Those people? In DC?
If you wouldn't let your parents decide who you date, and if you wouldn't want your high school guidance counselor to pick your career for you, then you might want to reconsider putting blind faith in your elected officials in DC. After all, the stakes are just a teensy bit high there too. The future of the country. And the world. And, you know, stuff like that.
So here's a pop quiz. Can you name your elected officials in DC? Not just the senators, but your representative too. Do you know your rep's name? Do you know your district? If you don't, find out: here for the Senate and here for the House. Then post it in the comments. It'll be an interesting lesson in geography.
Now I'm sure you're wondering: is this just a lesson in point-and-click or, for those of you who already knew (and probably rolled your eyes at me), a moment of self-congratulation? No. Knowing these names and their contact information matters. A heckuva lot.
Want to know an un-secret secret?
When you contact a Congressional office, they actually pay attention. Elected officials always remember that ultimately their jobs depend on your support--even if you don't always think about it. That means when an issue's hot, staffers keep tally sheets by the phones to record what you are thinking. All you've got to do is make the call. It's easy, too: read stories here.
Now think about this. If you're not calling your Congressional offices, who is? Your mom? Your crazy aunt Ethel? The annoying neighbor who's always complaining about kids these days? The creepy guy who's always in the food court at the mall? If you wouldn't let any of these people make decisions about your life, you shouldn't give them free rein to make decisions about your country.
So put those names in the comments section and keep them ready. This is just part one of the revolution.
- Abigail's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Thinking back ...
Reagan:
I find your arguments interesting, and I have some thoughts of my own. First off, the price of airline tickets (not to mention their wonderful customer service) is already quite prohibitive for the "average" person. And, to answer your question as to whether or not they should've been allowed to "go under," wouldn't the conservative answer be, "Yes, let them compete in the free market without government interference?" As far as Chrysler is concerned: remember what happened in the decade after the 1979 bailout (signed by Pres. Carter). Chrysler became competitive again, yes, but in large part by shifting their primary production capabilities to Mexico, then selling out to Damien (a German corporation). So, in essence, the shareholders benefitted but tens of thousands of workers STILL lost their jobs, and all on the taxpayers' nickel. Oh, as far as the refuse? It's still there, and any environmental damage comes out of the SUPERFUND system. Don't believe me? Then take a drive through Detroit on your next road trip. As far as your rhetorical question about food stamps ($32 a week for a single mother with one child, 2007) vs. corporate bailouts ...
Raleigh
I live in Raleigh now, but I'm still in Price's district. Back home is the 10th under McHenry. Of course, Dole and Burr are the Senators from North Carolina (though I use "from" in the loosest sense of the word in regards to Mrs. Kansas Dole). I, too, agree that the old terms of "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" are outdated terms, especially considering the fact that, since the 1950's at the very latest, "small government" proponents have consistently approved corporate welfare programs that offer profitable corporations millions or billions of taxpayer dollars in the forms of subsidies, tax breaks, and straightforward "bailouts" (such as what the airline industry recieved following Sept. 11th). What are the feelings on this? Does that consitute "conservatism?"
Consider this:
Would it be better to allow the airline industry to go under or raise the price of a ticket to an amount that the average citizen can't afford. Then we could all stay home or drive to say, California? (Ive been there and done that)
Chrysler was bailed out a couple of decades back. Would it have been better to let them go under and cost 10's of thousands of people their jobs? Not to mention the costs associated with the refuse left behind. Who would pick up that tab. Probably the gov't. Would likely end up being more than the costs of the bailout.
Do we, as a society, benefit more from the bailout of a big corporation or from the distribution of food stamps?
Just thinking out loud here.
I don't think it constitutes
I don't think it constitutes conservatism, and I would be interested to see how one would defend it as.
I do think your point beautifully illustrates the divide (chasm, really) between quid pro quo politics and political analysis/debate. But just because compromise is necessary in policy-making doesn't mean it's a good excuse, especially with issues of "corporate welfare." North Carolina, as I'm sure you know, has seen giant "incentive packages" given to businesses. It's frustrating, bordering on sickening.
With that said, I think there's a common misconception--especially among voters less "tuned in" to political dialogue--that being "pro-business" means being in bed with business. We need to change that.
I know well of what you speak
I happen to be from Caldwell County, NC, where Google was recenly given a huge incintive package to locate to a place where, it was obvious from several searches of their own buisness plan, they would've located anyway. (I have my reasons for stating such, which I would be happy to list had I more time.) The vast majority of my family worked in the furniture industry before it collapsed, and not in the jobs that required suits or ties.
Semantics does get a bit difficult in a political culture that subsists on twenty-second soundbites. I certainly wouldn't call myself "anti-buisiness," but what does it mean to be "pro-buisiness?"
...
HillTrash, I love the question and I think it's too important to be relegated to the comments section on a post about locating your members of Congress. So psst, check your email. And anyone else interested in chiming in on this topic (or any others) to spark discussion, please send me an email. If nothing else, you're guaranteed to make my day.
I live in Durham, NC under
I live in Durham, NC under David Price (read about your site in the N & O -- that was a heck of an advertising boost you got there).
As an aside, I'm looking forward to your comments on the Bush Administration. I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally moderate, and this administration is an absolute nightmare. If your target market for this blog is social liberals and fiscal conservatives, you might have trouble selling them on Republicans -- who (as of now) are neither.
I'm a rule breaker:
I'm a conservative, period. Moved from Republican to independent midway through Bush's second term.
To be "socially liberal" yet "fiscally conservative" seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me. A social liberal surely understands that such a politcal stance is unltimately an expensive one. Perhaps you don't mind the gov't spending billions/trillions of dollars so long as it isn't being spent on say, the Iraq war.
I personally am a social conservate and a fiscal conservative. Having said that, however, I was for and still support our efforts in Iraq and prefer that my tax dollars be spent in that regard as opposed to say, univeral health care. Furthermore, Democrat/liberal/social philosophies/ideologies must have limitations placed on them for a capitalist, free market society to continue to thrive.
If young people coming into the market think they can continue to tax and regulate busisnesses, as well as individual taxpayers, to feed an evergrowing socialist gov't, then think again.
Some of you may not have been alive when the Fram oil filter commercal was made where the guy says at the end of it, "you can pay me now or pay me later, but you will pay."
Nuff said from this old Reaganite.
...
The terms "socially liberally" and "fiscally conservative" are inherently fuzzy and imperfect, especially in an age of increasingly technical and complex issues. With that said, most Gen Next voters do identify as this pairing. (It's an interesting exercise to ask students if they've ever heard friends describe themselves this way.) So that's our framework.
With that said, I would argue "socially liberal" simply refers to the fact that most young voters have friends and neighbors of different ethnicities, family structures, and yes, even sexual orientations. That has made us pro-choice, sensitive to race issues, and although wishy-washy on gay marriage we're certainly not lining up "in defense of marriage."
It's the bit of "fiscal conservatism" that should make us suspicious of programs like universal healthcare and Social Security. In fact, Pew found in a 2007 report that most Generation Next voters favored privatizing Social Security. To be honest, I had no idea.
But the room for debate and discussion in this blog is the vagueness of the terms and the vast gray areas in which a "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" political identity won't help someone pick a position.
Common Good:
When I hear someone say they are a social liberal I tend to think they are identifying themselves with that brand of gov't that concerns itself "more" with "the common good" at the expense of "individual rights and liberties." Every time there is a tax increase for the expansion of some existing or new program/s, I feel my individual rights and libeties slipping away i.e. the right to reach into my own wallet and spend my own money freely as I see fit for the welfare of myself and my family.
If the young social liberals of today are more concerned with the issues as stated by you, Abbey, I have no problem with that, mostly. But if they are truly concerned with fiscal policy and spending by ever bigger gov't's (national, state and local) then they had best pay close attention to how they are casting their vote come November. Personally, I feel we are in a lose, lose situation right now but one loss may definetely be worse than the other.
Remember the Alamo and the Carter Administration. I know, I know, you were only a gleam in your daddies eye back in that day. :)
...
I certainly agree that one loss will be greater than the other. Generally, though, life is defined by choices between two (or more) imperfect options. I suppose it's only fair that politics are not any different.
But to continue with a brief note about the elections... I think Generation Next will vote overwhelmingly for Obama because they don't quite know his policies--nor do they care. If America elects Obama, it are electing a mood (as I believe Peggy Noonan said in the WSJ a few weeks ago). If Generation Next elects Obama, we are electing a feeling, a feeling of elation at being involved in the political process.
Obama is the only one taking the youth vote seriously. For that reason, I think he's going to get it. It actually reminds me of a quote from the movie The American President: "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand." Sometimes Hollywood gets it right.
I'm also registered in
I'm also registered in Durham, so we share a Congressman.
As far as the Bush administration goes, I agree. It's interesting that so many Republicans--including me--now disavow him to a large extent. Government bureaucracy grew, spending grew, and we're in the Middle East for many years into the forseeable future. (Not to mention other debacles like Harriet Miers and Hurricane Katrina/FEMA.) I don't know many people who are happy with the state of affairs.
One of the reasons this site was started was to explore "post-Bush" Republicanism. I think this is particularly important for Generation Next voters, most of whom (again, including me) really became politically conscious during Bush's presidency.
I live in Ohio district 6
I live in Ohio district 6 with Democratic congressman Charlie Wilson.The youth in district 6 gets repeatedly shut out I have emailed and called him numerous times and I have never recieved anything back.I believe congressman shut out the High Schoolers because we are not yet able to vote but the mistreatment will come back as soon as we hit 18 =)
Damien, really interesting
Damien, really interesting to hear that. I'd like to hear more of your story, so if you're interested in sharing, drop me a line.