I met someone in anthropology the other day, and we started talking about how people outside of our department have these "interesting" misconceptions of what we do. She told me that many people think that she is sort of like this Indiana Jones archaeologist, and I mentioned that many people think that I am going to "go into politics." She also said that people think that she knows everything about anthropology, and some will ask for her opinion on the Incan empire. This happens to me too! Many people do not realize that grad students know a whole lot about a fairly small subject. I mean, I'm really only knowledgeable about subjects having to do with race, gender, or American politics. Sometimes people will ask for my opinion on foreign affairs, a subject that I know little about. Another thing that we talked about is how most people tend to have some sort of opinion and knowledge about our field. See, upon hearing that I study political science, many people like to chat me up about the current election or they like to share their political opinions. In contrast, my roommate is in the chemistry department, which pretty much preempts any attempt to make any small talk with her about her field. If only we could all be so lucky.
So, I haven't made a lot of comments about the presidential election. So, here goes. I am/was a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I don't get too involved or invested with presidential politics. Given how our government operates, I tend not to get invested because I'm not confident that one person can do that much. Our government was designed to be slow and inefficient; it was designed to make it difficult to get anything accomplished. The framers of the Constitution were so fearful of tyranny and the abuse of power by one person, so they created a government in which 3 separate institutions would share power and check each other. Although this leads to a lot of deliberation (which may sound like a good thing), it leads to a lot of policy gridlock, of which we are all familiar.
Another thing to think about is this issue of obtaining political experience via a spouse. Many people discounted Hillary Clinton's experience as First Lady, claiming that it was not true political experience. After all, as a letter to the editor asked, does a doctor's spouse automatically have medical experience too? Well, here's something to think about: historically, women became Senators and House Representatives because they were appointed to fill their deceased husband's seats. So, at some point, we thought that these women somehow gained political experience through their husbands. In other words, because a woman's husband was a politician, we felt that she had enough political experience to fill his seat when he died. Think this happened only in the early 1900s? Think again: Jean Carnahan (D-MO), served on the Senate from 2001-2002 because she was appointed to fill her husband's seat (Mel Carnahan) after he died in a plane crash. Just something to think about...
And finally, many people wondered why Hillary Clinton didn't just step down earlier in the primary/caucus season. Plausible question, but theoretically, isn't the nomination season supposed to last until June? It used to be that states liked to go last in the nomination schedule; they wanted to have the final say so it would seem as though the nomination decision rested in their hands. That the battle for the Democratic nomination has been going on for so long is fairly unprecedented. We have become so accustomed to having the battle ended and the nomination decided in February. But really, isn't this the way that it's supposed to be? Doesn't South Dakota (June 3) get to have just as much of a voice in the Democratic nomination as North Dakota (Feb 5)?
So, I haven't made a lot of comments about the presidential election. So, here goes. I am/was a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I don't get too involved or invested with presidential politics. Given how our government operates, I tend not to get invested because I'm not confident that one person can do that much. Our government was designed to be slow and inefficient; it was designed to make it difficult to get anything accomplished. The framers of the Constitution were so fearful of tyranny and the abuse of power by one person, so they created a government in which 3 separate institutions would share power and check each other. Although this leads to a lot of deliberation (which may sound like a good thing), it leads to a lot of policy gridlock, of which we are all familiar.
Another thing to think about is this issue of obtaining political experience via a spouse. Many people discounted Hillary Clinton's experience as First Lady, claiming that it was not true political experience. After all, as a letter to the editor asked, does a doctor's spouse automatically have medical experience too? Well, here's something to think about: historically, women became Senators and House Representatives because they were appointed to fill their deceased husband's seats. So, at some point, we thought that these women somehow gained political experience through their husbands. In other words, because a woman's husband was a politician, we felt that she had enough political experience to fill his seat when he died. Think this happened only in the early 1900s? Think again: Jean Carnahan (D-MO), served on the Senate from 2001-2002 because she was appointed to fill her husband's seat (Mel Carnahan) after he died in a plane crash. Just something to think about...
And finally, many people wondered why Hillary Clinton didn't just step down earlier in the primary/caucus season. Plausible question, but theoretically, isn't the nomination season supposed to last until June? It used to be that states liked to go last in the nomination schedule; they wanted to have the final say so it would seem as though the nomination decision rested in their hands. That the battle for the Democratic nomination has been going on for so long is fairly unprecedented. We have become so accustomed to having the battle ended and the nomination decided in February. But really, isn't this the way that it's supposed to be? Doesn't South Dakota (June 3) get to have just as much of a voice in the Democratic nomination as North Dakota (Feb 5)?
No comments:
Post a Comment