From the Bottom Up

The most influential element on improving the knowledge of an issue or topic is education. Through education the amount of knowledge a person gains stems from the amount of effort a person puts in. This concept is one that I personally learned later in life and at times still struggle implementing in my academics. There are many reasons to why education is so beneficial, but in order to reap the benefits of education, education must first be provided. Furthermore, within that education system the right subjects are being required to set a foundation to make students want to learn more. In regards to improving the countries current state of political communication, improving education on the subject of politics is a great place to start. Throughout my college career I have claimed that I had a solid grasp on politics, but as many of you who have read my blogs, that may not be the case. My prior knowledge on the subject of politics comes from an American Government class that I took my senior year in high school. Well if many of you are like me, my senior year high school agenda consisted of sports, girls and graduating. The amount of classes offered regarding politics was very limited. The curriculum of the politics classes I did take only touched on the basics of our countries from of government. The lack of relevant courses to politics in our education system may be a factor on why I lacked so much knowledge on the subject or many can argue it was just personal choice to not research the topic more. Lazy or not, the lack of education provided on the subject of politics is currently one of the reasons why our generation is considered so disengaged. Our education system is lacking in the area of politics not just because of my personal experience, but from fellow students that lacked any knowledge of politics prior to his class. Recently, our teacher gave us the chance to answer questions that other fellow students asked regarding politics. Many of us answered those questions verbally and with the statement, “before I took this class I knew very little about politics”. One fellow student stated that “before I took this class I didn’t even want to engage in conversations with my friends that involved politics because I didn’t know anything”. Many of the questions that were asked on that day involved improving areas of politics and the only answer I could think of was improving education.

I’m a firm believer that the best time to mold minds and to fill minds full of knowledge it at a younger age. In order to improve engagement or knowledge in politics it must be implemented at a younger age. The reason being is that during this time period the mind is influenced by outside sources, but doesn’t distinguish right from wrong. The outside influences can be parents, idols, siblings, or even pop culture. Pop culture as seen in examples from class is intertwined with politics. Examples such as www.youtube.com hosting political debates in 2008 or celebrity’s ads to improve voting like “vote or die”. Other examples such as the famous “Obama poster” or even the photos taken of celebrities with nails in their mouths and fish hooks as seen in class, all have an impact on a young persons mind. By informing the younger generations early in their lives, they can understand the reason for these influences and form their own opinions. From this gain of knowledge they can then grasp the concept of politics easier into adulthood.

Our recent class period touched on the subject of education and how it can be improved. Examples were given from a variety of groups discussing a variety of topics. One group had the subject of political engagement and when asked to fix the current problem, they responded with implementing politics classes in our education system at a younger age.

To improve political communication in our nation it starts from the ground up. It starts from the educational system in middle school requiring a political class of some fashion, informing the students of nation’s political system. The same type of system should be required in high school, but focuses on sub cultures of politics such as the influence pop culture has on politics, or how to properly research legit political information this way that at least those that don’t want to go to college or can’t afford can at least be knowledge enough to form their own opinions based off of learning. Continuing up the ranks of the education system college currently offers a wide variety of political classes, but very few universities require them. By requiring a politics class in college all the incoming freshmen can then build their current knowledge of politics ever more due to the more relaxed atmosphere. This process would then influence our culture because politics has been required in education and in turn would change many aspects of politics in our culture we currently see.

Resulting from this type of system, people would be able to form their own opinions on political issues because they have some form of knowledge pertaining to the political realm. Individuals in high school, college or in the workforce would then in turn vote more so based off of knowledge than influence from a movie star. Furthermore, prior knowledge of politics due to the education system would influence political engagement among the masses. I believe that more people would be inclined to focus on politics and engage more on a community, local or state level.

I realize that there would be flaws in the system, but what current system in any fashion satisfies everyone? This system would only benefit politics at the interpersonal, public and cultural level. It would shed ignorance and influence outcomes of elections because the majority of voters would vote more so on the issues instead of candidates popularity among celebrities (at least I hope).

The shift our culture has taken as of recent years in the realm of politics only glorifies the implication of ignorance in politics. Candidates in recent years have tapped into pop culture and used its influence on the masses to gain votes. At first glance this seems like a strategic move, but after truly looked at what was going on I felt as though my slight knowledge of politics had been robbed. The reason being that candidates of recent years were taping into the uninformed populous presenting an image not of the prestige position they were running for. For example, in the past presidential campaign some candidates were promoting their candidacy on WWE Monday night raw (World Wresting Entertainment). With education in the realm of politics at least people like me can’t blame elections on ignorant people voting for a candidate because they went to a WWE show.

Presently, in order to fix political communication we as individuals would have to stress the importance of education in politics. There would have to be a change in the educational system in our country because many believe that our current generation is politically disengaged so it can only get worse for future generations. Individually and or collectively our generation can shape future generations because outcomes of the future is controlled in the present. The system that I have given may or may not work, but the overall concept I am trying to reach is that there needs to be change in education. At least a change will imply that our generation cares about the future and futures generation’s engagement in politics.

Religion and Politics

Religion and Politics

Religion and politics has always been an issue throughout our nation’s history. The separation of church and state stems from the oppressive grasp Catholicism had on founding people of our country. I have no quarrel with Catholicism, but our country’s founding people understood that in order for a country to be successfully progressive, religion must not be a part of the government. Today, religion is taking a new leap in society; politics. Politics and religious perspectives have recently shifted to a new realm as discussed in one of our class readings by E.J Donnie Jr. Religious perspectives have shifted to specific political beliefs and no longer involve the traditional religious views. For example, Catholic conservatives traditionally voted because they believed in limited government, private health care practices, a free market system and because fellow Catholics traditionally voted conservative. But, as of recent years the buzz around political affiliation seems to be about more moral questioning issues. Issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the poor or gay marriage seem to have the most separation of political parties as opposed to traditional perspectives. The moral dilemma of political parties it seems is what is ultimately separates democrats and republicans, but also fellow Catholics, Protestants or Jews. Religious interpretations of morality have an immense influence on political affiliation among the public. Morales and politics have always intertwined throughout out our nation’s history, but not to the extent of today’s separation of political parties. In recent years people affiliated with the same religious view have been divided due to politics not because of their views on God.

Separation of political parties today does not originate from traditional beliefs of politics; it seems today that people affiliate themselves from one party opposed to another because of moral debated issues. As E.J Donnie Jr. writes in his article titled, “America’s Religious Communities and the Battle over Government”, he states “this divide between individual and social responsibility is a relatively recent phenomenon in our politics”. People decided whether to be affiliated with certain parties because of their perspectives on abortion or gay rights especially in religious communities. This may not speak for everyone, but from studies of Donnie Jr., he states, “the core divisions among religious Americans, and particularly Christians, are no longer defined by theological issues. The splits are political” (Donnie Jr.). He believes that everyday citizens specifically Christians, no longer discuss their political affiliation over public policies, but over moral issues. Presently, conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews oppose Liberal Catholics, Protestants and Jews, unlike years past. The times have shifted from opposing ones political perspective because of their religious affiliation to, opposing someone’s perspective because of the moral view on certain political issues. The separation today from years past is that we have people from the same religious affiliation voting against one another.

On the website “The Pew Forum: On Religion and Public Life” the debate of separation of church and state is exampled by the 2008 presidential candidates. The article states that John McCain is a firm believer that the pledge of allegiance should be allowed in classrooms throughout the nation. Barrack Obama states that the pledge of allegiance in the classroom falls along the lines of a “sense of proportion” and that the pledge of allegiance in classrooms is a conflict between church and state. It is interesting to note that on the issues of this website the first four topics to search involve moral issues. The first topic to find further information is bioethics, followed by the death penalty and then gay marriage. It is interesting to see that on a website such as this the main topics to find further information on is moral questioning issues and not issues involving political polices. I found this website particular relevant because the website is putting moral issues before political policies, reinforcing the notion that moral issues are immensely important than years past. Continuing the debate between the two recent candidates for presidency both are consider themselves Christians, but yet both represent two different political parties. In years past these two candidates may have been involved in the same political party, but in today’s society political affiliation isn’t decided on the same issues as history portrays.

Everyday citizens express their political affiliation with their moral perspectives in life regardless of religious perspectives. On a website called “Broomfield Democrats” the winner of Democrat of the year Kevin Kreeger writes, “Our POLITICAL affiliation is a MORAL decision and reflects our moral code. I have many friends within both major parties and I have friends who are unaffiliated. But, when I meet someone new, I will immediately feel more comfortable if I know that he or she is a Democrat”. This example just rein enforces the notion that today’s political affiliation is associated with morality and not political polices. Each political party argues that their morality on issues is higher than the other regardless if people within the parties are affiliated with the same religion. Conservatives will argue that their beliefs on morality top that of Democrats, but in reality the two parties just have two different perspectives on morals and interpretations of the gospel on morals split many affiliated with a certain religion. In the 2004 election many people believe that George W. Bush won because of moral standings on gay marriage and abortion rights. Some people will go as far to say that Bush won the presidency due to people only voting on morality. I cannot go as far to say that George W. Bush won the presidency due to people voting on morality, but I will state that in recent year’s moral issues has been the deciding factor for our nation’s next president. In the 2008 campaign the nation hungered to hear that Barrack Obama was a Christian and I’m a firm believer that if he did not state that he was, he would have not been elected president.

In the article written by E.J Donnie Jr., he states the reasoning for such a divide among religious or non religious Americans, “THE RELATIONSHIP between the moral and economic crises in our society can be seen most powerfully in families where the need to earn enough income forces both parents to spend increasing amounts of time outside the home”. E.J Donnie Jr. believes that moral separation stems from the amount of time parents spend outside the home. Regardless of opinions the fact still remains, the debate of political polices is old news, today’s society requires a question of morality and upon answering that question leaves one residing in a political party. Democrats for example tend to vote for a woman’s’ right to chose and gay rights. Conservatives tend to vote against those issues, but the difference is that there are people representing the same religion for both sides. Presently, it seems that the religious community is more divided in politics than it has ever been. Is it because of individual interpretation of morality? Is it because of different interpretations of the gospel on political policies? The answer can only found individually and that is why our nation is so split by political affiliation and interpretation of morality.

It’s apparent that evangelicals, Catholics and Jews have sided against one another on political affiliation in recent years, but the reason behind this shift is a very debatable one. I for one reside with a political party because of moral issues because in today’s society it seems that moral issues are more substantial in society than let’s say, more government. The belief of limited government is a fabricated one because our government is one of the largest in the world and to vote conservative to limit government is absurd. Traditional voting because of certain political parties is out dated. Presently, our society demands moral standings in politics especially among the religious community. We as a society have seen a division among religions groups and politics in recent years shifting away from traditional voting. This division is just a sign that our perspective on politics is changing along with interpretation of morality in religion.

Politics Online

Politics Online

Politics online provide a vast amount of information to anyone looking for the specific understanding of a political issue or political affiliation. If a person wanted to learn more about their political affiliation, the web provides numerous sites and information to dissect that information into a form that can reach people of all education. Students use the web to guide papers topics and many scholars such as Thomas Hollihan believe, “since its development, the internet has fundamentally reshaped communication” (Hollihan p.199). The only issue that remains is how credible the information on the web really is. Professors in college handout a syllabus for each class and with that syllabus information on credible sources is usually provided, but some assignments require an extended amount of outside resources. Since the first day I stepped on campus Professors have been endlessly drilling in my head the importance of plagiarism and credible sources, but what truly makes a credible source? In reality facts make a credible source though opinions are always given, facts must be presented in order for an opinion to be credible. The issue with today’s advancement in technology pertaining to politics is how to find a credible source when endless amounts of information are provided on the web.

From the first political class I took in college to the present, credible sources online has been a major issue in conducting a paper, blog, or presentation. The immense amount of information on the web can leave more room for error. For example, when a student looks up a specific political party on the web through a search engine, anything affiliated with that specific party is brought on the search engine. This means that personal opinion sites, blogs or even papers written by students in college relating to that political party is presented. Professors guide students with examples of credible sources, but the credible sources given occasionally provide more opinion over fact. Politics has always been a battle of who’s right and whose wrong so when the shift of technology took place it opened the doorway to “political experts”. The political experts that I am referring to are the everyday citizen. The citizen that decided one day to post his/her opinion on the web because they felt their opinion on a specific political matter was important enough for the masses to see. I do not condemn this by any means, each person on this planet has a God given right to express their opinion, but what I do condemn is the use of the web to promote one’s personal image of politics without any prior knowledge of the subject they are discussing. Just recently our class was presented by numerous popular culture clips pertaining to politics. The “Onion” a political satire show described a demonstration in Washington State with numerous people protesting while holding conflicting political picket signs. Each person in the protest displayed their ignorance to rest of world with no other purpose, but to get their conflicting points of view across. The people protesting had no idea why or what they were protesting about. The “Onion” posts numerous stories such as this and it makes one wonder how many sources on the web are backed by fact and not ignorance. I realize that there are still numerous amounts of resources on the web that are credible sources and provide factual statements on political issues. Having said that, the increasing amount of useless knowledge leaves many researchers (students) wondering which source is credible. When using the terms fact or opinion, I am simply implying that many sites on the web provide information on political agendas, but in doing so implement an opinionated feel. Some websites, blogs or personal websites offer more opinionated outlooks to political issues without any factual base to backup statements.

After typing the word “politics online 2009” in the search engine www.google.com 132,000,000 results came forth regarding politics online 2009. Now I know for a fact that there are not 132,000,000 credible sources on the web regarding politics online 2009. The first examples given by the search engine are blogs relating to politics in 2009, but the fourth site to choose from is a site called “Politics Online News, Tools and Strategies”. The first topic on the site relates to how Republicans are using the internet to fight against the Democrats’ overhaul on the health care reform. The story is not even three paragraphs long and talks about how the Republican Party is moving through the web gathering online town hall meetings and using social networking to highlight parts of the Bill that they want to take action on. This availability for the masses to see the Bill is a commodity that past generations never had, but at the same time not every citizen is going to look at the 1,990 pages of the reform and fully understand the issue. I cannot imagine that members of the House dissecting the health care reform plan with everyday citizens online as said in the article, “House Republicans have invited citizens to join them online to pour over the 1,990 pages”. Realistically the amount of citizens being described in this article engaging in this “new communication strategy” is completely out of proportion. The article makes it sound as though all Republicans are embracing this new form of communication and are directly speaking to members of the House. This article was the fourth available site given on the search engine titled “politics online 2009”. The article was posted online by a man named Buzz Webster and is presented in a format to where it looks like a credible source, but further reading the article hidden words and meanings present an image that is clearly not striking all Republicans. The message in which I perceived was that all Republicans are embracing the web as a new form of communication and are interacting with House Republicans to dissect the almost 2,000 paged health care reform plan. Thomas Hollihan in his book, “Uncivil Wars” describes, “Many people worry that the result is a surplus of messages of questionable veracity and a public audience that may not be well equipped to evaluate the quality of the claims that they are reading because they lack familiarity with the new media” (p.207). The message that Hollihan refers to is the authenticity of the messages being presented online to the masses and how some people cannot differentiate fact over opinion. Hollihan continues to write examples of how some scholars argue that quality of internet sources depends on which site to go to. I have no doubt there are still numerous credible sources held accountable for their every word, but just as Hollihan described many people fear on the authenticity of their work and how it is presented.

Credible sources still exist, but the argument in which I am trying to make is that there is an extensive amount of information poured on the web. How to distinguish a credible source from an opinion is getting harder everyday because of the vast amount of accessibility to web, allowing everyday Don Joe/Jane expressing their views. Expressing views is every person’s God given right, but when it waters down credible sources then it becomes an issue. People should be held accountable for their words on the web especially when they try to give a factual story, but in turn overshadow the facts with opinions.

Putnum vs. Jones

Politics in today’s day and age have drastically changed, specifically the perception of political engagement among the citizens. Political engagement among the masses has shifted from one standpoint to a completely different realm. The realm in which I am referring to is technology. As described by Robert Putnam in the reading by Jeffery P. Jones, “Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture”, Putnum describes political engagement as physically devoting ones time to politics itself. Putnum argues that civic disengagement is due to mass culture such as television, the media and other forms of entertainment or technology. Jeffery P. Jones counters Putnum’s argument and believes that political engagement through the masses is conducted by staying involved in politics, specifically technology. Jones believes that political engagement can be carried out by simply filling out an online survey or reading headlines pertaining to politics. Through technology one can be involved in politics and one doesn’t necessarily have to physically devote time and energy to maintain engagement. Each point of view describes methods of the past and the present, but I believe that in today’s day and age both perspectives are essential to political outcomes. Since today’s society requires an abundance of modifications to adjust to the ever-changing environment, both perspectives from the above writers allow society more than one option and are therefore, essential to political engagement.

Technology has enhanced political engagement according to Jeffery P. Jones, but to what extent is engaging in politics? Jones believes that technology, mainly the internet opens up a vast amount of resources that generations past could not obtain. The internet opens endless amounts of resources to the political world, but does it mean that one is necessarily engaging in politics? According to Jones, by researching or simply involving oneself in politics through technology, one is engaging. I would have to agree that in today’s society the vast amounts of information being cast through technology enable citizens to engage in different forms. Technology for today’s generation is the main source of becoming involved in politics. The media during election year covers each candidates move around the clock. The internet contains updates and speeches, websites are devoted to political campaigns allowing viewers to catch up on political agendas that may not be available on basic television. Websites such as youtube.com allows for videos of political candidates to be available to anyone with access to the internet. One can stay involved in politics by keeping up with political agendas and visiting certain websites to learn more about each candidate. The vast amounts of resources due to technology allow people from across the nation to post political opinions and ideas for other citizens to see. Blog’s or tweeting allows one to post ideas and thoughts of not only their daily lives, but political opinions as well especially during election year. Personal opinions posted online whether there on official websites or a personal webpage promote public awareness or even political debates between writer and reader. Knowledge of politics is gained through education, but it also gained through interacting with others, conversing with one another through technology to build more knowledge. Technology enables this engagement, but through a non traditional point of view.

The traditional point of view is that of Robert Putnam, he believes that physically devoting yourself to politics is an act of engaging in politics. Putnam from my interpretation believes that to engage in politics one must go down to where the campaign office is held and physically devote ones time to the cause they believe in. As previously stated both methods of engaging in politics are essential to the ever changing mass culture. Physically devoting time in today’s day and age is still very effective as seen in the documentary film “Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore”. In the film Jeff Smith used the grass roots strategy to promote his political position and campaign. As seen in the film the physical presence of each person in Jeff Smith’s campaign had some effect to the outcome of his near election. The coffee meetings, the door to door conversing with every day citizen’s nearly won the seat in the House of Representatives for Smith. Physical conversations between one another still go a long way, simply because it reminds many the humanism and realism of candidates. By engaging in politics in the sense described by Putnum the humanism involved reminds one that technology still has a disadvantage. People still require a sense of interaction between one another whether it is a campaign volunteer or the candidate his/herself. Conversing with someone representing a candidate will further enhance political sway from one side to another. For example if an undecided is leaning towards one political party without conversing physically with someone representing a candidate, the technology will sway the position. But, if the same situation is presented and the undecided has conversed with a representative, then in my opinion the rhetoric involved between the two parties will ultimately mean more in the decision of the undecided. By conversing with someone more knowledge is gained because everyone interprets readings or education in a different manner.

Both interpretations of political engagement are essential because each complement one another. A person can be educated as much as possible through technology and the vast resources it has to offer, but that same person will not gain more knowledge without physically conversing with another about their position. Technology offers a strong base for political engagement by informing the masses of opinions and factual positions of candidates, but political engagement is enhanced with the physical conversing between two different parties. By physically being present around fellow peers and talking about ones political positions, knowledge is gained because each person interprets politics in a different way. Robert Putnum states that we are a society that is losing civil engagement in politics to the technological world, that “television and its electronic cousins are willing accomplices in citizen disengagement.” Personally Putnum is right is some regard, but what he doesn’t see is that technology allows vast interpretation of political issues which leads to infinite methods of becoming involved in politics. Personal web pages allow one to freely express political opinions and thus allow one to engage in politics. Opinions of citizens are available to other members of society to learn more about someone’s perspective or to simply argue against their position. Putnum is right to the extent that technology can move people away from physically getting involved in politics because access to political affiliations or positions is “one click away” and takes away the humanism involved in politics.

It all boils down to the simple fact that political engagement requires both positions of Putnum and Jones. Each opinion on political engagement and which position is right for society is what makes this country so unique. Each side is needed for political development because if technology alone shapes politics than society loses the sense of humanism. But if physical engagement rules all, then accessibility of political view, issues, and opinions will be limited. Our society needs those so devoted to a candidate’s position that they will physically go down to the campaign office and devote blood, sweat and tears to the campaign trail. Our society needs technology to allow easy access of facts, opinions and positions to enhance our knowledge of politics. Our society needs both positions because additional knowledge can be gained by conversing with one another, but knowledge cannot first be obtained without availability to resources. Mass culture is forever changing and when things change society tries to find the best available resources to adapt to the changing environment. In the present, both methods of political engagement are effective and therefore essential to politics because both in a sense compliment one another.