It's Election Day, although I'm sure you couldn't have missed it.
Newspapers, radios and televisions are plastered with political advertisements, and the Internet is full of speculation about the potential change of power in Congress. As a politics and law junkie, I am excited to watch the vote counts unfold and to find out whom the winners will be.
But I'm also relieved that the election is finally over. This election season has been proof for me that American politics are dominated by radicals sounding off on hot-button issues.
The political campaigns have been dominated by Iraq and the future role of the United States military in the Middle East. Some candidates probably have detailed plans for how to ensure stability and progress in a post-withdrawal Iraq, but that is not the information that is being trumpeted in campaign ads.
Instead we hear about how we must "pull out now" or how we must "stay the course." Do either of these slogans sound familiar to you? But do you associate either of them with a reasoned explanation for how to proceed and why that is the best plan?
No.
We have allowed our democracy to become subjugated to sound bites.
Our politicians claim they will secure the border, strengthen the economy and protect marriage. But I'd rather know how much building a border fence will cost and whether it is a legitimately effective and long-term solution to illegal immigration.
I want to know how my government is going to take action to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Will it support incentives for consumers to purchase alternative fuel vehicles and encourage the automobile industry to manufacture them? How will they ensure continued low unemployment rates, rising wages and a healthy job market for college graduates while also reducing our federal deficit?
I want to know what the states are doing to reduce crime to make our cities safe for families. I want to know what their plan is for improving the American public school system and for increasing access to institutions of higher learning.
I am interested in how our government will improve our image abroad and by what standards will we engage in humanitarian aid or future foreign military actions.
Instead I hear 10-second sound bites about amnesty, gay marriage and the Mark Foley sex scandal.
They wouldn't engage in such tactics if they were not catering to public demand. As a citizenry we have allowed ourselves to become obsessively polarized on a very few divisive issues.
We allowed ourselves to become divided by fearmongers on both sides of the abortion issue during the confirmation of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, a judicial body that rarely hears abortion cases. What we should have heard from our senators and from the media were evaluations of John Roberts' views on the expansion of executive authority.
That is an issue that we didn't hear about, but it is one that will drastically affect the state of civil liberties and the balance of separation of powers in America.
When we relinquish our duty to inquire about the theories and politics of our potential representatives, then we have granted them permission to set the agenda for American political discussion - and with re-election as a constant goal, they set the bar pretty low.
Consider your choices this Election Day to be a mandate for our renewed government to engage in tackling meaningful issues during the time in office. Refuse to be satisfied with mere sound bites.
Laura Thorson is a history and political science senior. Reach her at: Laura.Thorson@cox.net, but only if you voted
-
