A Newsweek poll reveals that Kerry's once-commanding lead over Bush among youthful voters has dwindled. The article suggests that Nader is the key factor, since he now commands eleven percent. I would counter that a turn to Nader is a desperation move by young voters subjected to anti-Kerry propaganda and conditioned to consider cynicism hip. (Some will argue that voting for a sure-to-lose candidate like Nader is idealistic, not cynical; I strongly disagree.)
The medal-tossing controversy strikes me as a particularly effective device.
The new generation cannot be expected to comprehend the social milieu in which young John Kerry tossed back his medals. Defending his actions on a televised interview yesterday, Kerry seemed ruffled and uncharacterstically tongue-tied. Older folks can spend hours explaining -- things were different then -- but youth remains ignorant of history and unwilling to learn.
I also believe that Kerry's long-ago congressional subcommittee testimony, in which he cited tales of atrocity he had heard from fellow soldiers, cannot play well in the modern context. Those atrocities occurred. Anyone who has read (to cite but one of many sources) Mark Lane's Conversations With Americans -- will know that they occurred. But most modern youths don't read, and those few who do won't believe anything that does not favor their biases. For all their affected captiousness, young people still want to live in a world of clearly-defined good guys and bad guys. How can a generation bred on simplistic Hollywood action movies comprehend the abyss of Vietnam?
If the Iraq situation worsens -- and it's worsening at this very moment -- they'll understand all too well.
No comments:
Post a Comment