Where’s Stanford Stadium And How Should I Vote?
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
You know us when you see us: Wide-eyed, walking about campus with our noses in maps, desperately trying to find that first class of the year while cautiously befriending new people. Alternatively, we strut about campus like we own the place, shouting hellos to people we hardly know, and often wind up lost (or many times reprimanded). We’re Freshmen.
We’re lost on campus, trying to compare our luck in drawing dorms, where the good places to eat are, and what classes to avoid. Now, there is no doubt that a great many will simply discover such valuable information simply through experience–but far more will seek positive role models who will “show us the way,” whether that be the street-smart fellow freshman or the sister of the kid we vaguely knew in high school.
In many ways, most young people in the political landscape bear a strong resemblance to freshmen. Sure, people may have a general idea of what goes on in politics and most often will be able to identify that which is most important to them personally, but it is unlikely that they’ll be able to name every person who is supposed to represent them, much less the representatives from all neighboring districts. Often enough, people don’t know how to act on the issues that are important to them or perhaps don’t know how their issues are to be affected by legislation or political action. These people are most susceptible to positive agents of socialization.
We all have our agents of socialization, and they include our friends, parents, teachers, ministers, favorite celebrities, grandparents, respected politicos and so forth. But just like the freshman who wants to know the quickest way to get to Stanford Stadium, people look to role models to help determine political view points and prioritizations. That’s why it’s important to have conservative publications on any and every college campus, as they fulfill a dual purpose: Expanding the readership of conservatism and expanding the leadership of conservatism.
In other words, the most effective draws to conservatism are not the bomb-throwing practices suggested by some, but instead presenting persuasive and reasoned individuals as ambassadors of the cause in print. The best way for conservatives to reach out is through reasoned and compelling appeals, not strictly polarizing sound bytes. Such diplomats provide the fodder for intellectual stimulation, sparking if only the subconscious thought of “Clearly this gal knows what she’s talking about; why don’t I agree?” and not usually “That’s extremely stupid/repugnant.” More importantly, however, is showcasing other conservatives in the community: The football player who practically won the last game, the thespian who did an awesome job as a supporting character in the last play, and even the gamer who has the high scores on every RTS game known to man.
Controversy may raise a few eyebrows, but raising havoc presents the serious risk of polarization. Unlike drumming up noise about a new movie, not all publicity is good publicity in politics, even in political discourse. Now this is not to ultimately discourage sometimes necessary statements of principle, but conservatives all around should realize a basic truth about the coalition-building nature of our republican society. If Jose is voting for your candidate because of the promised tax cuts, and Sydney is voting for the same person because she’s his sister, you shouldn’t be completely dispirited when they don’t agree with you on everything. The point is, at the end of the day, your guy’s been elected.
I myself come from a high school in Los Angeles that holds mock elections every presidential election year, accompanied by mock debates in which volunteers are asked to defend each candidate’s points of view. In 1996, a full 5% of the student body voted for Bob Dole. In 2000, the voting percentage for the Democrat dipped to 90%, but not because George W. picked up any more points than Bob Dole. Libertarian Harry Brown had entered the race and finished tied with W. at 5%. As a freshman, I founded a political magazine called the Right Messenger that came out every two weeks (the most frequently published on campus) and rapidly expanded our free e-mail subscription service (if not our readership). Through the Right Messenger, I was able to cultivate, along with my co-writers, a crop of conservatives who could be visible representatives, if not vigilant defenders of the cause. In 2004, two Right Messenger writers (including myself) as well as the editor of the school paper’s opinion page took on the heavily favored Democratic panel in the mock debate. By most surprised accounts, the Republicans won the day, if only due to better preparation and a complacent Democratic majority. More significantly, however, were the results of the poll, in which George W. Bush managed to garner nearly 40% of the student body’s votes.
Perhaps this was due to George W. Bush’s inspiring communication abilities, but I would be more likely to attribute it to the reasoned conservatism that was expressed through the pages of multiple school publications. Personality-driven political discourse does have its faults, as there are obviously flawed characters that could have the opposite effect of intent – but I would challenge the notion that political discourse isn’t always personality driven when it comes to moderates picking sides in an actual breakdown of candidates, rather than issues. Naturally, moderates aren’t going to vote for an extremist they just happen to find extremely likable. But if it’s a close horse-race, the more likable individual is going to win out that battle. The same is true of political argument, particularly if things are as one-sided as a partisan magazine. Is the person writing going to solicit a chuckle and a barely audible murmuring of ‘Crazy conservative…’? Or is she going to present some food for thought, a welcome relief to what a moderate would perceive as an otherwise very bitterly contested political scene?
Not everyone is “into politics”. If they were, voting percentages would likely be far higher. Either that, or there would be dramatically more guerillas in the woods. Conservative missionaries should not concern themselves with definite Democrats and rockhard Republicans. They are decided, and usually settled in their ways. Instead, we should focus on solidifying the viewpoints of moderate conservatives and bringing into the fold moderates of other stripes. Before you can convince people to vote for you, you have to overcome preconceived negative notions about who you are and what you represent. Just as the senior who tells freshmen that Stanford Stadium is in San Francisco would have to overcome a credibility problem, members of either party would have to overcome basic stereotypes: Democrats are not all tree-hugging, Godless, socialist peaceniks. Republicans are not all Bible-thumping, cutthroat, capitalist warmongers—though, admittedly, the Republican stereotype does sound a bit cooler.
