The first response is from Mr. A, from my United States History 1865-Present class:
If New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker William O'Brien is granted his wishes of limiting the voting rights of college students, the United States would be set back four hundred years. To say that only young adults vote on emotion is an insult since voting and emotion seem to go “hand in hand.” For instance, George W. Bush ran his second campaign completely on emotion; Bush won his second election because Americans sympathized with his response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. In a Matt Lauer interview in 2010, Bush said, “while my emotions might have been similar to those of most Americans, my duties were not;” an admittance that emotions drove many of his actions and those of citizens during his regime (MSNBC.com).
Now if you look at almost any presidential election prior to 2008's when Barack Obama was nominated, young adults had virtually no effect in the voting process. Now that young adults are voting and making a political difference, conservatives like O’Brien are on the defensive. O'Brien even went as far as to say that college “kids” are “foolish” and vote based on their “feelings.” O’Brien’s statement is completely unfair and makes little logical sense as it can be seen throughout American history that many voters, regardless of age, elect candidates based on emotions. If emotions did not play a key role in the election process then why would “image” matter so much? Why would people even care if the president was divorced or married? Presidential elections prove that the majority of votes a presidential candidate gets are based on the emotions he or she brings up in the voting citizenry. Presidential candidates kiss babies on campaigns not for their love of everything cute but for the emotional feelings people attribute to the touching image of a potential candidate and being kind to a baby. If emotions did not play a big role in elections then the next presidential candidate to run for the either party should start to kiss strippers instead of babies and should visit strip clubs instead of elementary schools.
Another concern that comes with limiting the people who are able to vote is that it gives an unfair advantage to a special interest group or groups. The poll taxes of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which almost exclusively limited voting to white males, resulted in decision-making political power almost exclusively benefitting white Protestants. If young adults are not allowed to vote and have a say in laws enforced on them then the age of being considered an adult should be changed. If at eighteen a person is too “foolish” to vote then they should be considered too “foolish” to go fight in a war and take lives. If the day comes when a young adult of eighteen years old is not allowed to vote but is allowed to sign up to fight for the army, it would prove the corruption and hypocrisy of the United States government.
Many young adults have proven to be less “foolish” and more productive than their older counterparts. Take Mary Shelly for example. She wrote one of the greatest books ever written when she was only eighteen years old. On the other hand, look at the “foolish” acts Seinfeld's Kramer or Charlie Sheen have committed. Perhaps some people who are young are “foolish” and some who are older are not responsible. It is an insult to young able adults everywhere to say that their thoughts should not be taken seriously due to their age and not their merit.
"Excerpt: Bush in His Own Words on 9/11, Iraq - Books - Biography Memoirs - TODAY.com."TODAY.com: Matt Lauer, Meredith Vieira, Ann Curry, Al Roker, Natalie Morales - TODAY Show Video, News, Recipes, Health, Pets. 11 Nov. 2010. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40075575/ns/today-books/>.
I hope to post more excellent responses soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment