The link for this post is a pretty interesting post by FiveThirtyEight.com, one of the blogs that Mr. Silton reccommended at the beginning of the year. Most of their posts are polls and data, but this one focuses on Newt Gingrich, a possible GOP nomination for the 2012 election.
You may recognize Gingrich from the video we watched in class (I'm forgetting the name...but it was about him and Clinton) He's the former Speaker of the House and a real name in conservative politics.
When I first read the article about CPAC that I posted earlier this week, I saw Gingrich's name and thought he would be a front runner in the "straw poll" (mentioned by Sarah). However, as skewed as the results may be (by Tea Party activists or the lack of people that actually voted), Gingrich did pretty poorly.
Something interesting about Five Thirty Eight's post was how they counted Gingrich's professionalism as a weakness. Tom Schaller (author of the post) writes of Gingrich's speech at CPAC, "In little more than a half hour, Gingrich managed to reference the Judiciary Act of 1802, Camus’ The Plague, Orwell’s 1984, Hayek’s notions of centralized planning, and John Paul II. I was waiting for him to announced that copies of the speech's footnotes would be available in the lobby." Gingrich is obviously well educated, and it always suprises me how badly Americans react to this. How is that we go for the good ol' boy rather than the scholar? I mean, George W. Bush, really?
Regardless, I agree with the blog that Gingrich could present a challenge to Obama. And he certainly has the experience and track record to rival all the other potential nominees.
Two Things
4 hours ago
3 comments:
I think that one of the reasons, besides the general fact that the republican party isn't doing too hot lately, that Gingrich did so poorly was probably due to the lack of people voting (as you mentioned, katie).
To answer your question, "How is that we go for the good ol'boy rather than the scholar?", well, it's probably because humans by nature prefer things that are similar to them. The "good ol'boy" reminds people of neighbors, friends, family or themselves; all of which are non threatening. However, I do find it ridiculous that people's rationality can't cancel out this hardwired affinity for similarity. Before the 2008 election, I recall hearing countless people promote Obama by saying that "He's just like us!" (or something along those lines). Though I did know how educated and accomplished the man is, I always found it interesting that people would say this. I know I would NOT want a president who is just like me because this would mean that he or she hadn't graduated highschool, didn't have much work experience and was still dependent on their parents; definitely not the ideal person to be running our country...
"I know I would NOT want a president who is just like me because this would mean that he or she hadn't graduated highschool, didn't have much work experience and was still dependent on their parents; definitely not the ideal person to be running our country..."
I definitely agree, Sabrina. Um, why would I want ANYONE like me to run the country? I want to be led by someone that's a hell of a lot better than me. But I guess I understand people's want for familiarity...although I agree that people should have the smarts to overrule this desire.
-Katie Jensen
Voting for a person like you means voting for someone who might better understand your situation and push for issues that you feel are important.
Voting for someone of a much higher status and education means voting for someone who can't relate with your situation, will disregard your issues as unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and will work to unfairly benefit those of the same standing as him, instead of the hard-working middle class who actually need it.
Post a Comment