As a Modern-Conservative, I think the government has to do ensure three main things:
1.Domestic justice
2.Domestic rights
3.Domestic Tranquility
So, it confuses me terribly when my President [present or past] talks about leading a crusade to destroy radical Islamic terrorists on the other side of the planet. On September 11th, 2001--terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York. Suddenly, President Bush had a 90% approval rating [because obviously being POTUS while terrorists kill thousands of innocent people is something the American people approve of] and we were going to war in Iraq.
Why? Weapons of Mass Destruction. Them ol' WMD's were far too dangerous to Americans who live over 3000 miles away from Iraq [who doesn't even have half the rocket technology to get a bomb out of Baghdad]. So we went in, most people thought that the words Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, and terrorists all resided in the same place--along with them ol' WMDs[which seem to be invisible WMDs now].
People started getting pissed off about the whole thing, and then everyone hated Bush. Then President Obama came along, said he was going end the war in Iraq--and he's seeming to do that. The only problem with this is that he's bleeding more troops into Afghanistan every day. Our top generals say it'll take more and more troops to get the job done in Afghanistan. By the way, can anyone help me with the "job" that needs to get done in Afghanistan? I'm a little confused on that one...
While all this goes on, I have to ask myself what the purpose of even fighting on foreign soil when we seem to be extremely protected at home. I can't even bring my deodorant onto an airplane because secrurity is so tough and we're supposed to think radical Islamic terrorists are going to attack us? For a Conservative [not a Republican], it's safe to say that mainly defensive military spending is favorable when our Domestic Tranquility is far from threatened. If we had used the billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on precautions that would prevent terroistic attacks on America--I wonder how much safer things would be...
-RW
Friday, September 4, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
READ THE BILL!
It has been said that this week will be a make or break week on healthcare. There are rousing town hall meetings with "Rabble-Raisers" all over the south & the country for that matter. In many of these there has been a frequent and (almost) glorious chant, "READ THE BILL, READ THE BILL, READ THE BILL." Unfortunate for the hecklers who attempted to disrupt Congressman Barney Frank's meeting with his constituency because he actually did read the bill. They posited outrageous claims that any healthcare bill would allow illegal immigrants to receive free healthcare on the tax payers dime. Barney refuted this claim and received the rousing response, "Read the Bill, Read the Bill, Read the Bill" and so the Congressman (always willing to steal the show) flipped to the portion of the bill that banned illegal immigrants from receiving healthcare and the pertinent section.
Unfortunately for our republic is the fact that the debate over healthcare has become little more than buzzwords and political theater. Lost in rhetoric and not intelligent enough to actually read the bill themselves the citizenry are relying on others to decide what will be their truths. This can be good and bad, that is, relying on others to interpret, write, and execute the law. In our representative democracy we have shifted the need for the individual to be well versed in logic, rhetoric, and other important traits by giving this duty over to politicians. This is different than say the traditional Greek democracy where the average citizen was expected to be well versed in the said areas. Like I said the transfer of law making to an elected body is a good idea but it comes with consequences (the [= bad] part of the equation). When we become detached from the process of writing the laws we are ignorant of them and democracy has failed. In the same measure, if we become involved and are still too ignorant to interpret the political reality through which the laws are written democracy has failed. An uninformed voter isn't so dangerous as a misinformed voter. Relying on politicians can be dangerous but they still have to answer to their constituency. More dangerous and increasingly problematic is a politic relying on special interest groups and other lobbying efforts for their (mis)information.
Let me make a distinction on the last point. I don't mean all special interest groups are bad but that the ones attempting to misinform voters and (simply put) lie to them are not democratic. If it is true that we simply cannot say just what ever we want to or about people (as the status quo under the law would hold to be the case--if you need precedence think cyberbullying). Then many lobbying efforts and grass-roots misinformation campaigns that are successfully misinforming voters should be liable for gross negligence and prosecution.
The general rule for those questioning the intellect of the congresspeople now should be: "Do I really think my congressperson is doing X, Y, & Z unthinkable things? Wouldn't this make it hard for him/her to be re-elected and easy for an opponent to point out making for an easy election victory?" The answers to the previous questions are obvious. No politician is going to do something that is bad for his/her constituency (or so we would hope) because it would prevent their re-election and be bad for the country.
The outrageous claims are easy to come by these days. (Imagine this being said in a really deep scary voice that rattles you to the bone) "Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid along with the Democratic Congress are trying to force a healthcare bill through the legislature that would 1) allow 'Illegal Immigrants' to have free healthcare on the tax payers' dime, 2) Lets bureaucrats get between you and your doctors, 3) that leads to 'Rationed Care', 4) will lead to long lines and 6 month plus waiting times for doctors, 5) Bankrupt the treasury, 6) force the 'democrats' to raise takes stifling the American Economy, 7) Won't allow you to get the care you need or the care needed by your loved ones.
I'll go through these pretty quick. 1-3 are just flat out lies and are not true. (Number two depends on how you view bureaucrats....Insurance Company Bureaucrats aren't held accountable by an electorate but instead stockholders that care about nothing but PROFIT....Government Bureaucrats are held accountable....Either Way there are still bureaucrats....so this is what we call the "lesser of two evils argument"... I choose the people I can vote for and against...the people not driven by profit (arguably.) Numbers 4 - 6 are usually presented by showing a geo-political map of the UK & CANADA and making the claim that they have waiting lines and had to raise taxes. I'll just mention the glaring problem with the previous rhetorical presentation by mentioning that the current methods for raising funds for healthcare are simply becoming more fiscally responsible and revising aspects of the already established government run healthcare programs. Also that the UK & CANADA are just two of many nations with government run healthcare systems. Ending as we began 7 is just a flat-out lie.
Young people must become active in speaking out against these lies and misconceptions about healthcare. We are the fastest growing cohort of the uninsured. These healthcare issues will profoundly impact our lives and guide us as we will shortly become the "Next Generation's Republic."
[I've tried to read the bill and have read a substantial portion of it and will admit that it is hard to digest even for someone who has (though limited) experience reading such bills. I focused on more of the contentious sections so that I myself was not relying on the truth as fabricated by others.] The point in mentioning this is that I know it is hard to stay engaged with all of the other things we are worrying about in our lives. We can't make this healthcare discussion a side-note to our daily lives because it will soon become a political reality we will have to grapple with. We're all busy but we must keep our work going and we must make our voices heard. We are citizens and We must demand that our voices are heard.Take a survey of the town hall meetings you're seeing on the NEWS and see if you can spot a young person. If you can then you might notice that there are a lot more older Americans present than younger ones. This is in part because they likely have more free time but most importantly that they CARE what is going to be done with Medicare/ Medicaid. We should CARE and (it is my belief that) WE DO CARE. So we need to be proactive and start getting our voices and opinions out in the open public. We voted in great numbers in 2009 and we cannot let this be the end of our civic engagement. IT IS OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS TO STAND AND LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD. THAT DUTY IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW AS THERE ARE PEOPLE LYING, DECEIVING, AND EVADING THE TRUTH ABOUT HEALTHCARE.
Unfortunately for our republic is the fact that the debate over healthcare has become little more than buzzwords and political theater. Lost in rhetoric and not intelligent enough to actually read the bill themselves the citizenry are relying on others to decide what will be their truths. This can be good and bad, that is, relying on others to interpret, write, and execute the law. In our representative democracy we have shifted the need for the individual to be well versed in logic, rhetoric, and other important traits by giving this duty over to politicians. This is different than say the traditional Greek democracy where the average citizen was expected to be well versed in the said areas. Like I said the transfer of law making to an elected body is a good idea but it comes with consequences (the [= bad] part of the equation). When we become detached from the process of writing the laws we are ignorant of them and democracy has failed. In the same measure, if we become involved and are still too ignorant to interpret the political reality through which the laws are written democracy has failed. An uninformed voter isn't so dangerous as a misinformed voter. Relying on politicians can be dangerous but they still have to answer to their constituency. More dangerous and increasingly problematic is a politic relying on special interest groups and other lobbying efforts for their (mis)information.
Let me make a distinction on the last point. I don't mean all special interest groups are bad but that the ones attempting to misinform voters and (simply put) lie to them are not democratic. If it is true that we simply cannot say just what ever we want to or about people (as the status quo under the law would hold to be the case--if you need precedence think cyberbullying). Then many lobbying efforts and grass-roots misinformation campaigns that are successfully misinforming voters should be liable for gross negligence and prosecution.
The general rule for those questioning the intellect of the congresspeople now should be: "Do I really think my congressperson is doing X, Y, & Z unthinkable things? Wouldn't this make it hard for him/her to be re-elected and easy for an opponent to point out making for an easy election victory?" The answers to the previous questions are obvious. No politician is going to do something that is bad for his/her constituency (or so we would hope) because it would prevent their re-election and be bad for the country.
The outrageous claims are easy to come by these days. (Imagine this being said in a really deep scary voice that rattles you to the bone) "Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid along with the Democratic Congress are trying to force a healthcare bill through the legislature that would 1) allow 'Illegal Immigrants' to have free healthcare on the tax payers' dime, 2) Lets bureaucrats get between you and your doctors, 3) that leads to 'Rationed Care', 4) will lead to long lines and 6 month plus waiting times for doctors, 5) Bankrupt the treasury, 6) force the 'democrats' to raise takes stifling the American Economy, 7) Won't allow you to get the care you need or the care needed by your loved ones.
I'll go through these pretty quick. 1-3 are just flat out lies and are not true. (Number two depends on how you view bureaucrats....Insurance Company Bureaucrats aren't held accountable by an electorate but instead stockholders that care about nothing but PROFIT....Government Bureaucrats are held accountable....Either Way there are still bureaucrats....so this is what we call the "lesser of two evils argument"... I choose the people I can vote for and against...the people not driven by profit (arguably.) Numbers 4 - 6 are usually presented by showing a geo-political map of the UK & CANADA and making the claim that they have waiting lines and had to raise taxes. I'll just mention the glaring problem with the previous rhetorical presentation by mentioning that the current methods for raising funds for healthcare are simply becoming more fiscally responsible and revising aspects of the already established government run healthcare programs. Also that the UK & CANADA are just two of many nations with government run healthcare systems. Ending as we began 7 is just a flat-out lie.
Young people must become active in speaking out against these lies and misconceptions about healthcare. We are the fastest growing cohort of the uninsured. These healthcare issues will profoundly impact our lives and guide us as we will shortly become the "Next Generation's Republic."
[I've tried to read the bill and have read a substantial portion of it and will admit that it is hard to digest even for someone who has (though limited) experience reading such bills. I focused on more of the contentious sections so that I myself was not relying on the truth as fabricated by others.] The point in mentioning this is that I know it is hard to stay engaged with all of the other things we are worrying about in our lives. We can't make this healthcare discussion a side-note to our daily lives because it will soon become a political reality we will have to grapple with. We're all busy but we must keep our work going and we must make our voices heard. We are citizens and We must demand that our voices are heard.Take a survey of the town hall meetings you're seeing on the NEWS and see if you can spot a young person. If you can then you might notice that there are a lot more older Americans present than younger ones. This is in part because they likely have more free time but most importantly that they CARE what is going to be done with Medicare/ Medicaid. We should CARE and (it is my belief that) WE DO CARE. So we need to be proactive and start getting our voices and opinions out in the open public. We voted in great numbers in 2009 and we cannot let this be the end of our civic engagement. IT IS OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS TO STAND AND LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD. THAT DUTY IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW AS THERE ARE PEOPLE LYING, DECEIVING, AND EVADING THE TRUTH ABOUT HEALTHCARE.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Once upon a time, a Conservative wasn't wealthy...
Okay, the secret is out--I'm a Conservative. Now I fit nicely into the stereotype of white, male, probably in the South, Protestant, and undoubtedly financially comfortable. The only problem with this stereotype of a Conservative voter is that I [at 19 years old] have yet to live in a household with an income above the "poverty line." My father moved out when I was 6 and it hasn't exactly been smooth sailing since then.
I've definitely reaped the benefits of the Medicare/Medicaid system for most of my life. It has given me and my brothers insurance under PeachCare for a long time. LBJ did a great thing by signing Medicare/Medicaid into law--my younger brother might not be alive today had he not. I know the system works, but we're aren't average people. We were three kids living with a single mother that had that lifestyle forced upon herself after years of stability. This is an instance where public services are sound investments in the welfare of the People.
Last October, I turned 19 and I lost my insurance. I went a good six months without medical insurance until I luckily got on my father's. My brother just turned 18 in June and he's in the same pickle. My mother has been unemployed for over a year now--and she doesn't have insurance. I know what it's like to live without insurance.
She and I laugh at the idea of universal health care--or anything in between here and there. We know that anything you want badly enough, you can get. Anything. We deserve nothing we've not worked for--and even then we may not. The point I'm trying to make is not that I'm somewhat poor and have actually had to put forth an effort to find myself in a more stable lifestyle. The point I'm making is that it's a prejudiced arguement to believe that just because I believe health care isn't a right that I also proclaim "the poor deserve to die or to be forced into bankruptcy/ in debt for the rest of their lives if they fall ill." Because, you see--I would then be condemning myself to death/debt.
I just believe in getting my hands dirty to get what I want in life. I'm not alone when I say I'd rather be in debt than under Big Brother's reign.
-RichardWest
P.S. For those of you that refuse to think of health care as anything but a right, let me say this: I have the right to become a millionaire in this country. Does that mean it's the government's job to make that happen? I fear some of you may still answer "Yes..."
I've definitely reaped the benefits of the Medicare/Medicaid system for most of my life. It has given me and my brothers insurance under PeachCare for a long time. LBJ did a great thing by signing Medicare/Medicaid into law--my younger brother might not be alive today had he not. I know the system works, but we're aren't average people. We were three kids living with a single mother that had that lifestyle forced upon herself after years of stability. This is an instance where public services are sound investments in the welfare of the People.
Last October, I turned 19 and I lost my insurance. I went a good six months without medical insurance until I luckily got on my father's. My brother just turned 18 in June and he's in the same pickle. My mother has been unemployed for over a year now--and she doesn't have insurance. I know what it's like to live without insurance.
She and I laugh at the idea of universal health care--or anything in between here and there. We know that anything you want badly enough, you can get. Anything. We deserve nothing we've not worked for--and even then we may not. The point I'm trying to make is not that I'm somewhat poor and have actually had to put forth an effort to find myself in a more stable lifestyle. The point I'm making is that it's a prejudiced arguement to believe that just because I believe health care isn't a right that I also proclaim "the poor deserve to die or to be forced into bankruptcy/ in debt for the rest of their lives if they fall ill." Because, you see--I would then be condemning myself to death/debt.
I just believe in getting my hands dirty to get what I want in life. I'm not alone when I say I'd rather be in debt than under Big Brother's reign.
-RichardWest
P.S. For those of you that refuse to think of health care as anything but a right, let me say this: I have the right to become a millionaire in this country. Does that mean it's the government's job to make that happen? I fear some of you may still answer "Yes..."
Thursday, July 23, 2009
America's Healthcare System: Where are we going and where did we begin?
It is amidst the reality of failed initiatives to remake the healthcare system of the United States of America over more than 60 years that one approaches the efforts of our Congresspeople and President to pass healthcare reform. I feel that the posting by scholar's logic was an impeccable analysis of the influence of lobbying efforts on healthcare reform. To understand the resistance to healthcare reform happening now it is helpful to look back for inklings into today's political reality. More than sixty years ago Harry Truman tried to enact what he called his “Fair Deal” and (despite its many parts) one thing it centered on was healthcare reform. Lobbying efforts by the American Medical Association led to the failure of Truman's healthcare reform imitative. President Lyndon Baines Johnson had success in passing healthcare reform and signed Medicare & Medicaid into law. One cannot help but note the fact that President Johnson had the support of the American Nurses Association and the American Hospital Association. The loftiest opponent Johnson faced to his ideas of federally funded healthcare and the idea of a national healthcare plan was the American Medical Association. Nevertheless, there were some achievements in 'moving the ball forward' on healthcare reform. People branded his healthcare as socialized medicine and Johnson had trouble with people feeling that many of his reforms were going to the 'undeserving poor'. Moreover, public opinion was decidedly against the deficit spending that would be required to uphold these Federally funded programs. President Nixon's Comprehensive Health Care Act failed in the Congress. The most recent attempt by President's past was of course by Clinton and that also failed. The American Medical Association has been opposed to every major healthcare initiative aimed at reform.
So what is different with President Obama? Won't he Fail? Well one should be put at relative ease considering that the American Medical Association has actually been working with President Obama and has endorsed his plan (as 'a work in progress'). The fact that the American Medical Association is at the table with the Congresspeople (to me at least) seems to say that there is a consensus for change. Those who are arguing for the status quo and claiming that the current government proposals are a form of socialized medicine are correct. Pointing out that these initiatives are proposing socialized medicine is kind of like standing on the highway and screaming out what billboards say to passing traffic. WE KNOW IT IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE THANKS! We've already socialized medical care for many Americans already (with Medicare & Medicaid).
The fact of the matter is that millions upon millions of Americans are uninsured and so there is a need for socialized medicine. For those who say healthcare is not a right let it be clear what their argument really is: “the poor deserve to die or to be forced into bankruptcy/ in debt for the rest of their lives if they fall ill.” Most people don't choose to get sick. Others choose to make bad decisions that are not conducive to good health and serve as proof for why we need greater emphasis on preventative medical practices.
The point is that we need healthcare for all Americans at affordable prices. The answer is socialized medicine: period.
(P.S.Because I feel an obligation to actually answer the question posed in the title.... Here are some good sites the first is a history of healthcare and the second is a good article from NPR... check it out to find where we're going)
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106859971&ft=1&f=1007
So what is different with President Obama? Won't he Fail? Well one should be put at relative ease considering that the American Medical Association has actually been working with President Obama and has endorsed his plan (as 'a work in progress'). The fact that the American Medical Association is at the table with the Congresspeople (to me at least) seems to say that there is a consensus for change. Those who are arguing for the status quo and claiming that the current government proposals are a form of socialized medicine are correct. Pointing out that these initiatives are proposing socialized medicine is kind of like standing on the highway and screaming out what billboards say to passing traffic. WE KNOW IT IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE THANKS! We've already socialized medical care for many Americans already (with Medicare & Medicaid).
The fact of the matter is that millions upon millions of Americans are uninsured and so there is a need for socialized medicine. For those who say healthcare is not a right let it be clear what their argument really is: “the poor deserve to die or to be forced into bankruptcy/ in debt for the rest of their lives if they fall ill.” Most people don't choose to get sick. Others choose to make bad decisions that are not conducive to good health and serve as proof for why we need greater emphasis on preventative medical practices.
The point is that we need healthcare for all Americans at affordable prices. The answer is socialized medicine: period.
(P.S.Because I feel an obligation to actually answer the question posed in the title.... Here are some good sites the first is a history of healthcare and the second is a good article from NPR... check it out to find where we're going)
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106859971&ft=1&f=1007
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Healthcare, Lobbyist and the Future.
Today we are in the midst of an important political issue this being the subject of Healthcare Reform. With the subject being both controversial and also partisan many people and their opinions rise, both for and against the idea of reform. Among these voices hides the face, which many say stopped healthcare reform in the 1990's, of lobbyist.
For many of the people who may not know who lobbyist are, Princeton defines a lobbyist as "A person employed to persuade legislator to vote in favor of legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer". These people are the ones who go to Washington, and to respective members of congress and "lobby" by means of donating campaign contributions and negotiations. Different branches of companies and also so sectors of business employ lobbyist in order to get what they want done and have influence in congress.
Now this ties into the current battle for health care reform in that the lobbyist are now being employed by HealthCare companies in order to maneuver legislation into a bill that doesn't prevent them from making profit or to completely stop it if possible. So far this seems to be working, with current legislation for healthcare being at a stand still. Another reason lobbying seems present is due to the fact that, now the Democrats, who have run on a policy of healthcare reform in both houses of congress, are now starting to reconsider their positions about healthcare with really no justifiable reasons as to why. Some might ask, "Why the switch?" I say the switch is proof of evident lobbying being done inside the Democratic party to prevent passage of this bill. This can also be seen inside of the Republican party meaning the lobbying is not just an one party phenomenon its an American phenomenon occurring and increasing in this generation.
I find this fact bad because of the possible benefits that this bill could have for this generation and future ones to come. This is why i think that we, as the next young Americans soon stepping up to take charge of this nation, should make sure that we ourselves are having what we want done and not what the corporations and lobbyist want. Whether you stand for or against the healthcare bill make sure your voice is heard through your mouth and not through the mouths of lobbyist. Lets turn this government back into one where decisions are made upon whether or not a bill is good or bad and not one based keenly on the prospect of getting campaign contributions from lobbyist for next year's re-election run.
Monday, July 20, 2009
An apple a day or the doctor you pay! [a prompt for discussion on healthcare]
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
If we are to believe in the sound principles and the intuitive ethics outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we must be serious about healthcare reform. “According to the latest date from the Census Bureau, in 2007, there were an estimated 13.2 million uninsured young adults. It's the fastest growing group of the 46 million uninsured Americans today. (cnn.com)”
So there are questions to be answered in the health care debate and we'd like to hear some opinions on possible courses of action in health care reform. Is “the Obama Plan” our answer? Should there be a public option to compete with private plans? Where on the spectrum should this reform fall (the far left being complete government control over health care and the far right being a completely privatized system)? Should the government be getting involved at all and if so/ not why? Is the status quo acceptable?
The current debate over health care has our nation up in arms. Something that seems to have been forgotten in the debate ensuing over health care is how young Americans feel about these issues. If we want our opinions to be considered and our voices heard we must formulate our ideas and speak out on the issues. We can't let our emotions get the best of us and I've posted the following link to show the type of counterproductive debate we cannot afford in the discussion over our nation's health care reform:.
Consider this a prompt with liberty for improvisation and a call to speak out as the “Next Generation's Republic.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
If we are to believe in the sound principles and the intuitive ethics outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we must be serious about healthcare reform. “According to the latest date from the Census Bureau, in 2007, there were an estimated 13.2 million uninsured young adults. It's the fastest growing group of the 46 million uninsured Americans today. (cnn.com)”
So there are questions to be answered in the health care debate and we'd like to hear some opinions on possible courses of action in health care reform. Is “the Obama Plan” our answer? Should there be a public option to compete with private plans? Where on the spectrum should this reform fall (the far left being complete government control over health care and the far right being a completely privatized system)? Should the government be getting involved at all and if so/ not why? Is the status quo acceptable?
The current debate over health care has our nation up in arms. Something that seems to have been forgotten in the debate ensuing over health care is how young Americans feel about these issues. If we want our opinions to be considered and our voices heard we must formulate our ideas and speak out on the issues. We can't let our emotions get the best of us and I've posted the following link to show the type of counterproductive debate we cannot afford in the discussion over our nation's health care reform:
Consider this a prompt with liberty for improvisation and a call to speak out as the “Next Generation's Republic.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Effective Political Advertising in the 21st Century
As J.J. mentioned in his post this increasingly politically active generation will no doubt change the political landscape of the 21st century. In this past election we have already seen several campaigns attempts to reach out and tap the powerful force that is the younger generation. As J.J. also mentioned 66% of people under 30 voted for Barack Obama. This shows not only a platform that tended to agree with the younger generation but also an extremely effective targeted campaign to make communications with this group. How did the campaign reach out to such a large number of the youth? Effective advertisement of the candidate through the mediums that this particular people group uses most, specifically the Internet (social networking, youtube and email) and cell phones (text messages, calls and apps). During the campaign roughly 13 million people were on the email list for the Obama campaign, these people received as a whole over 1 billion emails over the course of the campaign. (Vargas) Social networking was also used to communicate with large numbers of supporters as well as better determine the preferences of the voters and rally more active support. Obama had over 5 million friends on over 15 different social networking sites, this includes 3 million friends on facebook alone.(Vargas) These are just a few of the staggering numbers that the Obama campaign showed as far as the use of popular media in a political campaign.
Another campaign that pulled staggering numbers using social media was Ron Paul. Running as virtually an independent in the GOP Ron Paul's grassroots campaign was one of the largest of any candidate. This was through an effectively run website that allowed supporters to sign up to receive information about the course of the campaign as well as ways to support the candidate. Also, the site featured other ways to help and be kept informed by becoming facebook friends with the "Campaign for Liberty" and Ron Paul himself. YouTube also played an important role with media exposure being as Ron Paul received very little mention on television or in newspapers. This could be part of the reason most younger voters on the republican ticket leaned towards Ron Paul. In fact in a breakdown of supporters by age group Ron Paul doubled the support of any other republican candidate in the 18-24 age range despite the other candidates being more "mainstream". (usaelectionpolls.com)
What does this show? This shows the power of the politically active youth and demonstrates to future political hopefuls that they must be able to effectively reach out to this group in order to succeed in their campaign. Just as the GOP saw in the 2008 election it is essential to be able to effectively communicate with new voters to earn their support and I believe all candidates will no doubt heed this lesson in the next election or will surely be disappointed with the outcome.
-PsyCHN
P.S.
For anyone who wanted a full look at the social media numbers from the Obama Campaign
(Source: Edelman Report)
Another campaign that pulled staggering numbers using social media was Ron Paul. Running as virtually an independent in the GOP Ron Paul's grassroots campaign was one of the largest of any candidate. This was through an effectively run website that allowed supporters to sign up to receive information about the course of the campaign as well as ways to support the candidate. Also, the site featured other ways to help and be kept informed by becoming facebook friends with the "Campaign for Liberty" and Ron Paul himself. YouTube also played an important role with media exposure being as Ron Paul received very little mention on television or in newspapers. This could be part of the reason most younger voters on the republican ticket leaned towards Ron Paul. In fact in a breakdown of supporters by age group Ron Paul doubled the support of any other republican candidate in the 18-24 age range despite the other candidates being more "mainstream". (usaelectionpolls.com)
What does this show? This shows the power of the politically active youth and demonstrates to future political hopefuls that they must be able to effectively reach out to this group in order to succeed in their campaign. Just as the GOP saw in the 2008 election it is essential to be able to effectively communicate with new voters to earn their support and I believe all candidates will no doubt heed this lesson in the next election or will surely be disappointed with the outcome.
-PsyCHN
P.S.
For anyone who wanted a full look at the social media numbers from the Obama Campaign
(Source: Edelman Report)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
