Click Here North Star Writers Group
Syndicated Content.
Opinion.
Humor.
Features.
OUR WRITERS ABOUT US  • COLUMNISTS   NEWS/EVENTS  FORUM ORDER FORM RATES MANAGEMENT CONTACT
Political/Op-Ed
Eric Baerren
Lucia de Vernai
Herman Cain
Dan Calabrese
Alan Hurwitz
Paul Ibrahim
David Karki
Llewellyn King
Nathaniel Shockey
Stephen Silver
Candace Talmadge
Jessica Vozel
Feature Page
David J. Pollay - The Happiness Answer
Cindy Droog - The Working Mom
The Laughing Chef
Humor
Mike Ball - What I've Learned So Far
Bob Batz - Senior Moments
D.F. Krause - Business Ridiculous
 
 
 
 
 
Jessica Vozel
  Jessica's Column Archive

 

July 30, 2007

YouTube Debate Puts People Back into Politics

 

As America is under the leadership of an administration that forgets politics are about the people, not the power, it was refreshing to see American citizens pose insightful questions to Democratic candidates during Monday’s debate.

 

Standard debate has candidates fielding questions from journalists and media personalities who often appear as far removed from the average American as the candidates onstage. Even past town-hall-style debates have lacked a certain element of authenticity. If you are not seated in the audience or posing a question, the process seems untouchable.

 

Monday’s debate, however, added YouTube to the mix. Through video blogs, Americans were able to ask questions from the comfort of a location of their own choosing. Surely standing in front of an audience, staring into a gigantic camera lens, causes at least mild panic in most people, but having the buffer zone of a webcam allowed people to be more genuine and less focused on the logistics of public speaking.

 

It also allowed for creativity and a range of voices. One man posed a question on global warming through the catalyst of an animated snow man who expressed concern about the fate of his snow child. Another sang his question, accompanied by guitar. Yet another sat at what looked like a kitchen table with her mother and asked if she would share the fate of her two grandmothers who died of heart disease-related conditions. One man even clutched an automatic rifle close to his chest and called it his “baby.” None of these, especially the last scenario, would have been possible in a standard debate.

 

New York Times writer Alessandra Stanley said of the YouTube debates, “That kind of surrender of authority is less of a virtue, or innovation, in politics, an arena where candidates already seem too responsive to public opinion polls and the more persistent bloggers.”

 

I disagree. A candidate campaigning to take the reins of our country, and those who already hold them, can never focus too much on the people they hope to govern.

 

If anything, politicians, especially those in office, don’t give enough credence to the opinions of the people. But there’s something deeply personal about a woman with breast cancer pulling off her wig to ask a question about health care, and a man gesturing over his shoulder to the flags that were placed over the coffins of his grandfather, his father, and his oldest son, asking if a flag for his youngest son would have to join them before the war would end. The talking points of health care and the war in Iraq become, through the YouTube videos, about these two individuals, not about policy.

 

Candidates watched the videos with brows furrowed and heads shaking, and presented how their administration would be different. All too often, however, people like those who submitted videos about their personal struggles are forgotten when the election is won. “Change” appeared to be the buzzword for this debate, as it has been in the past and will be in the future. Each and every candidate promised a new America, a new world. A world where sons and daughters do not die for a mistake, where health care becomes available for every single person. But we’ve heard it all before.

 

Barack Obama mentioned the cynicism Americans have when it comes to politicians bringing about change, and how he plans to eliminate that cynicism when he takes office and proves that his promises are not empty. Yet we thought change would happen when Democrats took over the House, and so far they have disappointed us.

 

During the debate, Bill Richardson lamented the lack of voter turnout – 50 percent of all possible voters actually vote. Perhaps if more people recognized the connection between themselves and their government, they would be more likely to vote. Debates like the one held on Monday help, but the future President has the power to bridge the gap, through tangible change instead of empty promises.

 

© 2007 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

 

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

 

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

 

This is Column # JV015. Request permission to publish here.