Debates Making History?
https://acconline.austincc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_639726_1%26url%3D
The biggest argument in this article seems to be that there is a greater significance to these presidential debates than the last because of how revealing they have been. In this case, I would have to disagree. Peggy Noonan offers many good opinions from a obviously subjective point of view, but with no substantial evidence to suggest that these debates are any more historic than the last. The biggest difference in this debate, I believe, is that both candidates have "revealed" how easy it can be to point out the other's mistakes. It has become very apparent that both candidates are playing dirty in the debates and in the media. This kind of behavior isn't new in an election; it's simply exploited more in this debate.
Noonan also comments by saying that Obama "doesn't seem to be winning the post debate" though numbers have shown that the second debate has benefited Obama just as much as the first debate hurt him. She also says that Obama's comments towards Romney about being "a good man" were "pro forma" and "hollow", though Romney has also given the president compliments that some people may agree were also "hollow" and not genuine. This article was far too opinionated for its lack of evidence and support. This election will be marked down in history like all the others. At the end of her article she leaves the reader (most likely a republican) by asking "Everything... depends on one thing:American wealth... If we are wealthy, we can be strong. If we are not wealthy, we will not be strong for so long... True or not true?" The idea that wealth is power is, in my opinion, false. I'm not ignorant to the fact that in order to be a prosperous nation we do require a strong, productive economy that makes money, but we have been successful many times in the past without wealth. The American Revolution and World War II are examples of how successful we've been without "wealth".
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Long Presidential Race Vs. Short Presidential Race
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-a-long-presidential-race-is-good-for-democracy/2012/10/05/520a1f16-0d6e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
In a Washington Post article written by Frank Partnoy, he argues that a longer presidential race would be more beneficial for our nation because it would give voters more time to decide on which candidate they should vote for. In his article, he points out that people have been proven to make better decisions when given more time, and they tend to make quick judgments based on appearance without taking time to look at more important characteristics. Although I agree with him that people do need more time to make a well thought out vote, their vote should not be made only by witnessing candidates "perform" over a longer period of time.
The time before elections consists of back and forth banter on which of the candidates is worse than the other and a giant charade thought out by advisers to convince the public that their candidate genuinely cares about their needs. Extending this time frame will only allow candidates to make mistakes, impressions and argue. The only way for citizens to vote is by making an informed decision. Their decision should not be based on a couple of weeks of argument: it should be based on the actions of the candidate not only during elections but preceding the elections as well. The real problem with electing officials is the lack of informed voters. Shortening the time frame in which voters have to make their decisions should only encourage them to get more information about their candidates previous to the elections. For example, when teams elect captains they have the previous year(s) to evaluate the team members and elect the best candidate. They do not give you weeks to decide which team member can bribe the rest the best. Improving this country can only happen when actions speak louder than words: actions over years, not weeks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-a-long-presidential-race-is-good-for-democracy/2012/10/05/520a1f16-0d6e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
In a Washington Post article written by Frank Partnoy, he argues that a longer presidential race would be more beneficial for our nation because it would give voters more time to decide on which candidate they should vote for. In his article, he points out that people have been proven to make better decisions when given more time, and they tend to make quick judgments based on appearance without taking time to look at more important characteristics. Although I agree with him that people do need more time to make a well thought out vote, their vote should not be made only by witnessing candidates "perform" over a longer period of time.
The time before elections consists of back and forth banter on which of the candidates is worse than the other and a giant charade thought out by advisers to convince the public that their candidate genuinely cares about their needs. Extending this time frame will only allow candidates to make mistakes, impressions and argue. The only way for citizens to vote is by making an informed decision. Their decision should not be based on a couple of weeks of argument: it should be based on the actions of the candidate not only during elections but preceding the elections as well. The real problem with electing officials is the lack of informed voters. Shortening the time frame in which voters have to make their decisions should only encourage them to get more information about their candidates previous to the elections. For example, when teams elect captains they have the previous year(s) to evaluate the team members and elect the best candidate. They do not give you weeks to decide which team member can bribe the rest the best. Improving this country can only happen when actions speak louder than words: actions over years, not weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)