The presidential campaign might be revolutionary in many ways, but in other ways it is numbingly familiar. One tactic that is always present during these races is the use of historical examples as a way to support a policy proposal. Referencing history can legitimize an argument and make complex concepts more easily understandable to an average voter. The problem is that it is very difficult to make good historical comparisons, since so much can change even in just a decade. It can all be very complicated — and that’s how it should be. Voters need to spend more time uncomfortably acknowledging the different sides of an argument, and examining how candidates use historical examples is a great place to start.
Fairly recently, Marco Rubio stated that hostages in Iran were immediately released following Reagan entering office because the country was "no longer under the command of someone weak." He made this statement to support his advocacy of a strong U.S. foreign policy. But does this really just support Rubio’s position? Though the hostages were released under Reagan, it was the previous president, Jimmy Carter, who did the majority of the diplomatic legwork. On one hand it seems the real lesson to take away from this is that a “weak” hand like Carter’s can actually get a great deal done in foreign affairs. However, Rubio still does have a point. Reagan was a much stronger leader and has an impressive foreign policy record. Who’s to say which one is the right policy in the current world? It’s still important to appreciate the complexity in even a simple statement like this.
Back in November, Gov. Chris Christie claimed the United States is in “the worst recovery from an economic recession since World War II." But that depends on how you measure it. By jobs the United States is doing much better than after World War II in percent growth. However, if you look at GDP the U.S. economy is recovering much more slowly than from other recent recessions. Why is that? Some people have explanations, but asking that question is the most important part.
One of the statistics often raised by proponents of Sen. Bernie Sanders is that no one has been elected president with a low net favorability. According to one poll, Sanders currently has the highest favorability of the all candidates at +9, while Hillary Clinton has a -8 favorability rating. This number is reached by simply subtracting the percentage of people who support a candidate with the people who view them unfavorably. It seems history tells us that Sanders is the best candidate for the Democrats.
The favorability argument is at once compelling and misleading. On one hand, the favorability argument itself is very shaky. This poll was taken well before the presidential candidates are decided, whereas the other polls were taken soon before the general election. It figures that the favorability of a candidate can shift significantly between the ongoing primary election, which emphasizes more radical voters who would support Sanders, and the general election, where moderation is more desirable. The same exact study also goes on to say that a clear majority that thinks Clinton can win a general election and has right kind of experience. But at the same time these statistics on favorability should not be ignored, especially since our entire political system is based on picking someone who is more “favorable.” But why is he likable? And do these attributes lead to people wanting to vote for him? These are the important question that historical examples should make us ask.
As dangerous and often false as historical comparisons are, candidates will continue to make them. Instead of seeing them as a continuing problem with our political system they should be seen as opportunities. With history all the facts are a short Google search away and with research comes deeper understanding. There are definitely still disagreements on what historical facts mean but the discussion makes people more willing to consider alternative viewpoints. In this way voters can come to understand their own views on politics better, but also gain an appreciation for opposing views.
Bobby Doyle is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.doyle@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Elect Honor representatives committed to transparency
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoEach candidate has looked to the past to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Honor system and has also exhibited forward-thinking solutions to the Committee’s present challenges.
EDITORIAL: Choose UJC representatives who believe in internal reform
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAll four of these candidates articulated innovative and practical ideas to better promote the internal sustainability of UJC.
EDITORIAL: Elect Student Council representatives that advocate for students
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoFurthermore, each of these candidates passionately established their focus on the protection of student resources through bargaining with administration.
