Thanks to watching last night’s presidential debate, I now know that Mitt Romney either wants four trillion dollars in new taxes or he doesn’t, that Barack Obama either cut 700 million dollars from Medicare or he didn’t, and that Jim Lehrer either knows how long two minutes is or he doesn’t. (Seems like he doesn’t.)link to full article
But I don’t know anything about any social or religious issue—i.e., the kind of stuff we here at RD speak about all the time. Which brings up the question: are these issues irrelevant?
There's two sides to the "values issue." Are both of them quiet this election cycle?
To say that our country is satisfied with silence on these issues is false, in my opinion. Especially with all that is going on with Obamacare and the conflict that causes with the Catholic church concerning contraceptives and abortion rights, I doubt our two presidential candidates will get by without clearly stating their platforms. Although it is possible that less people care about these issues than before when choosing their president, those people who DO still care are more polarized than ever on these issues. There is a great sense of voter apathy, lack of efficacy, and distrust in the government in general, so maybe people believe their voices are best heard in other venues than demanding to hear the presidential candidate's views on the issues that are close to their hearts. I should be careful not to put words in the mouths of citizens on either side of these issues, but I do feel comfortable saying that people will, in fact, demand that they hear what they want to hear.
ReplyDeleteAll of the major controversies in our country are morality based. Contraception - right or wrong? Immigration - right or wrong? War in the Middle East - right or wrong? Solutions cannot be made and compromises will not be made because there is no right answer. What is right to some is wrong to others. By avoiding the values aspect, both the candidates are getting an easier time campaigning. It is critical that these forces are talked about before the election, however, because the values of the government are going to dictate the laws that will be passed in the next four years. America needs to know the black and white facts from both candidates.
ReplyDeleteI would not say that both are completely quiet on the values issues. I think neither of them want to come right out and speak directly to values and social issues, for fear of losing voters. If they hint around the issues and set policies and amendments that come from those issues, it seems as though they think that is enough of a stance on each issue. However, most people want a clear answer as to what they believe regarding different social issues. No one wants an ambiguous president and I think at some point the candidates will have to clearly state their positions on various social issues. Especially controversial ones that affect large populations of citizens.
ReplyDeleteWhile the candidates have not done much direct mentioning of specific moral or value issues, much of what is highly debated in modern political discourse is closely tied to them. They seem to both avoid specifically mentioning religion, but the debate over Obamacare brings in different religion's views on things like abortion and birth control. The debate on economic issues also has underlying values issues debates. What a person defines as a "fair share" in paying taxes could in part be related to the level of moral obligation they feel to contribute to the greater good so others can work to share the same success. Therefore, I don't think the candidates or voters have been quiet on "values issues" at all so far. Even if they have not been mentioned straight out, people often relate particular stances on any number of political issues as an indication of one's position on a moral issue.
ReplyDeleteThese values issues are touchy subjects for most, and addressing them will most likely cause a lot of controversy. I think that both of the presidential candidates are trying to skirt around these issues because they don't want to offend people they already have supporting them, and they want to seem as neutral as possible on these issues so that maybe they will get some of the undecided vote. They dont want to discourage people from voting for them because they have a strong opinion on something such as abortion, or same-sex marriage, even if they truly do have a strong opinion on something like that. This being said, I do think that these issues will have to come up at some point during the election cycle. They are such prominent issues in today's society that I believe people will force the candidates to talk about them extensively. There is no way these issues can go untouched in this election cycle.
ReplyDeleteThis election, like all others in the past, is a joke. Both candidates cannot clearly state how they feel about a certain topic nor can they specifically explain their position on anything because they are there to get the vote, not for the support. They are also there to support and represent their party, not to represent their own beliefs, which is another problem with our political system, parties. What I mean is that candidates understand people are not going to agree with them 100% (which is unlikely in the first place). If a candidate shows overwhelming support for one issue and not another, it gives off a persona of “favoritism”. Voters ultimately (or at least voters in the middle that wait to understand both sides before voting, swing voters) want to hear those things that either make them really like one candidate or really dislike another. For example, same-sex marriage; we know both candidates support for it but it’s something that will come up again and again in the discussion. A topic like this, in my opinion is important, but is not the most important thing to focus on in this election; let’s focus on the economy. A lot of these problems come from candidate affiliation to parties. A candidate’s policies and opinions are inhibited from the pressure to align with a party. That’s how they can appeal to the voter; that Democrat or Republican label makes someone interested or uninterested in an instance. Let’s forget parties; they’ve done more harm than good. We should start voting on common sense rather than party.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not either candidate openly mentions their particular positions on certain topics, especially those of a controversial nature, we usually know where each candidate stands. And even when we’re not 100% sure, we can usually make an accurate educated guess based on their party platforms. It’s similar to professors and their political and/or religious affiliation; most try to keep their personal views out of the classroom, but students can usually guess where professors stand on such issues. Nevertheless, I believe that neither Romney nor Obama are pursuing conversations about religious, social, and/or moral issues because it would only stir up unwanted, however necessary, controversy. Additionally, they are probably putting these issues to the side in hopes that they will win over the votes of the moderate and/or undecided.
ReplyDelete