SOME POLITICOS wonder why a huge number of Americans are turned off by politics. I don't. Look no further than our beloved University for the answers. In the midst of the Democratic primaries and the nine months before the presidential election, cocksure members of both parties have commenced the charade they call "campaigning." The dirty politics and mud-slinging that has taken place in the form of chalk wars have already gone out of line, but nonetheless serve as a wonderful tool to explain why people simply stay away from politics.
Complicated research on why voters between 18-24 have the lowest turnout takes place over and over again. Harvard University researchers spent about $55,000 on surveys and studies that concluded that the young voters do not vote because of a few reasons, some of which include: They don't feel they are impacted by the issues, they weren't raised by politically inclined families, and they don't feel like going through the registration process. For a lot less than $55,000, a commonly over-looked reason is mudslinging, whether in national ads, or in local chalk messages.
In today's world, the emphasis on political correctness demands that viable candidates not only have perfect records, but also requires them to have never said anything wrong before in their lives -- demands that obviously conflict with human nature. Knowing this, today's candidates purposely try to minimize voter turnout. Rather than concentrate on getting people to vote for them, they focus on decreasing support for the other candidate.Thus, campaigning has evolved from "why you should vote for me" to "why you shouldn't vote for him" to "why the other candidate is a radical, anti-patriotic, child eating megalomaniac who probably cheated on his wife." This leaves political moderates choosing between a flag-burning draft dodger or a crack-smoking racist. The truth is most people would rather vote for neither.
Although some negative campaigning is good in that in introduces voters to the candidates' weaknesses, today's mudslinging has regrettably gone too far. So how do we end this problem and engage those who don't vote? Let's just say that, as of now, ending negative campaigning and invading Russia have some thing in common: they're impossible. Candidates that do take a reformist approach to campaigning, and who do stay away from excess negativity, end up losing, because their adversaries usually do not share such strategies.
This national problem happens even at local levels, as seen by the dirty campaigning that has begun here at U.Va. All over our beloved University, there are messages written in chalk ranging from "John 'F' Kerry: where the F stands for French fries" (what does that even mean?) to "Want your tuition to go down? Vote John Kerry" (unbelievable). The two ends of the political spectrum have once again taken it upon themselves to pollute our Grounds with their patronizing messages. Left-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives alike seem to believe that within our prestigious university there is a large booboisie who, upon reading distasteful chalk messages, will suddenly come to a revelation about their political beliefs.
At first, the messages were basic campaigning: "vote for Bush," "vote for Kerry," etc. But as the hours (literally) passed, the true and unfortunately ugly nature of politics revealed itself. From central Grounds to the dining halls, the Grounds were marred by an immature game of chalk tag. "Vote for Bush" became "don't vote for Bush," which was soon retaliated against by the oh-so-clever individual who decided that John Kerry's middle initial, F, stands for "french fries." One kid in my hall, who is a moderate Republican, denounced the message saying, "It's inconsiderate, and it crosses the line; John Kerry is a Vietnam war hero." To the person who wrote that message, kudos; you've actually managed to campaign in a manner so negative as to turn off a member of your own party. And although there is the constitutional right to free speech, the chalking that has been presented thus far is counter-productive, assuming the goal is to get more voters to participate in the political process. The chalk "campaigning" is annoying, inefficacious and immature at best, and those who are a part of it would be benefited by re-evaluating their tact.
(Sina Kian is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
