Education - That's our basis in voting

Is an uninformed vote better than not voting at all?

           

 In evaluating this situation, it  must be understood that both decisions with result in negative effects within society. The criteria then shifts to: Which will have the greatest negative impact on society? 
            The rise of uninformed votes is due to the lack of public funding for education. Citizens will base their opinion not on their situation, what is convienent to their lifestyle, or what represents their beliefs, but rather, culture will manifest itself greatly and alter the mindset of the voter. In regards to Latin America, voters tend to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and they tend to favor platforms that represent their Christian ideals. Nevertheless, issues such as the death penalty, abortion, and marriage rights are not the only issues that define each platform, yet society tends to have a sole focus on social issues because that is what they can develop a personal connection with.

            

Although an uninformed vote may seem as if it has positive aspects such as the influence of one’s culture, our backgrounds can actually be deterrents for progress and change. Society has witnessed the suppression of many individuals due to culture and how it limits individuals in expressing key issues that influence their daily live. If one were to make an uninformed vote based on their cultural values, one maintains the status quo of society. In Latin American, making society as it is generally tends to promote the suppression that has remained within society and acting passively (despite the attempt in voting).

            

Corruption in voting in Latin America is not only affected through bribery of poll counters, but as well as going into rural areas and convincing an uneducated population about concepts that they have no solid foundation in. People lack a proper understanding of the effects of bringing someone into office can have on the overall state of the country. Before Honduras’s coup de etat, President Zelaya was trying to encourage rural communities to allow him to amend the constitution in order for him to have unlimited presidential terms. Honestly, people have no idea what has happened previously in dictatorships, what provoked them, and how to confront them. Their lack of an education eventually led to a widespread support of rural society supporting Zelaya. In this case, an uninformed vote can lead to the destruction of the government structure and alternate a political system.  

 By not voting at all, the individual remains silent. One may question whether their silence is an attribute to the lack of suppression and agreement with how society is. Others can argue that a lack of voting represents resentment to the voting system in the area and by not voting, the individual is expressing their discontent with the system. Nevertheless, I believe that by not voting, the individual understands the problems that may arise out of not voting, and have has been able to weigh out the consequences.

 In all, we must be pushing for the spread of education to those who do not have easy access and by providing them with this resource, society can shift more towards liberalism and represent its people. I arise to the conclusion that the negative effects of a misinformed weighs more than not voting at all. 

Don't Know? Don't Vote!

America has the lowest voter turnout of the industrial world. (IDEA) That being said, I would not advocate that we try to get everyone out to vote at all costs. Unfortunately we seem to have a culture of apathy towards politics and social issues in our country among the general populace. Fortunately however, the people who are apathetic and therefore not versed in current events, politics, and domestic policy are the ones that do not turn out to vote. I say that if a person is ignorant of the issues and candidates they should not vote because it corrupts the integrity of the election. The only people that should vote are those with knowledge of these things. They are the ones who stand to gain or lose the most by the election and are clearly the ones that care more about what happens.

I feel that our nation is still liberal if a majority of the people do not vote. If the others did in an uneducated fashion a person could get elected by passions alone or by chance. In regards to the former, it is very dangerous and could lead to emotions overruling logic. Dangerous leaders have been elected in this way in the past. With the latter, it is not a fair representation of the will of the people. Those who are uninformed are not really active citizens. Active citizens are informed of the issues and make calculated and thought out decisions on who to vote for based upon a set criteria. The uninformed voter can't possibly do this, ruining the legitimacy of the election.

In a matter so important as choosing the next leader of the free world, it should not be left up to chance and passions of uninformed voters. It is unfortunate that the majority of people in our country fall into this category. Rather than forcing them to vote, it is actually our civic duty to try and educate these people of the issues and if they still choose to be ignorant, then so be it. It is their choice. In the end, it is better if a person who has no concept of the politics of the time not vote, rather than do so uninformed. Leaders should be not be picked in a random and emotional fashion, but through an educated and well thought out process of decision-making.

Sources: http://www.idea.net.int/

Reflection 3

In reading The Prince, this week, one of the prevalent motifs really stood out to me. The message that Machiavelli seemed to push was that the image of being something is more important than actually being something. Specifically, he claimed appearing “virtuous” is more important than actually being a “virtuous” leader. I started to apply this notion in other parts of life, specifically in academia. After reading Lost in the Meritocracy I saw a similar theme: in contemporary academic culture, often times appearing to be intelligent is actually more important and more respected than actually being well versed and educated on an item. The article described that the students who didn’t actually read assigned literature, but simply criticized broad, overarching traits of the genre were the ones who were awarded most. I found a lot of truth in this. Often times you see students who participate in discussions to simply tear apart a book with criticisms, rather than brandish knowledge through deep discussions on specific examples or lines from a given reading. Often times the loud, outspoken students who skimmed, if anything, the assigned literature seemed more intelligent than perhaps the quiet student who took diligent notes and read various analyses in addition to the reading. Since the quiet student didn’t boast their opinions aloud, does that mean that the outspoken student should be considered smarter?

Provoked by both of these readings, I began to think: is the perception really more important than the reality? After musing this concept, I came to the conclusion that there are two answers to this question, at least in my opinion. I found that on a personal scale of importance, reality is construed as more important. Obviously, on a personal level, the image you uphold, whether it represents your reality or not, cannot be more important than your actuality. However, in relation to the rest of the world, how you are perceived is more important. People don’t always have time to discover the depths of an individual’s nature or personality, so perceptions and first impressions are of the utmost importance. If you put on a façade that you are a man of wisdom and virtue, will be treated as such. Moreover, if you act in a rude manner, whether you are a genuinely benevolent person or not, you will be perceived and treated based upon the traits you openly possess. I see this exemplified by the fact that naturally, we judge people based upon the traits they outwardly convey, rather than those at the bottom of their heart, no matter which is stronger feeling. Though this seems to be a reoccurring trend in human nature, I am not sure whether I am comfortable with it or not.

9/11 x9

This Saturday marked the 9th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 plane crashes. Over the past few years I have been educated with more information than I was provided when I was 9 years old, but at the same time my mentality hasn't changed. In a bad way.

I still remember what I was doing at the exact moment I learned of the event: I was reading a comic at my desk before school had officially started. "Class, something really bad just happened for America," my teacher carefully circumvented the issue, "Some parents may come to pick their kids up, but there's no need to worry. Everything will be OK."

As soon as I got home, my parents didn't educated me much further into the event besides the knowledge that 2 planes had hit important buildings in New York City. I didn't know why, and it didn't occur to me that many people had just died. Watching TV, I could see that this was something BIG for America. The words 'terrorism', 'Osama bin Laden', and 'Afghanistan' became new words in my vocabulary. But still, no one told me what had happened. Why it had happened. Who did it. What was going to happen next?

From the beginning, my mindset towards the 9/11 attacks was more apathetic than average. While now I understand the implications and events of that day, I still don't think I have the reflection and remorse that I should. Even on the subject of terrorism, I have adopted the mindset of 'making a subject a big deal as an individual makes it a big deal for everyone'. I choose (unfortunately) to push it to the back of my mind.

In the jumble of it all, an interesting point was brought to my attention concerning the way that America chooses to recognize this memorial. Instead of remembering the people who died in the crash, the media throws in references to terrorism, national security, and Islamic extremism. While all of these are relevant to the 9/11/01 event, the references seem to contaminate the memorial.

To the USA: I want to call you "home".

 I quite don’t understand the meaning behind patriotism yet. On September 11, 2001, I went to school just like any other child, I returned home , did my homework, and took a nap. I probably would have remained sleeping on my living room couch had it not been for the commotion my family was causing as they huddled closely to the television hearing the evening news. Univision kept repeating the same image: two buildings, two airplanes, fire and smoke.

Perhaps it was the lack of a connection between the event and my personal life, but I didn’t tear up, feel nervous,  or begin to hyperventilate. I was simply shocked. I didn’t understand how the “land of opportunities” my parents migrated could result in a “land of fears.” My perspective of the United States altered after the event, where it no longer remained on a pedestal.

My elementary schools years allowed me to grasp a basic understanding of U.S history. Text books were always bias – in favor of the U.S – and unwillingly, my perception has been altered. I can’t fully blame my education; my parents play a significant role. Despite our poor economic conditions, my parents reinforced the idea that we were better off living in the U.S than in Honduras due to the vast resources that they provided.

That night, my only worry lied within one sole question: Where do I go now? The next days,
I expected my parents to give me a sign that we were moving to a distant country – one that could ensure our safety. After that week, I knew I we weren’t moving. I didn’t question my parents. I made sure to watch the news, waiting for a breaking news story. That day never came. Life went on and nothing changed. I’ve always wondered if people reflect on September 11 and think thoroughly of the nationalism it stirred and whether they felt a sense of unity.

              
I still don’t fully understand the meaning behind September 11 yet. I expect that my four years living in Washington, DC will give me a better understanding of what it means to be an American. I was never part of a community that embraced the red, white and blue. This country has offered me so much, and I feel dissatisfied knowing that I have not yet developed a sense of nationalism. Perhaps that day will come and I won’t be left waiting.

9/11 Reflection

"Rowland. Your mom called and wanted me to tell you not to worry and that she's ok," my fourth grade teacher told me during lunch on Tuesday September 11th, 2001. I was in fourth grade. I had no idea what she was talking about. I knew my mom was in New York City, so I thought maybe there had been a really bad car accident in the city or something. One by one, kids started getting taken out of school early. One of my teachers turned on the news and I saw both the towers on fire with a gaping hole in each. For the rest of the day it was chaos. Teachers were running around making desperate phone calls, crying, and all the kids were completely confused. Eventually I was taken out of school by a family friend. My dad was on high alert on the SWAT team and I found out my mom was in a hotel across the Hudson watching the whole thing unfold. While I didn't understand the significance of what had happened at the time it etched a very emotional feeling in me. I slowly came to realize the world would never be the same.

As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 passed this Saturday, I was training on a military base in Virginia and I really came to understand the cost of freedom. I realized that we take so much for granted and do not really understand what the cost of our ignorance towards the outside world is yet. So many people advocate a much more isolationist attitude towards our affairs. I believe it is more important than ever to reject this line of thought and gain an understanding of different cultures and philosophies. We have to engage the world in a positive manner.

Relating this to the hegemony article we read, I find that it is extremely important that we maintain security of our interests abroad and remain engaged on the world stage. If we keep a constant presence across the globe we can keep tabs on our interests and the threats that face us as well. However, we must do so with discretion. We must factor in the effect our presence has on the local populace. This goes not just for war zones, but bases in places like Germany and Japan.

For nine years we have been fighting a war against an enemy who uses all of our weaknesses against us. They use the tools of the modern geopolitical structure to fight us. They create a negative world image of us, use propaganda through Al Jazeera and the like, and count on us to perform classical military maneuvers. If we are to beat this we have to become smarter and more committed. The result of the war on terror will be mirrored by changes we see in our own society. If we can't get out of our current state of apathy and ignorance, we will lose the war. If we learn to adapt, become well versed in world affairs, and as a population realize a common purpose, we will win. I believe if we win the war on terror, and more immediately the war in Afghanistan, we will be able to keep our hegemony. If not, we will lose it because it will be a sign that the US can not adapt to the changing world.

On this anniversary of 9/11 I hope that we as a people do not forget what the cost of ignorance is and make changes to our behavior. As Alfred said in Batman Begins, "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy." I hope this will not be the case again.

Sorry Machi, Things Have Changed

Morals aside, Machiavelli offered some pretty sound advice to the average ruler back in the day. However, times have drastically changed and it simply wouldn’t be possible to execute the same ruthless techniques for acquiring power. In this age of growing globalization and interdepedence, it is almost impossible for a ruling elite to make a decision without being overlooked by another ruling body. Whether it’s the US or the UN, if a ruling elite tries to implement the same cold-hearted approach towards gaining or maintaining power they inevitably will face opposition.

In the era that Machiavelli spoke of, ruling elites could get away with unchecked brutality towards those that they governed. No other state would stand up if a ruler decided to decimate an entire village that was rebelling against oppression. Often times, the destruction would be so swift that word of the attack would hardly spread past the principality’s borders. Now, not only do human rights activists, international NGOs, and global super powers like the US heavily regulate "moral standards" for most countries, but virtually all infractions or suspicions are under heavy supervision through extremely advanced intelligence agencies. Also, any cases of gross human rights violations to acquire power usually immediately make headlines on a global level. Darfur ring any bells? Unlike in Machiavelli’s time, crushing an entire group of people doesn’t simply get overlooked and forgotten. The influence of the media, a factor that didn’t exist in his time, greatly impairs Machiavelli’s advice, especially in a world where various organizations and states act as “global policemen”.

But the question arises, what about the US? Are they not a global power many believe cannot be checked by any other state? Can’t they easily get away with following Machiavelli’s advice? The answer to this is simple. The United States simply cannot follow Machiavelli’s advice because it does not pertain to the US. Machiavelli clearly establishes that his advice in no way, shape, or form should be applied to the dynamics of a republic of any sort. He makes it clear that his advice can only successfully guide ruling elites of principalities. Though, it can still be argued that international organizations or other global superpowers would try to thwart any immense human rights violations if the US did in fact follow a Machiavellian approach to gaining power. So in reality, a ruling elite could very well follow Machiavelli’s advice in contemporary conditions, but, fortunately, they won’t get far.