In the news recently, there have been several stories regarding gay marriage and its legal, moral, and societal ramifications. Recently, California voters passed a proposition that banned same sex marriages in the state. Although many citizens of the United States feel that homosexuality is immoral, there is much less controversy over the idea of homosexual couples engaging in civil unions. In the vice presidential debates this year, both Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin voiced their beliefs in same sex couples having the right to form civil unions, but both were not in favor of gay marriage. This position is what is generally the legal standard across the country. In most of America, it is okay for same sex couples to live together, share finances, and have a civil ceremony, but if you try to call this ceremony a “marriage”, people will flip out.
The dominant ideology in our country is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, therefore, two men or two women can not be married. The majority of the people in this country, heterosexuals, control the majority of the votes and therefore the laws. For some reason, they feel that the idea of gay marriage conflicts with their idea of marriage; that somehow Harry and Sal getting hitched in Santa Monica will somehow make the marriage of Harry and Sally less official.
Race relations have come a long way in America over the past fifty years, from
When interracial dating and marriage was outlawed, to the present when the President-Elect is the result of one of these interracial marriages. Just as with interracial dating, the people in power felt they had something to lose. That allowing blacks and whites to intermarry would overturn society and marriage as we know it. Well, we’re still standing. There are pleanty of examples of successful people from interracial relationships, and if the homosexual community fights long enough they will gain the opportunity to show that they are not so different. As long as the majority of the population act in fear of marriage being corrupted, the dominant ideology will not change.
Source:
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-02-28/news/the-marrying-kind/
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Charismatic Authority and Obama
“Yes we can! Yes we can!”
A crowd of fervent supporters chants following a speech. You would think they had just seen a rock star perform up there. In fact, the speaker was a Junior Senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama. How could one man, a relative unknown rile up the masses so effectively and ride this wave of enthusiasm and hope into the White House? The answer: charismatic authority. Sociologists define it as “power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers”. President-Elect Obama was able to mobilize the nation in a way that has rarely been seen in this country’s history. This year’s election saw the greatest increase in first-time voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
Throughout history, there have been many figures who have had this type of charisma, a sort of automatic hold over people. Jesus was a charismatic man who was able to gain millions of followers without any sort of legal authority or political office. Martin Luther King Jr. was able to fuel the civil rights movement with his fiery and passionate public speaking. Conversely, leaders like Hitler and Mussolini were also great orators who were able to get great public support through their charisma. Depending on who you ask, Obama may be either Jesus or Hitler, but whatever your opinion of the man, he represents the same things that almost all charismatic leaders have fought for: change. Charismatic leaders almost always fight to break some established institution and advocate dramatic change from current scenarios.
In the 2008 presidential elections, Barack Obama was able to consistently work up a passionate response from his followers through public speeches. He was able to connect with many Americans on an emotional level, and convince them that he was the person who could change the country and cure all of its ills. Whether you like him or not, Obama has captured support with his charisma more than any presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. As Time magazine put it:
“He hit the American scene like a thunderclap, upended our politics, shattered decades of conventional wisdom and overcame centuries of the social pecking order.”
Only time will tell if it was change for the better. Charisma does not neccessarily equate to political success, but in the case of Obama many Americans are hoping it will.
Sources: http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/12/and-times-perso.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3582291.ece
http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousauthority/a/types_2.htm
A crowd of fervent supporters chants following a speech. You would think they had just seen a rock star perform up there. In fact, the speaker was a Junior Senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama. How could one man, a relative unknown rile up the masses so effectively and ride this wave of enthusiasm and hope into the White House? The answer: charismatic authority. Sociologists define it as “power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers”. President-Elect Obama was able to mobilize the nation in a way that has rarely been seen in this country’s history. This year’s election saw the greatest increase in first-time voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
Throughout history, there have been many figures who have had this type of charisma, a sort of automatic hold over people. Jesus was a charismatic man who was able to gain millions of followers without any sort of legal authority or political office. Martin Luther King Jr. was able to fuel the civil rights movement with his fiery and passionate public speaking. Conversely, leaders like Hitler and Mussolini were also great orators who were able to get great public support through their charisma. Depending on who you ask, Obama may be either Jesus or Hitler, but whatever your opinion of the man, he represents the same things that almost all charismatic leaders have fought for: change. Charismatic leaders almost always fight to break some established institution and advocate dramatic change from current scenarios.
In the 2008 presidential elections, Barack Obama was able to consistently work up a passionate response from his followers through public speeches. He was able to connect with many Americans on an emotional level, and convince them that he was the person who could change the country and cure all of its ills. Whether you like him or not, Obama has captured support with his charisma more than any presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. As Time magazine put it:
“He hit the American scene like a thunderclap, upended our politics, shattered decades of conventional wisdom and overcame centuries of the social pecking order.”
Only time will tell if it was change for the better. Charisma does not neccessarily equate to political success, but in the case of Obama many Americans are hoping it will.
Sources: http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/12/and-times-perso.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3582291.ece
http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousauthority/a/types_2.htm
Thursday, September 4, 2008
DNC & RNC '08
The 2008 presidential elections are rapidly approaching, and both major parties have just officially nominated their candidates. As for the other parties, no one cares because third parties haven't mattered since the Bull Moose party back in the Teddy Roosevelt days.
McCain has had the nomination in the bag for quite some time now, after easily dispatching Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Barack Obama had a little more trouble, because he was going up against Hilary Clinton, who much like the Terminator, refused to give up until she had been shot, stabbed, burned, crushed, and dipped in molten lava, politically speaking.
Now we are down to two candidates in what shapes up to be one of the most important elections in recent memory. After eight years of President George W. Bush, the country is split over where to go next. With a 19% approval rating, the country is united in disagreeing with the current direction that Bush is taking it (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12967). In a world where hundreds of specialized television channels and websites have made the monolithic broadcasting networks a thing of the past, 81% not approving is quite an impressive number. When Bush said in 2000 that he was a uniter, not a divider, he was right.
Now, eight years later, the Democrats and Republicans are trying to position themselves as the heir to the White House. The Republicans, trying to disassociate themselves from Bush, chose "maverick" Arizona Senator John McCain, whom Bush bested in 2000. Many conservatives are not exactly fans of Senator McCain's policies, but the G.O.P. needed a candidate with strong credentials who could also attract the moderate voters. Sorry Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson.
The Democrats have a (seemingly) easier task ahead of them, with many moderate voters unhappy with the economy's turn over the last two terms, not to mention the start of a couple overseas wars. One would think that this election would be a cinch, a no-brainer. But then again, this is the party that failed to beat Bush in 2004 with lame duck flip-flopper John Kerry. Any decent candidate would have put up a good fight. Kerry showed no identity, other than he was not George W. Bush, and that still almost got him into the White House.
I believe that this election is a crossroads of our society and who we as a country select as president may have a wide impact. Should we go with Obama, the passionate, inspiring leader riding on a wave of high hopes and lofty promises of change, or should we go with McCain, the experienced candidate who promises to deliver some change but also hold true to conservative values?
I look forward to the upcoming debates and finding out which candidate can best capture the interest and faith of our country, and what direction our nation as a whole will go in from there.
Sources: Ranelli, F.J. (2008). George Bush’s Approval Rating Plummets to Just 19%. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12967. Accessed 9/4/2008.
McCain has had the nomination in the bag for quite some time now, after easily dispatching Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Barack Obama had a little more trouble, because he was going up against Hilary Clinton, who much like the Terminator, refused to give up until she had been shot, stabbed, burned, crushed, and dipped in molten lava, politically speaking.
Now we are down to two candidates in what shapes up to be one of the most important elections in recent memory. After eight years of President George W. Bush, the country is split over where to go next. With a 19% approval rating, the country is united in disagreeing with the current direction that Bush is taking it (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12967). In a world where hundreds of specialized television channels and websites have made the monolithic broadcasting networks a thing of the past, 81% not approving is quite an impressive number. When Bush said in 2000 that he was a uniter, not a divider, he was right.
Now, eight years later, the Democrats and Republicans are trying to position themselves as the heir to the White House. The Republicans, trying to disassociate themselves from Bush, chose "maverick" Arizona Senator John McCain, whom Bush bested in 2000. Many conservatives are not exactly fans of Senator McCain's policies, but the G.O.P. needed a candidate with strong credentials who could also attract the moderate voters. Sorry Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson.
The Democrats have a (seemingly) easier task ahead of them, with many moderate voters unhappy with the economy's turn over the last two terms, not to mention the start of a couple overseas wars. One would think that this election would be a cinch, a no-brainer. But then again, this is the party that failed to beat Bush in 2004 with lame duck flip-flopper John Kerry. Any decent candidate would have put up a good fight. Kerry showed no identity, other than he was not George W. Bush, and that still almost got him into the White House.
I believe that this election is a crossroads of our society and who we as a country select as president may have a wide impact. Should we go with Obama, the passionate, inspiring leader riding on a wave of high hopes and lofty promises of change, or should we go with McCain, the experienced candidate who promises to deliver some change but also hold true to conservative values?
I look forward to the upcoming debates and finding out which candidate can best capture the interest and faith of our country, and what direction our nation as a whole will go in from there.
Sources: Ranelli, F.J. (2008). George Bush’s Approval Rating Plummets to Just 19%. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12967. Accessed 9/4/2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)