BulletMagnet wrote:
This is certainly true to an extent, but it certainly doesn't explain the apathy of many regarding the Presidency in particular, as the actions of that office affect everyone. There's something else at work here.
The President really doesn't affect the average joe's day-to-day life. If someone went to an average job for 10 years and never knew who the president was or anything else regarding international affairs, he/she wouldn't really know the difference. As long as a healthy Congress is in session, the President himself can't directly change much.
As an example, why can't we have universal health care? Because we'd be "infringing on people's freedom of choice!"...even as a huge chunk of the country doesn't have enough money to MAKE that choice, and most of those who DO are regularly fleeced out of benefits they've paid for.
Actually, on this point, it's because we shouldn't "spread the wealth." Since I'm a proponent of classical American conservatism, I prefer a small government because I believe I can spend a set amount of money more effectively than how the government can spend it. I wouldn't mind governments privatizing more than they have (mail being a huge one).
If some folks make a conscious effort not to purchase health care, then that's their responsibility and I think they should put up with any misery that results as a consequence. This is a basic necessity that my 3-member family had since my father was supporting us with $12k a year, and doing so also helps place the burden out of other families who would be paying for any emergencies we might have had. Now, we didn't ever capitalize on the health coverage (nor did we anticipate that, hence why we purchased the most basic plan), but we still felt that having something was the better option and, with the remaining income, didn't have any issues with food, clothing, or shelter.
Living under those conditions as a child, I'm well aware what concessions we needed to make and that's why I have no sympathy for families nowadays who claim they can't afford insurance and then go buy a nice car, TV, or appliance. We waited our turn, followed the system, and things skyrocketed. It really peeves me to remember my family living off our own backs while so many people (discounting those with legitimate medical/temporary reasons) are still unabashedly content to wait for the wealth of others to come.
In truth, I'd put far more responsibility on the media - as I said earlier, they're the ones most responsible for telling people, over and over again, that none of this stuff is really important, that you only ought to bother paying attention if it's entertaining. And as I said, I attribute at least a good amount of this to the fact that pretty much all the country's media is owned by wealthy corporate interests, who pay their "journalists" six, seven, or more figures a year, and all of which are best-served, in an economic sense, by an ignorant, detached voting public. If they started not only putting more focus on relevant facts, but stoking public interest in those facts (for starters, not calling people who present them "boring" or "wonkish"), by presenting quantifiable reality as important (as opposed to concerning themselves first and foremost with candidates' fashion choices), I truly think we'd see a sizable shift in public involvement and awareness of what's going on. Perfect? of course not - but still a far cry from the current state, where people are continually told, by people who are supposed to be far more informed and qualified on these matters than they are, to just zone out.
I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you be more specific please? When I read Times or Newsweek, I get the candidates' life story and their basic stances, sometimes told through opinionated editorials. When I watched TV, I got political pundits arguing over either how the election distribution would turn out or what's wrong with some of the candidates' stances. When I watched on Election Day, all I could hear every half hour was "get out and vote." Sure, SNL mocked the candidates, but aside from Palin's wardrobe costs, I don't recall hearing anything else that wouldn't otherwise contribute to why one candidate may be better/worse than another.
And just to add a disclaimer, since anybody reading may think otherwise, I voted for Obama and supported him even before he won the primary. I don't believe he'll effect change to any large degree but he's a fresh, level-headed face who's not much of a hypocrite/extremist and will certainly help narrow the racial divide. Plus, I feel the neocons (just as bad as socialist democrats) deserved punishment for blowing our national prestige and leading countless lives to ruin in a silly attempt to act macho and revitalize the economy (not to mention overflow this defense-industry-backing administration's coffers).
