Is Ralph Nader Irrelevant?
A recent speech to a group of high school students shows that this generation might be bored with Nader’s message – even if it’s one they still need to hear.
By Emily Rutherford
August 6, 2009
Ralph Nader speaks to the media following an appearance on ABC News’ Sunday talk show “This Week” Sunday, June 29, 2008, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)Ralph Nader entered a conference room at Georgetown University last month to address a group of people a fifth of his age, high-school students participating in the Presidential Classroom civic education program. When he entered the room, the group was instantly on its feet, giving him a unanimous standing ovation. But from my vantage point in the back of the room, the students didn’t exactly seem to leap to their feet. It was readily apparent that the ovation was anything but an expression of admiration for the activist, author, and former presidential candidate. Instead it was reluctant, orchestrated by the micromanaging adults who had arranged the chairs in neat rows and had asked the high schoolers and the filler audience members like me to wear business attire. It was a dynamic which spoke volumes about the attitude of today’s youth toward an important-yet-flawed activist from a previous generation.
Nader’s half-hour lecture was on the topic of "civic engagement," punctuated with many diversions (the freewheeling speech touched on everything from financial regulatory reform to government corruption to public lands to health care to the military-industrial complex to fast food to Gandhi).
"How many of you have been to a shopping mall? And now how many of you have been to a town council meeting?" Nader asked, trying to illustrate a point about the ubiquity of commercial culture. About half raised their hands, looking bored. When Nader revisited a rather convoluted metaphor involving "a gigantic, pitch-dark cavern" for the third time (to explain: we can choose to illuminate said cavern with either a "tiny flashlight" or a "searchlight," and what kind of light we use, according to Nader, "determines whether we can free our minds"), they tittered in response. When Nader said, "All you’ve got to do is read the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, and other radical Marxist publications," the audience responded with a long, awkward pause. He had to explain, "That’s a joke." It was like seeing a famous comedian crash and burn.
In the subsequent question and answer period, the students seemed to view his determination to reform politics with a mix of both incomprehension and ridicule. Some of the students asked him whether he felt remorse for his unsuccessful 2000 presidential campaign. Others criticized the way in which he had canonized the Western European welfare state in his remarks. Not a single student asked about the brand of populist advocacy on which Nader’s political reputation is founded, nor did they ask about the specific policy issues he’d brought up in his speech.
Nader, the activist who had such an impact on a previous generation’s Washington, has been relegated to the status of ineffectual old eccentric. For the Millennial Generation, Nader is not so much the consumer advocate as he is a tertiary figure in one of the first great political events many of us born in the early ’90s can remember: the election of George W. Bush in 2000. It is that legacy that has largely shaped the world we live in today.
Yet Nader had important messages to impart. He spoke about some of the most salient legislative issues of the Obama age, arguing that it is within citizens’ power to get health care reform passed; that the economic crisis has demonstrated that banks and corporations wield too much power; and that—most refreshingly unequivocally—"some of the greatest violations of our laws occurred with Iraq and torture."
Today’s youth aren’t interested in listening to a call to arms from an older white man who hasn’t been on the front pages since his great 2000 electoral stumble. It’s understandable; the public figures and the media that engage with young people today are not only more dynamic, they speak a different language. The Obama campaign, for instance, is statistically the most successful political outreach to young adults in decades. It did not use phrases like "break the chains," "participation in power," or "big business and the government who works for it." Perhaps Nader should have anticipated the audience’s blank stares in reaction to his words. Perhaps he should have anticipated their disinterest in the face of a new political movement that is more diverse, more interactive, and ultimately highly successful at encouraging young people to work within the present legislative system than to actively oppose it.
But as Nader concluded before he left the stage, it was impossible to ignore the irony in one of the key themes of Ralph Nader’s speech as the disciplining adults told the audience of high schoolers to shuffle into “caucus groups.” He had urged his teenage audience "to fight against being manipulated and controlled."
Emily Rutherford is a staff writer and editorial intern at Campus Progress. She is a sophomore at Princeton University.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
What a surprise to learn that Ms. Rutherford is a sophomore at Princeton University. This article sounds like it was written by a high school student who just learned what the word “tertiary” means. Ms. Rutherford should revisit journalism 101 for a refresher on the old dictum “show don’t tell.” In other words, when you report a story, don’t clutter it up with your own opinions – especially when they are indistinguishable from the banal talking points Democrats were circulating five years ago. That may fly at the Center for American Progress, but it won’t fly with anyone who hasn’t already internalized your uncritical party line. Finally, before you write another article about whether someone is “irrelevant” or not, consider whether you are adding anything useful to a substantive conversation. Otherwise, you risk coming across as a snide adolescent who thinks history began in 1980.
— Concerned Citizen - Aug 7, 08:54 AM - #Ralph Nader is still very much relevant to many people Miss Rutherford. Your article is buffoonish. He personally an inspiration to me and what he stands for.
I personally despise your second paragraph—it is elitist and conceited. Do not put your wayward, misguided slant on this article and I recommend you do some work and read some of his books, essays, and articles, or is that too much to ask for from you—to actually do some research?
Finally, your career as a journalist or whatever you want to be is fraught with immaturity and a total lack of depth or knowledge, particularly about Mr. Nader. I hope you do not continue to write snide, smug articles like this—-if you do, I hope it will not get you very far in your career, or your life
vijay
— vijay antharam - Aug 7, 11:06 AM - #So some high school students are suckers for Obama’s soft soap?Nader stands for something millions want- single payer and an end to the wars. The minority in that audience will be motivated while the majority sleeps.
— steveconn - Aug 7, 01:24 PM - #I think some commenters may have misunderstood the tenor of my last paragraph, in which I indicate that the high-school audience appeared to have taken away little from Nader’s very (I thought) inspiring and relevant message.
Concerned Citizen, I clearly did a very poor job of telling instead of showing, because you appear to have construed what I reported as the opinion of the audience to be my own. I do study modern American history, but my usual time period goes back at least as far as 1945—so I’m certainly familiar with Nader’s great and important contributions to American politics and consumer affairs in the mid-20th century.
— Emily - Aug 7, 02:39 PM - #Has there been a massive media campaign to portray Nader as irrelevant? Yes, especially starting in 2000, but its origins can be traced back to the PI GM infamously hired to discredit him back in the 60s.
Have many people finally bought into it? Apparently so.
Does that make him irrelevant? Of course not. as steveconn said, Nader stands for positions the majority wants. In fact, why waste cultural capital discrediting someone who’s already ‘irrelevant’? The fact of it, disproves itself.
— BTN - Aug 7, 04:57 PM - #i wrote about this more before the election (see my link)
The problem here isn’t that you reported the opinion of Nader’s audience, and your hapless readers somehow “construed” that opinion as your own. The problem is that you confuse gratuitous editorializing with reporting – an error made even more jarring to the reader because your opinions are so commonplace. For example, “Nader…has been relegated to the status of ineffectual old eccentric.” Oh really? Did someone in the audience tell you that? If so, why no attribution? That’s just one example. You go on for entire paragraphs in the same vein, spouting the same vindictive talking points that Democrats have been using for years.
I assume that you are a well-meaning student trying to get some good out of a summer internship at the Center for American Progress. If so, you should ask yourself what you are learning from people who encourage and approve of such unprofessional work, simply because it happens to reaffirm their political views. On the other hand, if you keep at it, you’ll eventually learn to disguise all that gratuitous editorializing so that it seems indistinguishable from actual reporting. Then you’ll be ready for the NYT. Good luck.
— Concerned Citizen - Aug 7, 05:31 PM - #Nader is not an “older White man”. He is of Lebanese descent, why can no one ever get this right.
So just to reiterate. The position of High School students is.
actual issues, progressive causes: whuh….boring, old, not dynamic
Hip, Cool, meaningless catch phrases full of sound and fury but signifying nothing…..sexy, dynamic, funderful.
I don’t know that I buy that Ralph Nader has not been able to engage the grassroots and such, i mean if you look at the shear number of people that he has engaged in effective activism in the PIRGs alone he has done more than most politicians accomplish throughout their careers.
— matt - Aug 9, 11:26 PM - #Nader Was Right: Liberals Are Going Nowhere With Obama
www.truthdig.com/rep…
Posted on Aug 10, 2009
By Chris Hedges
The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.
The sad reality is that all the well-meaning groups and individuals who challenge our permanent war economy and the doctrine of pre-emptive war, who care about sustainable energy, fight for civil liberties and want corporate malfeasance to end, were once again suckered by the Democratic Party. They were had. It is not a new story. The Democrats have been doing this to us since Bill Clinton. It is the same old merry-go-round, only with Obama branding. And if we have not learned by now that the system is broken, that as citizens we do not matter to our political elite, that we live in a corporate state where our welfare and our interests are irrelevant, we are in serious trouble. Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans. If we fail to do this, we will continue to undergo a corporate coup d’etat in slow motion that will end in feudalism.
We owe Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party an apology. They were right. If a few million of us had had the temerity to stand behind our ideals rather than our illusions and the empty slogans peddled by the Obama campaign, we would have a platform. We forgot that social reform never comes from accommodating the power structure but from frightening it. The Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists who battled for women’s rights, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement knew that the question was not how do we get good people to rule—those attracted to power tend to be venal mediocrities—but how do we limit the damage the powerful do to us. These mass movements were the engines for social reform, the correctives to our democracy and the true protectors of the rights of citizens. We have surrendered this power. It is vital to reclaim it. Where is the foreclosure movement? Where is the robust universal health care or anti-war movement? Where is the militant movement for sustainable energy?
“Something is broken,” Nader said when I reached him at his family home in Connecticut. “We are not at the Bangladesh level in terms of passivity, but we are getting there. No one sees anything changing. There is no new political party to give people a choice. The progressive forces have no hammer. When they abandoned our campaign, they told the Democrats we have nowhere to go and will take whatever you give us. The Democrats are under no heat in the electoral arena from the left.
“There comes a point when the public imbibes the ultimatum of the plutocracy,” Nader said when asked about public apathy. “They have bought into the belief that if it protests, it will be brutalized by the police. If they have Muslim names, they will be subjected to Patriot Act treatment. This has scared the hell out of the underclass. They will be called terrorists.
“This is the third television generation,” Nader said. “They have grown up watching screens. They have not gone to rallies. Those are history now. They hear their parents and grandparents talk about marches and rallies. They have little toys and gizmos that they hold in their hands. They have no idea of any public protest or activity. It is a tapestry of passivity.
“They have been broken,” Nader said of the working class. “How many times have their employers threatened them with going abroad? How many times have they threatened the workers with outsourcing? The polls on job insecurity are record-high by those who have employment. And the liberal intelligentsia have failed them. They [the intellectuals] have bought into carping and making lecture fees as the senior fellow at the institute of so-and-so. Look at the top 50 intelligentsia—not one of them supported our campaign, not one of them has urged for street action and marches.”
Our task is to build movements that can act as a counterweight to the corporate rape of America. We must opt out of the mainstream. We must articulate and stand behind a viable and uncompromising socialism, one that is firmly and unequivocally on the side of working men and women. We must give up the self-delusion that we can influence the power elite from the inside. We must become as militant as those who are seeking our enslavement. If we remain passive as we undergo the largest transference of wealth upward in American history, our open society will die. The working class is being plunged into desperation that will soon rival the misery endured by the working class in China and India. And the Democratic Party, including Obama, is a willing accomplice.
“Obama is squandering his positive response around the world,” Nader said. “In terms of foreign and military policy, it is a distinct continuity with Bush. Iraq, Afghanistan, the militarization of foreign policy, the continued expansion of the Pentagon budget and pursuing more globalized trade agreements are the same.”
This is an assessment that neoconservatives now gleefully share. Eliot A. Cohen, writing in The Wall Street Journal, made the same pronouncement.
“Mostly, though, the underlying structure of the policy remains the same,” Cohen wrote in an Aug. 2 opinion piece titled “What’s Different About the Obama Foreign Policy.” “Nor should this surprise us: The United States has interests dictated by its physical location, its economy, its alliances, and above all, its values. Naive realists, a large tribe, fail to understand that ideals will inevitably guide American foreign policy, even if they do not always determine it. Moreover, because the Obama foreign and defense policy senior team consists of centrist experts from the Democratic Party, it is unlikely to make radically different judgments about the world, and about American interests in it, than its predecessors.”
Nader said that Obama should gradually steer the country away from imperial and corporate tyranny.
“You don’t just put out policy statements of congeniality, but statements of gradual redirection,” Nader said. “You incorporate in that statement not just demilitarization, not just ascension of smart diplomacy, but the enlargement of the U.S. as a humanitarian superpower, and cut out these Soviet-era weapons systems and start rapid response for disaster like earthquakes and tsunamis. You expand infectious disease programs, which the U.N. Developmental Commission says can be done for $50 billion a year in Third World countries on nutrition, minimal health care and minimal shelter.”
Obama has expanded the assistance to our class of Wall Street extortionists through subsidies, loan guarantees and backup declarations to banks such as Citigroup. His stimulus package does not address the crisis in our public works infrastructure; instead it doles out funds to Medicaid and unemployment compensation. There will be no huge public works program to remodel the country. The president refuses to acknowledge the obvious—we can no longer afford our empire.
“Obama could raise a call to come home, America, from the military budget abroad,” Nader suggested. “He could create a new constituency that does not exist because everything is so fragmented, scattered, haphazard and slapdash with the stimulus. He could get the local labor unions, the local Chambers of Commerce and the mayors to say the more we cut the military budget, the more you get in terms of public works.”
“They [administration leaders] don’t see the distinction between public power and corporate power,” Nader said. “This is their time in history to reassert public values represented by workers, consumers, taxpayers and communities. They are creating a jobless recovery, the worst of the worst, with the clear specter of inflation on the horizon. We are heading for deep water.”
The massive borrowing acts as an anesthetic. It prevents us from facing the new limitations we must learn to cope with domestically and abroad. It allows us to live in the illusion that we are not in a state of irrevocable crisis, that our decline is not real and that catastrophe has been averted. But running up the national debt can work only so long.
“No one can predict the future,” Nader added hopefully. “No one knows the variables. No one predicted the move on tobacco. No one predicted gay rights. No one predicted the Berkeley student rebellion. The students were supine. You never know what will light the fire. You have to keep the pressure on. I know only one thing for sure: The whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere.”
— Citizen Zen - Aug 11, 01:14 AM - #Dear Emily, thanks for covering reactions of Nader’s audience in Georgetown University. It’s sad that the children of the political and business elites, generally aren’t interested in preserving social cohesion and fighting corruption or even demanding civil liberties for everyone in US, unfortunatelly that’s no surprise. We are cursed with a pathetic and useless ‘ruling class’ that have become common nihilistic thieves and professional thinktank liars. He can try to persuade them “to fight against being manipulated and controlled”, but what these young elitist parasites actually want is to become the very manipulators and controllers, that Nader refers to.
— The Other Mr T - Aug 11, 04:26 PM - #Wow, the Naderites must have all e-mailed each other & urged posting on this site!!
Despite everything else he’s done in his life [and I’m old enough to remember Unsafe at Any Speed], the event that will ALWAYS be associated with Nader is his “there’s no difference between Bush & Gore” —->the election of George Bush. He has blood on his hands and should acknowledge it, then go away.
— Kokuanani - Aug 13, 01:25 PM - #I am a huge fan of CAP, a loyal reader of campus progress, and a rising sophomore at Georgetown. However, I believe Emily Rutherford’s piece is disgraceful and highly disrespectful to a legend of progressive activism.
This Millenial is holding out hope that Rutherford will restrict her attacks on esteemed figures like Nader to more appropriate media outlets.
— Eric - Aug 13, 02:21 PM - #It is sad to see that these students were bored by seeing Nader. However I have seen him speak at a high school where the students were all inspired by his speech. Also Nader is not another White American. He is from a Lebanese immigrant family.
I voted for Obama and always blamed Nader for the 2000 election. But having seen the result of Obama’s 1st year as president, I now wish that I had voted for Ralph Nader. I voted for Obama hoping to see an end to Iraq war. Most of US troops are still in Iraq. Private mercenaries are still getting contracts. According to Washington Post, there are currently more private mercenaries in Afghanistan that are American troops. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan. He is Promoting corporate socialism and welfare and is not aggressively pushing for environmental reform. What happened to all those promises???? Maybe Nader and Cynthia McKinney had a point!
— Jack G - Aug 13, 03:17 PM - #Despite her good intentions, perhaps Ms. Rutherford, college sophomore, is simply ‘sophomoric’. The irony here is that Rutherford herself — as demonstrated in this woefully amateur piece on a tremendously rich and intriguing social figure — is a reflection of the paucity of depth, informed judgment, perspective, humility, and substantive knowledge in younger generations in this country.
Regardless of one’s opinion of Nader, Rutherford’s piece is a sad indication of the abysmal state of so-called ‘news journalism’ today. Are her Princeton professors and CampusProgress editors also asleep at the wheel, or merely ineffectual in making their own meaningful waves in the shallow, tepid pools of a young (and perhaps privileged) demographic?
Murrow, Cronkite, et al, are turning in their graves. Let us hope, however, that Ms. Rutherford will improve upon her errors in appreciation of the constructive criticisms others have offered her here.
Until then, let’s thank Rutherford (and/or her editors) for covering this story at all, however ill-conceived. A professional, balanced, substantive piece of AUTHENTIC REPORTAGE is what should be required. Perhaps Rutherford can apply better lessons, and prove herself worthy of such a task in due time.
— M.M. - Aug 13, 04:16 PM - #It’s a sad day to yet again read a piece that merely reaffirms the notion that a flawed frame oft-repeated becomes a poor substitute for reality. Others have pointed out the authorial flaws, hopefully Emily will learn from her mistakes, I’m glad she tried and hopefully will learn from them. (I hate seeing younger writers try fail and then walk away or try again to do the same thing having learned nothing for the effort). It’s disappointing to see the owning-class kool-aid so utterly effective in misleading a generation. The irony is, as the shuffling old “white” man is rendered irrelevant by the deceived masses, the truth of the son of a Lebanese immigrant still stands on the facts. Perception vs. empirical data… ‘Merkaans and their owning-class will all too often choose the former in spite of the latter.
— JustJack - Aug 13, 06:00 PM - #Thanks for this article, Emily. I, for one, think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
I’m disappointed by the unnecessary rudeness and condescension in some of these posts. It’s especially inappropriate because I get the sense that many of these posters are people who don’t actually belong to the millenial generation, but seem to think they can speak for those who are.
I like Emily’s article because, as a fellow progressive millenial, I agree that Nader’s core message still has the potential to resonate with young people but that Nader himself seems out of touch and the message isn’t getting through.
I got involved in activism through PIRG (founded by Nader), so I’m quite familiar with Nader’s important contributions to progressive politics. 2008 was my first time voting in a presidential election, and I was planning on voting for Nader until I changed my mind on election day and voted for Obama. I did so because he spoke to our generation in a way Nader doesn’t—he identified our top issues, framed them in a way that appealed to us, and delivered them in a dynamic way. The core values are the same as Nader’s were in the ’70s, but Obama translated them in a way that engaged our generation. I hope other politicians follow his lead, and that the Nader legacy can live on through them.
— Sarah - Aug 13, 08:31 PM - #“Obama spoke to our generation” what a sick joke that is. Slick speeches are enough to cover up the fact that he’s sinking future generations in mountains of debt to pay for more wars of conquest overseas? Throwing a few crumbs at community colleges excuses Obama pulling the trigger on the indiscriminate bombing of women and children in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq? Focus groups to train the teleprompter Prez how to use Gen X/Y buzz words is sufficient to paper over how badly he’s screwed up health care reform and sold us out to the HMO cartels and Big Pharma?
I’m glad Emily is in school. Maybe she might actually learn something someday.
— Charles Douglas - Aug 14, 01:29 PM - #I want to thank you for acknowledging that this equivocal generation has no interest in hearing how we can change our government and how important it is for our youth to be engaged. Thank you for noting that Ralph Nader has been a linchpin in consumer advocacy and invaluable asset to corporate and government regulations. But the next time someone says he is solely responsible for the damage George Bush has done to our country, and his victory in 2000, I think I will just take my life. Unfortunately we live under a democratic rule in which only two candidates may run that have any changing of winning. That is not how this country was meant to operate and I welcome any third parties to run, free of the bi-partisan biases that exist today. So an intelligent reporter, who wrote an intelligent article, should refrain from making imbecilic statements, like enacting your right to run for office causes the bad guy to win. Also regurgitating the Nader spoiler rhetoric is not the composition of a great thinker. Smartin’ up pussycat. Pardon my grandiloquence.
— Kacee Ore - Aug 16, 07:24 AM - #I want to thank you for acknowledging that this equivocal generation has no interest in hearing how we can change our government and how important it is for our youth to be engaged. Thank you for noting that Ralph Nader has been a linchpin in consumer advocacy and invaluable asset to corporate and government regulations. But the next time someone says he is solely responsible for the damage George Bush has done to our country, and his victory in 2000, I think I will just take my life. Unfortunately we live under a democratic rule in which only two candidates may run that have any changing of winning. That is not how this country was meant to operate and I welcome any third parties to run, free of the bi-partisan biases that exist today. So an intelligent reporter, who wrote an intelligent article, should refrain from making imbecilic statements, like enacting your right to run for office causes the bad guy to win. Also regurgitating the Nader spoiler rhetoric is not the composition of a great thinker. Smartin’ up pussycat. Pardon my grandiloquence.
— Kacee Ore - Aug 16, 07:25 AM - #Question for Emily and her odd recasting of a “standing ovation” FOR NADER AND HIS STATURE AS WELCOME TO STUDENTS WHO APPRECIATE NADER! Since she immediately wanted to credit the people who put the chairs there and not Nader, how about giving them the standing ovation? Think about that, Emily. And, think about why are you a sophomore at Princeton? Maybe they lowered their standards since Nader went to Princeton and graduated with honors and a major in International Policy. Nader knows diplomacy is NOT NUKES and NOT WAR, and the U.S. Constitution IS DEMOCRATIC and the elections when run properly CAN NET THE PEOPLES RULE AGAINST INCUMBENT CORRUPTION. The current view of why he did not get elected was that corruption has seized the ivy league students and they do not want the BEST for PEOPLE to win in POLITICS and indeed they resent it! Is that “Emily’s Problem” she should answer that.
We can start calling it “Emily’s Problem” if she does not explain why the Standing Ovation is “not” due to Nader and instead due to those who put the chairs there, was she among them? B-In Cambridge, during the 2008 election season, in Cambridge, I was “equal” to those who put the chairs there, although the speech was in a church and the pews were already there, across from Harvard Yard, the church on the corner of Church Street and Mass Ave, faces Harvard. I did a brochure of his legendary track AND HIS PLATFORMS and handed it out in advance as PROPER SUPPORT of a great potential PRESIDENT TO WIN THE ELECTION! When he entered the room, he got a standing ovation. I knew who that ovation was for, and no, they were not high school students. Quite a few were elderly, many middle aged, most were college graduates and knew who Nader is and was. So, Emily, where is the problem? Why doesn’t such a great man get welcomed PROPERLY? What if it is the corrupt view of politics, and those who like the people who set out the chairs as if they can claim a presidency against a Princeton grad with PROPER HONORS for his TRACK after he graduated, and after HARVARD LAW also with Honors. Harvard Law cited him as their “most prestigeous graduate ever produced” in the Harvard Law School Record, according to Justin Martin in his biography of Nader, which gave him accolades for all his achievements, but LIKE Emily he too had a problem with wanting Nader in Office! I do NOT have THAT problem! I do NOT welcome a country that says the “system” allowed only incumbents in the debates and only incumbent war to happen, no, I want HONEST POLITICS where the people WANT THE BEST to win, and no cynicism is reality, ideals are BEST and ARE REALITY!
Go soak your head, Emily. You need it.
— Elizabeth Ellis - Aug 22, 04:40 PM - #It is clear once again that youth is wasted in the young.
What a poor excuse for “journalism”. How can we expect this ahem writer, to get the politics right when she can’t even profile her subject correctly? Has no one taught this youngster depth of background? As if this 12 year old, who admittedly did no research on the subject, can understand objectivity while presuming that only either of two political parties are ENTITLED to anyone’s vote.
— Jack Trudeau - Nov 4, 09:37 AM - #And we wonder why youth are so apathetic? Perhaps a vocational school would be more appropriate, Emily-Hairdressing, perhaps?