Historically speaking…
I read another nice blog entry yesterday (read it here). My synopsys of this blog is this:
One should not be voting for a candidate because they think that candidate will make history, one should be voting for them because they are the best candidate. Further, if one is going to take historical importance into consideration when casting your vote, one should do so with an open and objective mindset, not one narrowed by their particular point of view.
Unfortunately, we live in an era where sensationalism takes precedence over practicality and the media (and their lemmings) cannot help but try to create history where it may or may not exist, and then try to be an active part of it.
We live in a world where people say gi-normous, because neither gigantic nor enormous is enough to express the magnitude of what they are trying to describe. We live in a world where it is not the least bit surprising or noteworthy to hear a person say that is the coolest (or dumbest) thing they have ever seen.
People say these things to stand out, to get attention. Our generation is about who you know, what you can do for me, how cool and connected are my friends, etc. We live in an era in which the Individual Confidence Index (if such a thing existed) would have to be at an all time low, while external validation is at an all time high. To these people, being part of history seems like a great idea.
Further, if we have learned nothing over the past 20 or 30 years, it is that there is, in fact, shame in second. Winning is everything, and if the win is historic, the necessity for being a part of it is re-doubled.
This is a tragic flaw in our society, it is a spiral that I’m not sure we, collectively, have the wherewithal to escape. Getting back to the point of the blog I read, I agree that a person should not be voting just to be part of history (of course, as I have stated before, I do believe that this could be an historic presidency, and I want to see that happen, but that is about my expectations of the results, it is not about me being a part of it).
Much like my delegates post (I’m just full of self references today, aren’t I?) I really hope that election choices are based on what would be best for the country and the world in general, not which slice of history a person might be able to become a part of.
Wow! You got me fired up already! That was a ride. This is the distinction I am not sure I buy…voting based on what is best for the country and voting to make history…
I guess part of what I find compelling is the history making…I do think it is important…i am fine voting from my particularized subject position because that is where I am at…it doesn’t mean its disconnected, because in actuality subject positions among collectivities are often intertwined based on cultural commonalities. So when I vote base on or informed by the potentiality to shift the norm to a new, yet certainly representative person that has been excluded via discrimination…I have no problem with that.
Comment by liz — February 29, 2008 @ 6:08 am
I’m pretty sure I agree
My point, which I may not have stated clearly enough, is that a person should not vote *exclusively* toward the aim of “making history”, just to be part of something, when there is a better choice out there.
I think you keyed on the important aspect in your final sentence with the words “informed” and “representative person”. Provided voting toward history is *part of* your decision making process, and not the process in its entirety, I think that is great. It is the ignorant voter, simply trying to become a part of something, but being largely unaware of what that thing is, that I am trying to address.
Comment by sbj — February 29, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
[…] my blog with any consistency you are aware of my issues with the growing need of our society to abuse the language to make a simple […]
Pingback by puntiglio.com » Violence in Movies, etc. — March 23, 2008 @ 6:39 pm