Meredith Laito’s claim in American Idol: The Presidency that young voters care more about “who would be best at a cocktail party” than who would be a better President is seriously flawed. The easiest way to debunk these claims is to look at the Republican presidential candidates. Ron Paul, the 72 year old
But why? He’s not “attractive” like Mitt Romney or “likable” like Mike Huckabee. Instead he is the most popular candidate with young voters because of his strong consistent ideologies, something far more important to young voters than looks.
Obama’s popularity among 18-29 year olds is not based on his cocktail party abilities, but is instead rooted in his strong ideology of transcending partisan politics. I believe that if Hillary and Barrack were running against each other for a seat in the senate, it would be no contest; Hillary would easily win. But the oval office requires a unique set of skills far different from those of Congress. What Obama’s supporters believe is that he has something that experience cannot bring, something that makes him a catalyst for change in a year where people are desperate to escape the political status quo.
In comparing charisma and experience, let us remember 1960 when the race for the democratic nomination was between John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the far more experienced senate majority leader who was serving in Congress before Kennedy had even finished his freshman year at Harvard. Did experience or charisma end up making the better president?
So before we snap to the conclusion that Obama derives his support from the youth by being the better looking candidate, not the better candidate, let’s remember good old Ron Paul, recognize talent outside the scope of experience, and give our generation a little bit more credit.
4 comments:
Your argument is flawed because you assume that all of Ron Paul's supporters support him for rational reasons. Paul retains some unique appeal because of his non-traditional views (as a Republican) and unconventional approaches to voter support (the Internet) - I know a handful of people who support him just because he's the weirdest guy in the race. Intangibles are a massive factor in this race, and unfortunately, a majority of people in our generation just aren't informed and vote for whoever is trendy/cool/fashionable/quirky/etc. I really do believe Paul appeals to young voters on that level.
Then why isn't Dennis Kucinich leading Barrak Obamma or deriving support on any level comprable to even Ron Paul?
Because being vegetarian is enough suck to cancel out any quirk factor he could possibly have.
I would like to clarify that my column was focused on the flaws of the media than on those of the candidates. I believe they are capturing this election through a pop culture lens in order to pull in a younger generation of voter. I'm glad our generation is showing more interest, but I fear that their motives are flawed. In order to combat this, I challenge the news to not focus on Hillary's tears, but instead on her record in Congress. So she became a bit emotional when talking about a subject she was especially impassioned about. Is that such a bad thing? Should we air it repeatedly on every news station several times over?
I also considered the comparison to the JFK election year, because it was the year in which the lens of elections was changed forever. This is the very lens I wish to combat. The presidential elections of 1960 were the first to be heavily televised. They were therefore the first to place an emphasis on image. This emphasis had not previously existed (consider such presidential lookers as Chester Arthur or Grover Cleveland). Instead, presidents of the past were expected to be great speakers, intelligent debaters and able to inspire passion in their voters. But now, America could see JFK and all of his handsomeness. True, his charisma propelled his popularity. However, we must realize that it is unlikely that he rode this wave all the way to the oval office. His international experience going into it trumped Obama's considerably. He grew up as the son of the ambassador to England, so he was exposed to and active in international politics all his life. He also fought in the Navy during Vietnam and learned the politics of defense. Both Obama and JFK may exemplify the good-looking candidate, but the comparison can’t hold completely because JFK, while less experienced than Johnson, was still more experienced than Obama.
Thanks for your active debate.
Post a Comment