Who are the (so-called) 'White, Working Class, Lower Educated Voters'
Earthwalker
May 18, 2008
Am I preaching to the choir by trying to reach those whom identify themselves with the 'media' conceived labeling system. Those whom have been called working class whites. Those whom have been said to be lesser educated. Wow, what a box. A recent Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html expounds on this 'box' by reporting that a candidates skin color may be more of a factor to some voters than their policies.
We have all met people that are unwilling to 'learn a new trick' or reassess their beliefs. If the article in The Post is more or less true, then we are talking about a significant minority (how is that for a dichotomy) of voters that are intending to and or have voted against a candidate based STRICTLY on the color of skin.
If true, that means that irregardless of a candidates qualifications, integrity, trustworthiness, or their proposed policy for addressing the economy, war and foreign policy, ethics reform, the unfair lobbyist influence and any other issues that would directly affect citizens on an individual and local level; those that proudly restrict themselves to the 'BOX', would vote against the candidate that would help them most if they aren't white.
Now I am going to be an antagonist while attempting to provoke anger. It is my hope that the anger and denial will eventually transform into thought and introspection.
And thus, would I be preaching to the choir by using the internet to connect with voters that confined themselves to this illusionary 'box'? If we are to believe that the lesser educated working class whites that would not even consider the policies of a non-white candidate actually fit this classification, could we expect them to be computer or internet illiterate?
How many of these rural high school drop outs are going to be able to read this? How many can use a search engine? And even if they do own a computer, possess enough internet skill to find challenging rhetoric on the web, know how to read and then comprehend words with 3 or more syllables; how many have enough psychological confidence in themselves and more directly their learned system of beliefs to read this far into an article that chastises them?
Really, if you realize the reckless categorical classification and irresponsible usage of labels by most media outlets today, you could imagine a group (or box) of voters that also fit a label used in another type of entertainment venue; does trailer trash work for you?
Hold on. Before you get your neck hairs in a frenzy, I don't believe in derogatory labeling. I know that each person is individually comprised of a myriad of life experiences. No two people will have the exact same belief on everything.
Of course these so-called lesser educated white voters are capable of choosing a candidate that would have their best concerns in mind. No doubt about it. They are also capable of seeing past the skin color of a candidate. They are not stupid or easily manipulated.
All of us are about to engage in a democratic practice that empowers us to choose people that will best represent the issues that concern us. We should use this power in the wisest way possible.
We have all met people that are unwilling to 'learn a new trick' or reassess their beliefs. If the article in The Post is more or less true, then we are talking about a significant minority (how is that for a dichotomy) of voters that are intending to and or have voted against a candidate based STRICTLY on the color of skin.
If true, that means that irregardless of a candidates qualifications, integrity, trustworthiness, or their proposed policy for addressing the economy, war and foreign policy, ethics reform, the unfair lobbyist influence and any other issues that would directly affect citizens on an individual and local level; those that proudly restrict themselves to the 'BOX', would vote against the candidate that would help them most if they aren't white.
Now I am going to be an antagonist while attempting to provoke anger. It is my hope that the anger and denial will eventually transform into thought and introspection.
And thus, would I be preaching to the choir by using the internet to connect with voters that confined themselves to this illusionary 'box'? If we are to believe that the lesser educated working class whites that would not even consider the policies of a non-white candidate actually fit this classification, could we expect them to be computer or internet illiterate?
How many of these rural high school drop outs are going to be able to read this? How many can use a search engine? And even if they do own a computer, possess enough internet skill to find challenging rhetoric on the web, know how to read and then comprehend words with 3 or more syllables; how many have enough psychological confidence in themselves and more directly their learned system of beliefs to read this far into an article that chastises them?
Really, if you realize the reckless categorical classification and irresponsible usage of labels by most media outlets today, you could imagine a group (or box) of voters that also fit a label used in another type of entertainment venue; does trailer trash work for you?
Hold on. Before you get your neck hairs in a frenzy, I don't believe in derogatory labeling. I know that each person is individually comprised of a myriad of life experiences. No two people will have the exact same belief on everything.
Of course these so-called lesser educated white voters are capable of choosing a candidate that would have their best concerns in mind. No doubt about it. They are also capable of seeing past the skin color of a candidate. They are not stupid or easily manipulated.
All of us are about to engage in a democratic practice that empowers us to choose people that will best represent the issues that concern us. We should use this power in the wisest way possible.
Print
Email
