Bookbyte Blog

Posts tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

Is Voting a Practical Choice or an Idealistic One?

A sample ballot for the 2012 presidential election

This article from The Atlantic is surely one of the most hotly debated articles I’ve seen lately. In it, writer Conor Friedersdorf declares flatly that he will not vote for President Obama because of moral objections to (a) drone strikes in Waziristan, (b) the President’s “kill” list, and (c) how Libya was handled. In a follow-up, Friedersdorf shared some of the responses he received from the article, particularly framed around the question of having certain issues be “dealbreakers” for candidates.

Here’s the binary decision: Are there certain issues that will make you refuse to vote for a candidate or, not, because every vote is a compromise already?

Friedersdorf insists that the first is true, not simply because it’s the stance he’s taken, but because he believes that everyone draws their own personal moral lines in the ground. But the examples he gives are of situations that would never happen:

“If two candidates favored a return to slavery, or wanted to stone adulterers, you wouldn’t cast your ballot for the one with the better position on health care.”

That’s probably true. But it’s doesn’t change the fact that, for better or worse, most people at some point will support something they find morally reprehensible with a vote. Obviously not all people are neatly categorized as either Republicans or Democrats. Even once you add in Libertarians, Socialists, the Green party, the Constitution party, or the Modern Whig party (yes, that’s a thing), you can’t possibly encompass the full spectrum of political and moral opinion. And just because someone calls themselves a Republican, Democrat, or whatever, doesn’t necessarily mean they subscribe to every platform of that party.

So people will indirectly support things they find vile, as long as it’s something vile that we, as a society, have still marked as up for grabs. The most contested social issues are ones where both sides feel they have the moral high ground: abortion, gay marriage, gun control, capital punishment, etc. While many people will draw their moral lines in the ground over one of these issues, many more people ignore them all together. For some of those people, it’s because they have no interest in getting bogged down in moral debate. For others, it’s the belief that the candidate ultimately doesn’t have that much of an impact on moral issues.

Martin Sheen playing President Bartlet on "The West Wing"At this point, I’d like to turn the article over to conversation. What do you believe is the purpose of voting? Is it strategic, made to help whoever you think would be the most capable leader to win? Or is it to take a stance, to say “This is what I believe,” and strategy be damned? (Even if casting a vote for what you believe is by writing in a vote for Martin Sheen or Oscar the Grouch.)

“As Much Education As They Can Afford” — Gaffe or the Plain Truth?

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R)

At a rally in Virginia, Mitt Romney said that he wanted to make sure that America remains “a place of opportunity,” where “everyone has a fair shot” and “get[s] as much education as they can afford.”

Now, we’re not a political blog. And we really, really don’t want to be one. A political blog latches on to every bit of phrasing and twists and turns it around to try to reveal some hidden truth or underlying theme about a candidate, a party, an organization, whatever. The knee-jerk reaction to Romney’s phrasing is easy: “What do you mean as much as they can afford? Are you saying the financially privileged deserve better educations than other Americans?”

That’s a boring conversation. Is Romney’s phrasing a subtle hint at an underlying bias toward the wealthy? Who cares? The last thing I want to do is contribute to the always petty conversation around election season.

But we are (or at least we’d like to think we are) a blog about ideas. And at the root of over-analyzing Romney’s statement is an interesting discussion: How much education should be free, and how much should you have to pay for?

First of all, education is never free. It can’t be. Even if, in the future, our current concepts of classrooms, degrees, and homework are completely unrecognizable, students will always need two things: equipment (books, computers, art supplies, etc.) and teachers (professors, coaches, etc.). Even if the students of the future consume all of their education through all-purpose interactive tablets, someone needs to buy the tablets. Even if the students of the future are all taught by very life-like robots, someone needs to pay the programmers and engineers making robots. Because teachers will always need salaries and equipment will always need to be purchased, someone always needs to pay for education, whether parents, taxpayers, grant donors, or the students themselves.

So when we say “free” what we really need to be saying is “accessible.” Should everyone have the same access to education? Well, sure. That should be an easy answer. That’s only what’s fair, right? No sane person would claim that the very poor don’t deserve to be just as informed as anybody else. That’s the reason why it’s important to make sure resources like libraries and public schools allow anyone to access them freely. We can’t claim to be a democratic society and prevent accessibility of information.

But at the same time, we can’t really claim that all education is created equal. Obviously, some schools are going to be better than other schools. A lot of that depends on the quality of the teachers. A lot of that depends on the quality of the administrators. But most of it, unfortunately, has to do with money. Schools with more money will be able to pay teachers better, provide better tools for their students, fund more extracurricular activities, and provide more out-of-the-classroom experiences. So while we should certainly always strive to make education be as universally accessible as possible, the sad fact is that it won’t be.

Let’s take it back to Romney’s words, specifically, the word “afford.” Naturally, when we think about affording something, we think about money, but that’s actually a secondary definition. The primary, according to Merriam-Webster anyway, is “to manage [or] to bear without serious detriment.” So “affording” education means more than just paying for it. It means being able to dedicate the time and energy necessary to achieve your goals.

Again, I’m not here to nitpick word choice of a person who’s on camera 24/7, I’m just making a point. An education is always going to be an investment. Even if you didn’t have to pay for four years of undergraduate studies, you still were dedicating four years of your life toward making your future opportunities better. That’s a cost in itself. And that’s a cost that not everyone will be able to handle.

Getting a good education is achieved through hard work and good resources. That’s always going to take money and energy. The more we can help one another have access to quality education, the better. But there will always be a personal cost to a student: long-term, like loans, or short-term, like choosing to be a full-time student instead of having a job. We can (and should) keep the cost as low as possible, but a student needs to be willing to make that personal investment.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers