How to Spot a Radical in SG Elections
Elections for WFU Student Government are this week. I am not running for an office, and while I intend to vote for several of my friends who are running, I do not have any vehemently emotional bones to pick with the candidates. At least not yet.
I worry about Student Government elections for the same reason I worry about all elections - if the wrong person with the wrong agenda (generally a Democrat) ends up winning, we all suffer the consequences, and people with the right agenda (generally Republicans) have to spend years fighting to undo the harm caused by misguided enthusiasm.
This year, as my friends and I sit at our computers to cast our vote, I hope that we use all of the resources available to us (think: Facebook) to investigate the interests of the candidates running for office. I'm not suggesting that some one who is an ardent Democrat couldn't do an excellent job serving on Student Government (after all, the current SG President is a well-known Democrat, and he has been superb). What I am saying is this - some liberals are gentle, and some have hidden agendas for radical change. I don't want radical change. I think this last bastion of collegiate conservatism is doing just fine.
How does one tell the difference between a gentle Democrat and a closet revolutionary?
1. Rhetoric
There are keywords that revolutionary Democrats harp on that reveals their radical underpinnings. These include (but are in no way limited to):
Equality ( to the extreme that it eliminates competition),
Education (when it means "I'm right and I need to educate you about it")
Diversity (when it is selective and not inclusive of all - specifically Republican or faith-based - viewpoints).
These are some examples of radical keywords that, though seemingly innocuous, mean things much different on closer inspection. Let me be clear on this point: I am not suggesting that I am against equality, education, or diversity. I am against the perversion of those ideals to the exclusion of specific people or groups.
2. Worldview
What is a worldview? It is the way in which people frame their responses to political issues. For any given issue (race relations, Greek life, Student Government finances), people frame their responses in a way that reveals their political tendencies. For example, if your emphasis of and response to the problem of race relations on campus (as one example) highlights the importance of the Administration offering seminars to foster dialogue (a top-down approach) your worldview places much less faith in an individual than if you put forward a proposal that emphasizes events that are developed, organized, and planned by students (a proposal that places faith in individuals at the grass-roots level). Furthermore, a candidate that proposes any type of "education" like that expressed above reveals their inability to accept alternate approaches to solving the problem.
An individual's worldview is important because it is the lens through which they see problems and solutions. If your lens is shaded to favor the individual you will provide much different policy insight than if your lens is shaded to favor the federal government (or worse - the world community).
Worldviews matter - even in a relatively pithy student government election. I want the leader of the student body to be some one who tackles problems the way I would tackle them. I want some one who values what I value and sees the world the way I see it. Some people's worldviews are shaded through a lens of race relations. Some people's worldview is shaded through a lens of religion or faith. Some people's worldview is shaded through a lens of cynicism. It makes sense to vote for some one whose lens is shaded the same way yours is.
3. Priorities and Agenda
Radical Democrats tip their hand most obviously when you investigate the specifics of their priorities. In the case of a student government election, a radical candidate would advocate drastic changes in the way students think and the ideas to which they are exposed. A radical candidate's priorities would be to change traditions. A gentle Democrat would express a desire to preserve the character that makes this campus unique.
To conclude, when you go to cast your vote for SG elections on Tuesday, my friends, I hope that you will weigh your decision seriously. I hope you will investigate the rhetoric, worldview, and priorities that the candidates use and possess, and cast your vote accordingly. And while all candidates campaign on a platform of change, please remember that there is a difference between radical change and a cautious evaluation of Wake Forest’s values.
I worry about Student Government elections for the same reason I worry about all elections - if the wrong person with the wrong agenda (generally a Democrat) ends up winning, we all suffer the consequences, and people with the right agenda (generally Republicans) have to spend years fighting to undo the harm caused by misguided enthusiasm.
This year, as my friends and I sit at our computers to cast our vote, I hope that we use all of the resources available to us (think: Facebook) to investigate the interests of the candidates running for office. I'm not suggesting that some one who is an ardent Democrat couldn't do an excellent job serving on Student Government (after all, the current SG President is a well-known Democrat, and he has been superb). What I am saying is this - some liberals are gentle, and some have hidden agendas for radical change. I don't want radical change. I think this last bastion of collegiate conservatism is doing just fine.
How does one tell the difference between a gentle Democrat and a closet revolutionary?
1. Rhetoric
There are keywords that revolutionary Democrats harp on that reveals their radical underpinnings. These include (but are in no way limited to):
Equality ( to the extreme that it eliminates competition),
Education (when it means "I'm right and I need to educate you about it")
Diversity (when it is selective and not inclusive of all - specifically Republican or faith-based - viewpoints).
These are some examples of radical keywords that, though seemingly innocuous, mean things much different on closer inspection. Let me be clear on this point: I am not suggesting that I am against equality, education, or diversity. I am against the perversion of those ideals to the exclusion of specific people or groups.
2. Worldview
What is a worldview? It is the way in which people frame their responses to political issues. For any given issue (race relations, Greek life, Student Government finances), people frame their responses in a way that reveals their political tendencies. For example, if your emphasis of and response to the problem of race relations on campus (as one example) highlights the importance of the Administration offering seminars to foster dialogue (a top-down approach) your worldview places much less faith in an individual than if you put forward a proposal that emphasizes events that are developed, organized, and planned by students (a proposal that places faith in individuals at the grass-roots level). Furthermore, a candidate that proposes any type of "education" like that expressed above reveals their inability to accept alternate approaches to solving the problem.
An individual's worldview is important because it is the lens through which they see problems and solutions. If your lens is shaded to favor the individual you will provide much different policy insight than if your lens is shaded to favor the federal government (or worse - the world community).
Worldviews matter - even in a relatively pithy student government election. I want the leader of the student body to be some one who tackles problems the way I would tackle them. I want some one who values what I value and sees the world the way I see it. Some people's worldviews are shaded through a lens of race relations. Some people's worldview is shaded through a lens of religion or faith. Some people's worldview is shaded through a lens of cynicism. It makes sense to vote for some one whose lens is shaded the same way yours is.
3. Priorities and Agenda
Radical Democrats tip their hand most obviously when you investigate the specifics of their priorities. In the case of a student government election, a radical candidate would advocate drastic changes in the way students think and the ideas to which they are exposed. A radical candidate's priorities would be to change traditions. A gentle Democrat would express a desire to preserve the character that makes this campus unique.
To conclude, when you go to cast your vote for SG elections on Tuesday, my friends, I hope that you will weigh your decision seriously. I hope you will investigate the rhetoric, worldview, and priorities that the candidates use and possess, and cast your vote accordingly. And while all candidates campaign on a platform of change, please remember that there is a difference between radical change and a cautious evaluation of Wake Forest’s values.
posted by b.a. at 5:15 PM
2 Comments:
Well said. And gee...I wonder who you're referring to as radical...
haha...well, you know it isn't you BK! Or, should I say, Mr. Secretary...
Post a Comment
<< Home