editor or a column, a mail the document to opinion@kansan.com with your name, hometown, year in school or position and phone number.
For any questions, call Anne Clivia or Samia Khan at 864-4924 or e-mail at opinion@kansan.com. General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kansan.com.
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
Maximum Length: 650 word limit
Include: Author's name
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
Also: The Kanan will not print guest columns that attack another columnist.
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
LETTER GUIDELINES
LETTER GUIDELINES
Maximum Length:
200 word limit
Include: Author's name and telephone number
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
SUBMIT TO
E-mail:
opinion@kanan.san
Hard copy:
Kansan newsroom
111 Staffer-Flint
STEADMAN AND STINSON'S VIEW
Ralph Steadman and Zach Stinson/KANSAN
Conservative agenda not done deal
It's all over.
Voters turned out in record numbers for what pollster John Zogby has dubbed "the armageddon election." Of course, the world has not ended, but we're still left to deal with some unpleasant fallout. Republicans are acting giddy, and some have displayed a kind of braggadocio usually reserved for the latest Jay-Z album.
My fellow Democrats, however, have good reason to feel upset that vast amounts of America are more worried about gay people getting hitched than the mess in Iraq or the sluggish economic recovery. Some have been acting especially depressed, and some are half-seriously threatening to move out of the country.
GUEST COMMENTARY
All I can say is that everyone needs to seriously calm down. If recent history is any guide, both camps might be overreacting to the Bush victory.
Take a look back at the last three times the United States decided to re-elect the president. There were big victories by Richard Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996. Note that all three of those were by significantly larger margins than Bush won by last Tuesday. All of them were considered to have powerful legislative mandates from the populace. All of them fared poorly in their second terms.
Nixon had Watergate. Reagan's legacy was tarnished by Iran-Contra. Of course, in the case of Clinton, the name Monica Lewinsky ought to ring a few bells. Will Bush get hurt by a similar
JACK HENRY-RHOADS opinion@kansan.com
scandal that refuses to go away?
It is hard to say for certain. Undoubtedly, the hubris requirement for this kind of scandal is fulfilled. But even if he is not hit with a major scandal, he is still in an unenviable position. Now he has to own up to the mess in Iraq and the enormous deficit. These are huge problems, and if Bush doesn't turn them around soon, he'll be in a world of pain come 2006 when Congress holds midterm elections. If he couldn't get these right the first time around, then what does that tell us about his chances to do so in the second term?
Also, he has declared that one of the first issues he will tackle is going to be social security. Someone should tell him that social security is called the third rail of American politics for good reason: If you touch it, you will get fried. It is such a tough issue that a whole week's worth of columns couldn't describe all the potential political pitfalls inherent in any attempt at reform. A big loss on this issue for Bush is likely, and it could begin a long, downhill slide in his poll ratings.
Finally, he faces a tough situation in his chance to appoint a member of the Supreme Court. He'll have to try to find a way to please both conservatives and moderates. That is no easy task. Ronald Reagan saw his political capital dwindle in 1987 when it took him three attempts to get someone on the bench. Moderate Republican Arlen Specter has already warned Bush that he will help Democrats block a conservative appointee. This is going to be a defining battle of this term, and Bush is going to lose no matter which way it goes.
In fact, walking the tight rope between being a moderate and being a conservative will be key for Bush. The post-election Gallup poll shows that only 50 percent of Americans want him to advance the Republican agenda, while 63 percent prefer a bipartisan approach. That is hardly a convincing mandate for the kind of conservative policies he has followed to date, and that his right wing base will expect in the second term.
I have a hard time thinking Bush will suddenly run back to the great American middle in any substantive sense. But remember, 63 percent is an awfully big number, and it is the kind of number that could start spelling disaster for the conservative wing of the Republican party in 2006 and 2008.
Henry-Rhoads is an Independence, Mo., junior in economics and political science. He is a member of the Kansan editorial board.
Column shows left-wing's misguided resentment
Stephanie Lovett's column,
"Democrats must endure, prevail," included one key sentence that says a lot about the left wing of the Democratic Party. Lovett said, "The Democratic Party is still going to be united against Bush and we have articulated a clear vision for this country."
Right now, the United States is working to secure peace in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan has had its first election ever, and Iraq will have an election in January. We are waging a global war against terrorism. Even considering all this, extreme Democrats like Lovett are calling for unity against the President of the United States.
when Sen. John Kerry gave his concession speech on Nov. 3, he graciously asked his supporters to unite behind President Bush so this country could move on and work towards our greater goals.
For all the divisiveness of this election, Kerry still understands the importance of unity. This country should not be comprised of two factions — Democrats and Republicans at war with each other and "united against" each other. This country should be one
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
nation, united against our enemies abroad and determined to make things better at home. Whether leftists believe it, President Bush has the same goal they do: Making America a better place.
Bush just has different ideas about how to get there. But now that the nation has spoken and Bush will be in the White House until January 2009. It is time to unite behind him, not against him.
I believe that most Democrats don't think I love you. I believe and hope
I believe that most Democrats think like Lovett. I believe — and hope — that most Democrats, whether or not they like Bush, respect him and this country enough to stand behind him and hope that he can make this nation better. I believe that most Democrats aren't itching to fight him, unite against him and hope that he stumbles. That is petty anger, not patriotism.
π
The reason Republicans won the White House and increased their majority in Congress is that a good portion of the Democratic Party can't identify the real enemy, Republicans are at war against terrorism, while radical Democrats appear to be at war against Republicans.
Moderate Democrats should be angry that the misguided wrath of extremists gave the Democratic Party
a bad image and cost them this election.
Vince Myers
Olathe freshman
The Kenan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions. Letters to the editor should be no longer than 200 words and guest columns should not exceed 650 words. To submit a letter to the editor or a column, e-mail the document to opinion@kansan.com with your name, hometown, year in school or position and phone number.
For any questions, call Anna Clovis or Samian Kham at 884-4924 or e-mail at opinion@kansan.com. General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kansan.com.
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 650 word limit
Include: Author's name
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
Also: The Kansan will not print guest columns that attack another columnist.
LETTER GUIDELINES
Maximum Length:
200 word limit
Include: Author's name and telephone number
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)