Youngsters Not So Fired Up

By Amanda Raimer

Widener University American Government Student

In the New York Times article, “Idealism Harder to Find From Younger Voters”, it talks about reasons why the younger generation does not seem as excited about this election as the last. What the article found is that this demographic is focusing more on the details and facts behind each candidate rather than just their feel-good message as they promise prosperity and success in the future. At the same time, others are having a hard time connecting to either candidate and either find a trivial reason to back one of the candidates or choose not to vote at all. More or less what I got from this article is that young voters are having a hard time finding a reason to stand behind one candidate or the other, and this is leading to confusion.

As I was filling out my absentee ballot I had the same kind of feeling; I thought I knew who I was going to vote for but I was surprised to find that I was doubting myself because I didn’t really feel passionate about either candidate like I thought I would. I started to wonder why I and other young Americans like myself were running into this uncertainty, especially so close to the election. I think what has happened is this election is less focused on social issues, which most young people know a lot about, and more on financial and policy issues. These issues are important but they’re very hard to understand for a generation whom a majority of them are just starting to become independent and fiscally responsible. Trying to wade through all the jargon and facts and background to understand exactly what the candidates are supporting in their campaign is quite a task, one that many younger people don’t feel the need to do or give up on. Also, at this time in their lives, young people are still developing their ideals and values and trying to pick a candidate based on their principles when you are not sure of your own is difficult. So while I think that it is important to vote and be heard, I can understand how this confusion and uncertainty could lead a person to not vote at all.


More of the Same? Or Romney’s 50 Nation Plan?

by Tori Remondelli

Widener University American Government Student

The first presidential debate was between an eloquent, enthusiastic speaker who beat around the bush and a supposed lock for the presidency who didn’t prepare as well as he should have. Mr. Romney, former governor of what he made out to be the best state in America, wants to give more power to each individual state in an effort to try and make them a little more like Massachusetts. It wasn’t very clear what Mr. President’s counter proposal was, so we can assume that nothing will change.

My mother who is a born and bred Republican believes that if you don’t like the way your state is run, then you should be able to move to a different state where the control will be different. But if the government sets regulations that every state must abide by, then you have no choice but to throw your vote into a pool of every American voter and pray you pick the same as the majority.

What I got from that debate was a choice between President Change’s same old ways or Romney’s 50 Nations policy. However, neither provided the details of their plan.  A choice is only as good as the reasons behind it and right now neither one of the candidate have provided enough reasons to merit one. Hopefully the next debate will bring more clarity, but only time will tell.

Federalism & the 2012 Vice Presidential Debate

Unlike the first presidential debate which included a number of issues relating to federalism and state and local politics – the VP debate did not address federalism. There was no real debate on education, medicaid or the health care reform. Consequently – we’ll have to wait until next Tuesday to discuss the issues related to this blog.

Retro Swagger?

by Fred Hew
Widener University American Government Student

The two Presidential candidates have a common view: that American politics and economic values should rule the world. The country found out about their difference in recent foreign policy speeches in New York. Romney is all about the hands on approach of conditioning countries to do the right thing. Rewarding ally countries, Israel, and condemning others, like Iran. Iran has been non cooperative in the past and if elected, Romney would place a military presence in Iran.

Obama is standing by his current policy of assisting Iran to see the light of American culture. The Iranians would be more likely to accept our political and economic system long term if they weren’t forced to adopt it, like Romney is suggesting. It is believed that if Romney were to win the election a lot of the swagger from the George W. Bush presidency would return to foreign policy. The hard-nosed, hands on approach would return to the White House and that’s something that appeals to many Americans, unlike Obama’s diplomatic approach.

Now which way is a smarter approach? Probably the Democratic method of thinking first, rather than running into a fire fight without any ammo. Romney’s way of forcing ourselves upon other allied countries like Egypt isn’t necessarily the right way to go about things. He could quickly make more enemies by his proposal of taking away aid from the Egyptians because they don’t share the same values as us. Either way, the two candidates have completely opposite views of how we should be viewed from the outside looking in. Romney believes we, as a country, can get anything we want in whichever way we please. Abusing our power isn’t something that Americans should strive to do, especially to allied countries.

A Different Perspective on Presidential Personality

by Bridget Hicks

Widener University American Government Student

As a whole, the country expects a leader to possess the quality of extroversion. How can a leader perform their duties by being introverted (What if Introverts Ruled the World? By Richard Stengel)?

Candidates in the presidential race are always supporting their cause at rallies or events while those who are voted into the presidency attend various social events and gatherings while they continuously work with others to lead the country. The thing people wonder would be if this is possible to do being a introvert. It is possible.

In fact both candidates in this 2012 presidential race, President Obama as well as Mitt Romney, are mainly introverted. By no means does this label them as unsocial or incompetent in social situations but it means they are more comfortable in social situations where they are around close friends or coworkers instead of large crowds of people whom they do not know. In this they may choose to be alone for a while to make a decision rather than being surrounded by others while they try to ponder an idea.

With this in mind, the typical idea that a president must be extroverted is indeed untrue. A president can do great things for the country and go against the “norm” by being introverted, just as the two presidential candidates are for this 2012 race.

Shocking: Most of America Hates Politicians

by Frank Heleniak

Widener University American Government Student

Well it’s about to be October, and if you watch any type of TV, chances are you’re dreading every commercial break. Ah yes, the wonderful TV political campaign in which every candidate on the ballot is horrible choice (at least by their opponent’s standards) or has some time of skeleton in the closet. Yeah chances are you’re like 71% of all Americans who have negative thoughts of Politicians. Even if it’s just from interrupting your regular programming.

Of course there’s much more to it. People just aren’t happy in general, and they don’t trust politicians. Why? Well personal opinion is pure rhetoric in both campaigns (the local elections aren’t left out thought). There isn’t enough “doing,” just a lot of talk. Four years ago I listened to the President preach “Hope” and “Change.” Has there been hope? Surely. Change? Definitely I pay almost three times as much now to fill up my truck. I know what you’re thinking. I’ll nip it in the bud and say Bush wasn’t a saint either.

Blue or red, you’re going to stand up for your party, probably blindly. However if you’re more of a purple, you probably find a lot of fault in both candidates. So what are the Dems and GOP going to do about it? Probably nothing, but what happens when it boils over, and the general non-politically bound public stops voting for anyone because they honestly feel either candidate will do the same things? Maybe there will no longer be parties, and politicians will be labeled with a black spot.