Oh, today is so exciting! I can't wait to go home (well, actually to Kristin's house) to watch CNN. Kristin and I got to the polls this morning about five minutes after they opened at 7am and there were already a handful of people there. I have a feeling it's going to be a busy day. And can I just say that this country does not make it very easy for one to vote? Both Kristin and I are active committee members of the county's Democratic Party, and yet neither of us had been informed that apparently our precinct had been cut in half. Though Kristin voted at the same place as me in November and never received any notification of a location change, her name wasn't on the list and she had to go to a different building to vote. And we are informed, educated, politically savvy and dedicated women! So Kristin made the extra trip to vote, but how many people would take the time to do that on a busy morning? When I teach my freshman about civics, their main questions are how to get registered and where to go to vote. It seems like we do a whole lot of "you really should vote" and a whole lot less of "this is how to vote" in the US of A.
Also, why in the world do we always have to vote on a week day? Making major election days into holidays or holding elections on weekends would make so much more sense--so much sense, in fact, that I'm inclined to believe there is some kind of conspiratorial group somewhere preventing it. Think about it: if elections were on Saturdays, folks like me would volunteer at the polls. And though I'm no computer whiz, I promise I know more about electronic voting machines than the congregation of 80-year-olds (as sweet and cute as they are) attempting to run them on a Tuesday. Let's face it--they have a hard enough time remembering that L comes after K. And I really mean no disrespect to 80-year-olds. Josh's grandparents are stand-up members of that demographic, still sharp and supremely capable. But then they aren't the type who have nothing to do on a Tuesday.
I do owe the comic highlight of my morning though to the volunteers' collective hearing loss. Right before I received my voting card, the woman handing it to me was yelling (ostensibly to the woman 8 inches away from her but actually to the entire room and down the hallway), "We have a Democrat, here! We have a Democrat!", in case anyone was wondering what those looked like in Utah. Besides getting to bask in the "outed" Democratic spotlight, my blue affiliation also let me skip the registration line that was already starting to form. Because for some reason, the Utah Republican Party doesn't feel like it has enough of the state's loyalty and demands registration in said party before one can cast a vote in their primary. But I guess that makes sense, because if I was allowed to vote in the Republican primary, I would probably vote for Romney because I think there is a way better chance of Obama (I'm hoping!) beating him in the general election than beating McCain. And Utah is never gonna go to Romney.
Right. Well, that brings me to this. I could post the video here, but that would require more technological know-how than an electronic voting machine requires, and I never claimed that. Also, it might make my blog slow to load, and I hate that. But it's a cool tribute to the candidate who received my vote today, though it is a little celebrity-heavy, not to mention heavy-handed. But I really like the idea. And it really does (blush) make me get all excited and inspired feeling.
Which brings me to my final topic today. How much do emotions affect the way you vote? On the one hand, I consider my vote for Obama to be extremely calculated. He is the one candidate that I pretty much agree with and I also think has a chance of winning. In truth, I find myself slightly more aligned with Clinton (why does everyone call her "Hillary"?), especially when it comes to health care. Her policy is substantially stronger I think than Obama's. But she'll never win. And she'll so never win if it's McCain she's running against. And do you know why McCain would win? Because people think he's a nice guy. And that he stands for something. What? They're not so sure. Josh has even been known to take this line. But let me get back to Obama. So it makes logical sense for me to vote for him. However, having said that, I have to say that he also really appeals to me on an emotional level. He feels fresh, hopeful, and "presidential" in the best sense of the word. And the sad thing is that I know those three adjectives have been oh-so-carefully cultivated by his campaign. That's not to say he couldn't actually embody them, but they are part of an intentionally manipulative message. Of course, all campaigns are intentionally manipulative, but my point is this: why don't we actually spend more time looking at these people's policies?
There are actually a few answers to this question that make some sense. 1) Policies change. The isolationist George W. Bush who was elected in 2000 was miles away from the preemptive attack dog George W. Bush who named an "axis of evil" in his 2001 state of the union address. 2) Presidents don't actually control policy. That's Congress. Sure, the president helps set agendas and priorities in Washington and has a good measure of lobbying and veto power, but in the end he (or she!) is the executor of policy. That's it. 3) Most candidates' policy positions are so vague and/or unrealistic as to be pretty unhelpful forecasters of actual actions. (This is the part where you think to yourself "politicians always lie.") That's not what I'm saying. Instead, it's really hard to get an uninterested (not disinterested, which means "unbiased," everyone, including reporters and academics) American public to listen to longer than 10-second sound bytes about complex issues.
Having said all of that, I am still an advocate for voting on the basis of policy--both in terms of record and statements. Why? Because what better thing do you have to go off of? Looks? Gender? Race? Religion? "Good vibes"? I've heard people say they're still deciding between the likes of Romney and Clinton or McCain and Obama. Though the last two are ever-so-slightly closer on the political spectrum than the first pair, these candidates are light years away from each other! They have wildly different ideas about the course of America's foreign policy (Iraq in particular), the morality of torture, the nature of U.S. health care, who and what deserve tax breaks, etc. And these are things that matter!
On the other hand, there are some policies (like . . . dare I say it? . . . abortion) that actually matter less to our everyday lives but are so emotionally laden that people get caught up in them. And I ban my freshman from writing about them. I realize I just opened a can of worms, but I'll keep it short here by saying there are lots of things, including abortion, I wouldn't do and others would do be they legal or not. And I don't believe in making my personal (both individual and Mormon) moral code into national law. But beyond that, abortion (or some similar topic) is one issue in a huge mix of issues, most of which--especially health care--could and should be considered "moral issues." And they are worth being "emotional" over. But when passion or anger or some other emotion becomes so consuming on just one issue, I think it impairs our ability to vote responsibly and ethically.
Okay, see me stepping down from the soap-box now? What do you expect? It's Super Tuesday!
10 comments:
Great post, Rachel. I think Hillary C. is called Hillary partly because our male-dominated culture condescends to her, but also because "Clinton" is potentially ambiguous between Bill and Hillary.
Oh, and Mom and I were also outed by hearing impaired volunteers today. At first I felt a little embarrassed when the lady **shouted** "Turley, Democrat", TWICE. But then I turned around and, staring the shocked and disbelieving Republicans in the eye who were standing behind me in line, and said, silently of course, "that's right. I'm a Democrat. And you guys are going down."
Me, I got out my donkey temporary tattoos, slapped them on my cheeks, and jumped up on the registration table shouting "I AM Democrat" while burning my bra over a flag.
Not really. But that sure would have woke up the people waiting in line.
Here's me, not in a Super Tuesday state. But I am in a swing state, so that makes me more special than you Utahans. At least in this case.
Here's the deal about abortion: let's pretend you're pro-life, but you like Obama otherwise. How to justify it? Well, would Obama make it any worse than it is today? Is he going to make it *more* legal? Is he going to start forcing women to abort their babies, just because? Of course not.
On the other hand, what would whack-job Huckabee do? Whine, mostly. There's not much he *can* do, except try to appoint Supremes that won't ever make it through a Democratic congress. He can talk big, he can have high morals, but he can't really *do* anything.
Except by Huck, has anyone brought up any of the issues that make many Mormons suspicious of Dems? Not that I've heard -- except from Huck. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans are the worst representatives of the values that are important in Mormon doctrine and practice.
Well put, jeff #2 (and way to be proud of your outing #1). As for you, Kristin, that paints a very nice image.
I wasn't on the list to vote...I wonder if that's because I was supposed to go the courthouse instead of Provost. You're right, they do make it pain to vote. I thoroughly enjoyed you on your soap box. It makes me happy!
a very interesting post! and boy, when i was watching those results come in, i wished i lived somewhere that actually MATTERED. ergh. i don't think we get any say in this whole kerfluffle until May, at which point, it's pretty much a wash.
so i told neil about your "we've got a democrat here!" experience and we both laughed heartily. gotta love utah.
and i think i'm beginning to lean towards obama...hmm...at this point, the republicans just aren't doing it for me. and i REALLY don't like mccain.
Fun stuff. I'm jealous you got to vote yesterday. Our primaries are in May! What good will it do then? As for the policy vs. emotion thing. I will admit I'm a somewhat emotional voter, but I think it's because I've been having a hard time really making my mind up on the issues. And right now I'm backing Obama because I would really like to see someone vastly different than Bush in the White House. And I just like him better than Clinton and don't want to see Billary back in the White House. I want someone new! Also, I actually think his health care plan is more realistic. I haven't heard an answer to how Hillary's mandates would be enforced if she actually got it passed by Congress.
Katrina--I agree with everything you said, including Clinton's healthcare plan being less realistic.
I voted for Obama too, mainly because I agree with most of his policies, but also because he makes me feel all teary-eyed and hopeful. He even makes Andrew cry. ;)
I also think that Obama's health plan makes more sense than Hillary's. The only thing that I'm skeptical about is Obama's plan for immigration. Obama and Hillary have both suggested that immigrants should be required to learn English to become citizens. This troubles me. I feel that, in an increasingly global society, more emphasis should be placed on Americans learning a second language than on forcing immigrants to learn English.
That being said, I still feel that Obama is the best man for the job and the candidate most likely to effect some real change in Washington.
My husband and I often thought that the whole voting process should be done over a period of 2 - 3 days and then get the final results. This whole one day bit does pose a problem. I too had to switch locations from where I voted in November and it was a bit frustrating dragging out the five kids and then having to put them back into the car only to do the same thing at another location. This whole political process can become quite a "hassle" in a way. I enjoy reading your insights. Keep them coming.
Post a Comment