The university has had an influential role in the shaping of politics over the years. It has been the seed of revolution, as in the 60’s, its students have brought about political change, it has prepared younger voters to inform themselves and vote in elections, and it has been the catalyst for many prominent figures getting to talk to younger voters. All these are positive aspects of the university’s role in the political process. A negative aspect, though, is that its purpose seems to be limited to solely letting students meet politicians and urging them to vote. What it fails to do is allow students to implement more drastic changes, especially at the national level.
Most of the political speakers here have been local people who are in the political arena for one reason or another - such as supporting or opposing gun control laws. There have also been national figures like John McCain, and I’m sure others before him. These appearances were great opportunities for students to develop their own views and impressions of these people, not just have a media-filtered impression out of the newspaper or off the TV. It also shows that the university wants the students (or whoever is invited to attend the events) to be informed about politics. There is also a big push going on now by a group of students to get other students registered to vote. They seem concerned only that students show they care about the future. They don’t care what their different views are.
The use of the university as a place for the future world leaders to make their voice heard has both good and bad sides. The good side is that we are gathered together in each campus, and even across campuses nationwide. This is the first step in getting our voices heard, and it works well. The bad side is that usually whenever people come together to protest, the government looks at it immediately as a mob, and they bring out the riot gear. This is completely contradictory to the Constitution where it says we can assemble peaceably. It seems that the only way to bring about political change is to “mob” together and make a statement that there are a lot of people who want a change made. Yet, it often ends in tragedy, even on the university grounds, like the Kent State killings. The university is our main forum for bringing about change and those who we’re speaking to use the power we gave them to quiet us. The university should be a place for students to gather and make their ideas heard peacefully, but it’s not being used to its full potential.
As for the debate, I thought Gore did better than Bush. Every other time Bush opened his mouth, something dim-witted came out (the Internet turned the Columbine shooters’ hearts dark). He seemed much less well-informed and he couldn’t come up with straight answers to Gore’s tougher questions about his record in Texas (i.e. tax cuts for oil companies coming out of CHIP funds and aiding in oil companies’ environmentally unacceptable practices). They had many of the same views on issues, except Bush is more for limited government that Gore, and their differing views on the role of the military. In fact, the both believe in the golden rule! Most of the post-debate reporters said Bush won. As for education, they mostly talked about elementary school and pre-school. Bush recommended testing toddlers to see if they’re smart or not, and to evaluate students and their teachers all through their academic careers. He said that every child should be able to go to school no matter what. The only virtue I noticed was “holding people to the consequences of their actions”. Bush really seemed enthusiastic that his state was going to put some guys to death who had killed another man. He also said he thought that the Columbine incident occurred because the shooters thought there would be no consequences. What he doesn’t realize is that there were no consequences for the killers. They did what they wanted to, and then killed themselves. Sadly, it was completely successful on their part. One more virtue I could mention that I wish I’d seen, but didn’t was “toleration of fundamental diversity of beliefs and values without sacrificing conviction”. Both candidates seemed to have ample conviction, but only for what will make them more popular. They view their convictions as sacred, but will change them in an instant to gain points in the polls. Gore exhibits this characteristic much more than Bush, and that’s what’s keeping me from trusting him.
Voting should not be considered an intellectual virtue because if you can’t find a candidate with your views and you don’t vote, then you’re standing up for what you believe in. If you earnestly look for an alternative that suits your taste, and it’s not there, then you display “toleration of fundamental diversity of beliefs and values without sacrificing conviction” by not voting.
