 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Mark Bauerlein is professor of English at Emory University. His books include Literary Criticism: An Autopsy (1997) and Negrophobia: A Race Riot in Atlanta, 1906 (2001). His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, TLS, Yale Review, Partisan Review, Reason Magazine, and many other national periodicals. Topics he will cover include the ideological climate of the campus, knowledge and skill levels of U.S. students, and technology in the classroom.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Kevin Carey
Laurie Fendrich
Teresa Ghilarducci, guest blogger
Sara Goldrick-Rab, guest blogger
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Brainstorm Alumni
Eric BanksDan Greenberg
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Marty Nemko, guest blogger
Graham Spanier
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Bob Zemsky
Recent Posts
For Millennials, College and Learning Are Not the Same | Comment [20]
The War on Drugs From Left to Right | Comment [114]
Dropout Rates, Arts and Humanities, Graduation Numbers | Comment [23]
Another Problem With Texting | Comment [29]
Books, Libraries, Kids | Comment [4]
Featured Articles By the Author
The Youth Vote
(Crossposted at Campaign U.)
One of the stories this campaign season has been the youth vote, and the main story line comes down to this: Obama gives them inspiration. Type “youth vote inspired Obama” into Google and more than 600,000 hits come up.
If the youth vote does jump from its showing in 2004 (a significant increase from 2000), we should applaud 18-to-24-year-olds for their civic growth, and if Obama motivates them to cast their ballots in record numbers, he counts as more than a politician. He’s a leader.
We should pause, however, over the source of the increase in youth civic engagement. It sounds all to the good, and parents and teachers should advance the project of youth voter participation. But inspiration does have a down side, too, one that mentors should discuss with the young, for while it may ensure larger participation, it isn’t the best motivation for voting. Reasons:
One, it’s inconsistent. Inspiring politicians come and go, and if one doesn’t fill a slot on the ballot, inspiration-based voters stay home.
Two, it elevates the candidate into an idol, not a politician. The candidate edges toward celebrity status, making the inevitable political labor of compromise, deal-making, policy-drafting, and message-crafting seem almost a diminishment.
Three, it turns the voter into a “responder,” so to speak. Inspiration as the measure of participation makes individuals consult an inner yardstick for voting habits, not the objective demand of citizenship in a democracy.
Four, it eclipses the decidedly un-inspirational content of policy positions. Most of the work of administrations involves adjustments to existing programs, not creation of new ones or termination of old ones, and incremental changes in things don’t inspire citizens unless they see a direct impact on their lives.
And five, inspiration dispels one of the fundamental traits of citizenship, namely, mistrust of office holders — mistrust not because of the virtues and vices of the persons, but because of the powers they wield. The founders based the government on, among other things, the seasoned observation that power corrupts. Inspiration obscures the insight. It makes citizens identify with the leader and relax their vigilance, forgetting that the possession of power automatically sets the leader — any leader — more or less at odds with the rights of individuals.
So when campus discussions about the election arise this fall, the “Why vote at all?” question is worth raising. And if students say they intend to vote because Obama fires them up, reply with, “Very good, but why vote next time?”
(Image incorporates a photo by Flickr Creative Commons user rhettmaxwell)
Posted at 11:59:27 AM on July 28, 2008 | All postings by Mark BauerleinComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: A Lesson in Promotion
Next: How Theory Damaged the Humanities
Your comments are generally important, but for the most part, these young voters are inspired by George Bush and the Republican leadership, not Barack Obama.
What makes the young folks like Obama so much, in the same way that they liked Howard Dean four years earlier, is that they view him as the one speaking the truth.
Obama’s a good speaker. There’s no doubt about that. And there are some obvious reasons that certain groups are excited about his candidacy. But the simple fact is that most young voters are excited about his message, not his personality. Many young voters are turned off by the entire gay marriage debate, discussions of patriotism, the way we went into the war, and the unwillingness to tackle problems like health care, the environment, and education. Hillary Clinton – like McCain – represented old school Washington and the youngsters pushed her aside.
In summary, I believe most of his popularity among the youth is primarily a reflection of the generation gap, and only a little bit due to Obama specifically. He’s a glimpse of the evolution of American politics the next twelve years.
— me · Jul 28, 02:32 PM · #
Obviously, the source of the intensity Bauerlein questions is the pack of thugs, thieves, and liars that constitutes the Bush administration (and which has clearly taken charge of McCain). “Throw the rascals out!” is as good a reason for enthusiasm as anything that inspires voters—and Obama is clearly not a rascal.
— Fossil · Jul 28, 02:46 PM · #
All politicians are rascals, or they are incompetent. Being a rascal dosen’t guarantee competence (see Bush and friends) but being a non-rascal does. Every time.
It’s no good thing if Obama is above racalhood. The constitution protects me from rascals (eventually, I hope) but an ideologue, a Charismatic; well, that could change everything.
I’m too old to live through a Cultural Revolution of the Mao variety. You, too, Fossil?
— T Paine · Jul 29, 12:07 AM · #
Bauerlein’s post is a thinly guised anti-Obama editorial posing as a rumination on the abstraction of “inspiration” as a faulty motive to vote.
1. We want our President to be a leader and one of the first duties of a leader in a democracy is to inspire the citizenry. (And inspiration as a positive characteristic isn’t confined to elected leaders: military officers inspire their enlisted personnel, business managers inspire their employees, professors inspire their students, captains inspire their teammates, etc.)
2. “Inspiration-based voters” is a collective straw man. A voter who’s inspired by a candidate and can’t wait to get to the polls is the same voter who’s so pissed off at an incumbent, he or she grudgingly goes to the polls to vote for an uninspiring challenger just to get the incumbent out of office. One votes in for different reasons in different elections. (There’s also the argument of habit: vote the first time because you’re inspired by a candidate and acquire the habit of going to the polls to vote for whatever reasons from then on out.)
3. “Inspiration” doesn’t necessarily turn the candidate into an “idol.” That depends on the situation, the candidate, and the electorate. The fact that many voters who are inspired by Obama are young doesn’t mean that they’re turning him into a rock star any more than duffers who hit Denny’s for the early bird special in the ’80s turned Ronald Reagan into John Wayne. Bauerlein’s hobby-horse of “students ain’t what they used to be” (they used to be Young Americans for Freedom) is heavily in play here.
4. The voter-as-responder contention is ridiculous. What, pray tell, is “the objective demand of citizenship in a democracy” as a criterion for casting one’s vote for one candidate over another? Registering and getting one’s ass down to the polls on election day would seem to cover it, not faithfully reading WSJ editorials every day from convention to election day. As for “inner yardstick,” I think it’s fairly easy to see where Bauerlein’s is located. (And what an awkward metaphor.)
5. “The decidedly un-inspirational content of policy decisions” isn’t an either/or issue. Some inspirational candidates can tend to it, some can’t. (And some un-inspirational candidates can’t tend to it, either. Gerald Ford and “WIN,” anyone?) Although it’s a legit debate as to whether Obama can handle it (I think he—smart, unflappable, level-headed, willing to compromise, having a broad world-view—can) his also being “inspirational” in no way indicates he can’t.
6. Being inspired by a candidate and mistrust of office holders are not mutally exclusive. And if the former does mitigate the latter somewhat, so equally does the kind of uninspired “trust” voters have in a dull, seemingly honest, actuarial candidate. In fact, the people who probably most appropriately display distrust of office holders are those who don’t vote because they distrust politicians across the board.
7. Finally, Sen. McCain is trying like hell to be inspirational, too. Have you seen the ads with him up in the clouds, looking like Warner Salman’s Jesus, with a waving flag and fighter planes in the background, while the voiceover recites something that sounds like a lift from the Boy Scout oath, trying to inspire us to “victory” in Iraq (whatever that is at this point)? McCain just isn’t very good at it.
— LuckyJim · Jul 29, 06:25 AM · #
I would hardly characterize cult-worship as “civic growth”. Obamamaniacs attribute their excitement over this candidate to purely emotional factors, almost universally. A better question for an instructor to pose, should he encounter a student “fired up” about Obama (or any candidate for that matter) is: “Just what exactly excites you about this candidate in terms of qualifications, experience, and policy positions?” I can virtually guarantee that the overwhelming response to this inquiry will be the bulging-eyed, open-mouthed “brook trout” look. Obama’s campaign has been based upon platitudes and meaningless rhetoric. That so many young people claim to be “fired up” over this vapidity is not a good thing.
— Mark Koenig · Jul 29, 10:10 AM · #
Inspiration is “one of the first duties” of a political leader? Where does the Constitution say that?
— Mark Bauerlein · Jul 29, 10:34 AM · #
Oh, come on, Prof. Bauerlein. Every “duty” of a political leader—let alone the President—isn’t specified in the Constitution. El retorto muy weako.
And, as a man is known by the supporters he has, you might want to discourage Mark Koenig from trying to back you up. “Obamamaniacs,” “bulging-eyed, open-mouthed,” “meaningless rhetoric,” etc. Real solid data there.
BTW, which one of the several fairly nefarious “Mark Koenigs” is this guy?
— LuckyJim · Jul 29, 11:41 AM · #
The “first duties” should, indeed, be the ones specified in the Constitution, LuckyJim. And “nefarious” is worse than “meaningless rhetoric.” Finally, my point about enthusiasm wasn’t against Obama, but instead to encourage teachers to discuss the nature of political enthusiasm, and perhaps to bring in the Founders on the dangers it poses.
— Mark Bauerlein · Jul 29, 11:53 AM · #
“Just what exactly excites you about this candidate in terms of qualifications, experience, and policy positions?”
From my interactions, the vast majority would say, “He’s not George Bush.”
“Obama’s campaign has been based upon platitudes and meaningless rhetoric.”
Sounds so familiar. When did I last hear that? Oh yeah, it was 1992, when the first Bush had absolutely nothing to run on and his supporters were desperately looking for some reason for people to not vote for Bill Clinton. When a campaign gets to that point, it’s over.
@Mark Bauerlein: I can accept that what you are saying was sincere. I believe you have been listening to too many right wing talkers, though, given that you believe that’s all there is to his candidacy.
— me · Jul 29, 12:06 PM · #
LuckyJim – I don’t see any ‘solid data’ in your original post here. Rather than engaging in name-calling, why don’t you offer some evidence to demonstrate I’m wrong in my contentions about Obama and his supporters?
— Mark Koenig · Jul 29, 01:13 PM · #
First, just out of curiosity, is this the Enron Mark Koenig, or the University of Phoenix Mark Koenig, or somebody else entirely? (Reply optional. I understand.)
Second, nowhere in my original comment (#4) did I indulge in name-calling, unless you count describing Gerald Ford as un-inspirational, or saying that Sen. McCain isn’t very good at being inspiring. In #7, I used “fairly nefarious” to describe one of the possible Mark Koenigs, which also hardly qualifies as name-calling.
Third, in comment #4, I simply laid out some reasoned rebuttal points to Prof. Bauerlein’s contention that young voters being “inspired” (by Obama, natch) is a kind of a bad thing. Re-read ‘em.
Fourth, I think the onus is somebody who says, “I can virtually guarantee that the overwhelming response to this inquiry will be the bulging-eyed, open-mouthed ‘brook trout’ look,” to offer up some proof.
Fifth—again, just out of curiosity—was Mark Koenig looking at Prof. Bauerlein’s headshot at the top of his blog when he came up with the “brook trout” insult?
— LuckyJim · Jul 29, 02:18 PM · #
Why vote next time? Because Pres. Obama will be running for re-election, that’s why.
I’ll go with the Obama-enthused ‘brook trout’ over the Bushie ‘no visible activity apparent on the EEG’ Republizombies every time.
— Ed Armbrister · Jul 29, 07:25 PM · #
In the event that anyone cares, I am neither of the Mark Koenigs LuckyJim mentions, nor am I associated with either of them in any way.
It’s been my experience with every Obama supporter with whom I’ve spoken – including many acquaintances and co-workers – that they cannot articulate any reason for their excitement other than “he makes me feel good” or some similar adolescent vacuity. “He’s not George W. Bush” falls into the same category. Last I checked, G.W. was not running in this election. The inane leftist talking point that “Electing McCain will mean nothing more than four more years of G.W. Bush” is absurd on its face. McCain’s positions on energy independence, environmental concerns, economic policy, and health care reform (to name just a few) differ substantially from those of our current chief executive.
With regard to Mr. Obama, aside from his alarming lack of experience and understanding of basic economic principles, we do know something (based upon his own statements) about what his White House agenda might look like:
1) Over $1 trillion in new spending on government programs.
2) More liberal Supreme Court justices nominated, should vacancies occur.
3) Opposition to all new domestic drilling, refineries, nuclear power, and oil shale utilization, maintaining and exacerbating current shortages and high gasoline prices.
4) Higher corporate taxes, a higher capital gains tax, and an increase in the top marginal income tax rate, likely sending the economy into a severe and lasting recession reminiscent of, if not worse than that of the late 1970’s.
5) Significantly increased governmental regulation of business, curtailing free-market innovation.
6) Aggressive movement toward socialized medicine, which would inevitably result in rationing of health care, as it has in every instance around the world where it has been instituted.
7) Treatment of terrorism as a law-enforcement problem rather than the organized global Islamic jihad that it is.
8) Appeasement of, and direct engagement with despots and dictators such as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without appropriate preconditions.
9) Renewed efforts to curtail Second Amendment rights and restrict the sale and ownership of firearms.
Not one of these items represents a new idea or a break from Democrat policies of the last 30 years. For Obama to call himself a “new kind of politician” is laughable.
While John McCain is far from the ideal conservative/libertarian candidate in my mind, he is infinitely closer to that ideal, particularly on issues of national security, than Obama. Add in Obama’s disturbing long-time associations with America-hating zealots such as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, along with his penchant for accusing his political opponents of racism when they have in fact studiously avoided such rhetoric, and a very disturbing picture emerges. “Inspiring”? Only to the hard left, which despises the very principles which have made the United States the greatest purveyor of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.
Those who view Obama as some sort of Messiah spreading enlightenment and good will haven’t the slightest clue as to who he really is.
— Mark Koenig · Jul 29, 10:26 PM · #
So MK is a conservative who doesn’t want Obama, a liberal, elected President. This could have been said at the outset, with points 1 through 9 cut and pasted from a GOP brochure. And his “experience with every Obama supporter with whom [he’s] ever spoken” is pretty thin broth as an answer to the question of where’s the proof for “I can virtually guarantee that the overwhelming response to this inquiry will be the bulging-eyed, open-mouthed ‘brook trout’ look.”
— Just Passing Through · Jul 30, 06:19 AM · #
“they cannot articulate any reason for their excitement”
Maybe they don’t see the need to justify themselves to you.
Such a long list of reasons you’ve given for voting for McCain. “He’s not George Bush” is good enough for those who are voting. Just as “I won’t vote for a black man” is good enough for many McCain voters.
— me · Jul 30, 07:32 AM · #
I propose that MK is just MB’s right-wing alter ego. They’re the same person!
First, he posts this ostensibly reasonable statement as the mild mannered Brainstorm blogger Mark Bauerlein:
“But inspiration does have a down side, too, one that mentors should discuss with the young, for while it may ensure larger participation, it isn’t the best motivation for voting”
But then, he translates the earlier post through the guise of paranoid conservative Mark Koenig:
““Inspiring”? Only to the hard left, which despises the very principles which have made the United States the greatest purveyor of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known. Those who view Obama as some sort of Messiah spreading enlightenment and good will haven’t the slightest clue as to who he really is.”
And notice how Bauerlein inexplicaby piped up in defense of Koenig when LuckyJim called Koenig “nefarious,” but remained silent when Koenig posted an incredibly offensive comparison between Obama supporters and trout?
For you skeptics out there, let me ask you this: have you ever seen Mark Bauerlein and Mark Koenig posting in the same place at the same time? Check those timestamps, and you’ll see that they’re always different! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!
— crazy horse · Jul 30, 07:48 AM · #
1) $1 trillion in new spending on government programs is a good idea if they replace that $2 trillion one known as the war in Iraq.
2) More liberal Supreme Court justices nominated, should vacancies occur, is just what the country needs.
3) Opposition to all new domestic drilling, refineries, nuclear power, and oil shale utilization, maintaining and exacerbating current shortages and high gasoline prices—plus Al Gore’s man-on-the-moon-like program to convert to renewable energy sources—are just what the country needs if we’re ever going to get over our oil addiction and eventual going belly-up when the oil, as it will, runs out.
4) Higher corporate taxes, a higher capital gains tax, and an increase in the top marginal income tax rate are not only just, but necessary. (And that 1970s recession, incidentally, was mostly during the Ford, not the Carter, administration.)
5) Significantly increased governmental regulation of business, curtailing free-market pollution, excesses and fraud, is just what the country needs.
6) Aggressive movement toward socialized medicine is just what the country needs. We already have rationing of health care: the poor and the uninsured are prevented from getting it, while the insured part of the middle-class has to take what the obscenely profitable private insurers (money-skimming managers, not doctors) choose to give them, and the rich buy what they want.
7) Treatment of terrorism as a law-enforcement problem on domestic soil is just. Without habeas corpus, we’re North Korea.
8) Direct engagement with despots and dictators such as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without preconditions is more or less what diplomacy has always been, e.g., Ronald Reagan having ambassadors in Beijing and Moscow and G.W. Bush sending an emissary to Iran. “Appreasement” is another matter, e.g., G.W. Bush going to Saudi Arabia, begging for oil-production relief, being told to stuff it, and replying, “O.K.”
9) Renewed efforts to curtail Second Amendment rights and restrict the sale and ownership of firearms is admirable, albeit futile. Obama shouldn’t waste his time on that one.
— LuckyJim · Jul 30, 10:01 AM · #
This post looks like a lot of hand wringing, without any evidence to show that there is good reason for the concerns listed by Prof. Bauerlein.
The youth vote in this country is notoriously mercurial, and there isn’t much to be done about that – it’s the nature of youth. The poor dears will no doubt become hardened and cynical in their own time, just like the rest of us have.
— blah · Jul 30, 09:46 PM · #
Just a note from out here in rural south-central PA, where Reps outnumber Dems three-or-four-to-one, and we have no college or university of any kind in our county.
The active Obama supporters in this area that I know of are mostly over 60 and college graduates. For the most part, as far as I can tell, much of the enthusiasm for Obama stems from having read his (two bestselling) books, awareness of his legislative record, and recognition that he is bright and capable. For many of us, his experiences in Indonesia and Kenya suggest a level of deep awareness of cultures and people beyond US boundaries that is way too rare in American politicians. For us, the fact that he actually KNOWS some people who are not uneducated white fundamentalist bigots is of some merit.
We are very weary of, and embarrassed by, the current administration. We enjoy being able to be enthusiastically supportive of someone, but we do not support him blindly, nor will we follow him blindly—even though we like the direction he is pointing.
When I was a young person I liked Jack Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, and Eugene McCarthy. I distrusted Johnson and Nixon. I am not highly partisan, but I pay attention to what is going on. Around here, there is a remarkable amount of support for Obama. And to many of us here, the comments about “bitterness” and retreating into “Guns & God” rang true. It was as if he had actually been here (he had been here recently when he made the statement).
Much of what I see on this site is rationalization and rumination about why we should fear and distrust Obama—essentially, advocacy for McCain and Republican candidates, and failed policies.
— Joe Erwin · Jul 31, 07:01 AM · #
Obama’s elitist comments regarding “bitterAmericans clinging to their guns and religion” and “distrusting those unlike themselves” are illustrative of a generally dismissive attitude that will, along with his disturbing associations with America-haters, spell disaster for him in this election. The opinions of heartland America and those of leftist academics exhibited here are light-years apart – a fact demonstrated clearly in the previous two presidential elections.
— Mark Koenig · Jul 31, 08:37 AM · #
And, as usual, the real elitists—the right-wing reactionaries—seek to promote fear and hatred, or
at least mistrust, among those who are insufficiently educated to vote in their own self interest. It’s all about manipulating voters to perpetuate the interests of the elite and wealthy and selfish, isn’t it.
Yeh, all those folks really got a great deal the way they voted in the last two elections. Face it. The Republican brand is in the crapper, and it deserves to be. The only chance they have is to deceive the people they succeeded in manipulating before. I think enough of those people are beginning to see how badly misled they were.
— Joe Erwin · Jul 31, 09:54 AM · #