Hashtagging the Debate

For the first part of the debate, I just scrolled through my own feed on Twitter. It was mostly filled with tweets from the people I follow, so opinions were mixed. I follow a pretty good mix of Hillary supporters and Trump supporters. Most of the tweets I saw, however, were either negative toward Trump, or negative toward the debate in general. I didn't see many negative tweets about Hillary, other than the occasional tweet calling for fact-checking or criticizing her for her overly-rehearsed spiel. Many of the tweets I saw were criticizing Trump for interrupting Hillary, but I also saw a lot of tweets bashing the mediator, Lester Holt. I did not agree with him bringing up the "Birther" subject in the debate. I think we all expected it to come up at some point, but the mediator bringing it up himself was ridiculous. Those types of questions had no place in the debate. I think that Hillary carried herself with more poise and with more professionalism, but I don't think either candidate accomplished very much. Neither of them detailed their policies effectively, and I don't think either of them gained any voters. They probably didn't lose any of their constituents, but they didn't do much to attract undecided voters. These ideas were reflected in most of the tweets I came across, although I could tell that die hard Clinton supporters and die hard Trump supporters each thought that their candidate "won".

About halfway through the debate, I decided to start following the "debates" hashtag. I was actually surprised that the tweets were pretty evenly distributed. For the most part, I saw tweets bashing both candidates and Holt. I think this might be because I don't generally tweet my political opinions. In this election especially, saying you don't support one candidate makes people assume that you support the other, and this makes people turn hostile. I try to stay neutral on social media, and I search both Trump and Clinton equally because whenever I search one of them, I usually go check what the other one has been tweeting. I think that this helped contribute to the even distribution of tweets I saw on my newsfeed. I also see an even amount of promoted tweets from each candidate.

Well Informed: Politics and Campaigning

For this week’s topic, I chose to focus on how private money affects campaigning and, ultimately, affects elections as a whole.

The main argument against financing campaigns through private money is that this makes the candidate more obligated to serve their donors. Ideally, candidates for President, or other major offices, should be serving at the will of the people, or at least those who voted for them. Private money can essentially be a way for big businesses to make politicians their puppets.

Additionally, even though there are caps on how much money can be donated directly to political campaigns, the government cannot stop any organization from indirectly spending money in support of a candidate, or in opposition of a candidate. Businesses, organizations, and individuals cannot be barred from spending money to support a candidate because political spending is protected by the First Amendment. This came as a result of the decision in the CitizensUnited vs. Federal Election Commission court case of 2009. These contributions, though indirect, still influence public opinion as much as any official campaign.

As mentioned above, people who support private money donations will usually cite the First Amendment as their main argument. This is a valid argument, and from a legal standpoint they are 100% in the right. I think that the subject should be looked at from an ethical standpoint, though. The First Amendment protects political spending, and some proponents think that any limits infringe on their basic rights. I think that without limitation, big businesses could effectively buy the presidency. In order for the President to be a fair, just leader, he or she needs to have as few strings attached as possible. For that reason, I agree with limits on political spending and would even call for more limits.

Private money plays a huge role in the current presidential election. One of the main reasons a lot of people support Donald Trump is his lack of obligation. Unlike Hillary, they say, Trump is not tied to private money. He repeatedly boasts that he is self-funding his campaign. This appeals to voters because it assures them that his opinions and his intentions are his own, and that he doesn’t have anyone behind the scenes pulling his strings. While it’s true that Trump has contributed a significant amount of money to his campaign, it is not completely self-funded. According to PolitiFact.com, over 30% of his campaign funding came from outside sources. While Trump is much less beholden to private money, it is not entirely true to say he is free of outside money.

Those who oppose Hillary Clinton are quick to point out her ties to private money. According to OpenSecrets.org, 28% of Clinton’s campaign finance came from Super PAC’s and other groups. In contrast, only 1% of Trump’s financing came from Super PAC’s and other groups. 99% of Trump’s campaign finances came from donations, and a significant majority of that money came from Trump himself.

All personal opinions of Trump aside, I can see how this concept has led people to rally behind him. Political spending and campaign financing have caused controversy for decades. Many Americans feel like their voices are being stifled by those who have enough money to make themselves heard. To these individuals, Donald Trump represents change. Since he is not tied to big business or private money, people trust him to represent their needs and to give them a voice.

OTM 2: Why Don't People Trust Hillary Clinton?

            I decided to listen to the podcast "Why Don't People Trust Hillary Clinton?” I chose this podcast because I grew up with very conservative relatives on both sides of my family. For this reason, I have never heard anyone in my family say anything positive about Hillary Clinton, ever. As I've grown older I have developed my own political identity, and independent from my family's influence, I don't think I could ever support Hillary Clinton. My goal in analyzing this podcast was to figure out why that is.

            In the podcast, Brooke Gladstone talks with Karen Tumulty, a national political correspondent for the Washington Post. This is the social context of the podcast. Tumulty has met Hillary Clinton, and even though she's talking about people's distrust of Clinton, Tumulty presents arguments with minimal bias. She even admits that when Clinton is "off the record" she can be charming and personable, contrary to how she is generally portrayed in the conservative media.

            The cultural context that is most prominent, as it relates to this podcast, is that this is an election year. Last week Josh Katz (2016), writing for the New York Times, said that, "Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls". This increases the scrutiny surrounding Hillary Clinton and creates a context in which this kind of podcast is extremely relevant. The psychological context is the automatic attitudinal response that many people experience when they hear the name Hillary Clinton. The word "liar" comes to mind automatically when I hear Clinton's name, and I know that I am not alone in this. In the podcast, that phenomenon is mentioned specifically. This psychological context provides the platform for the concept on which this podcast is based.

            Tumulty states that Clinton has an inherent tendency toward secrecy, and that she often offers explanations that are not remotely plausible. These are two aspects of her character and her persona that work against her. Ever since the Whitewater scandal, Clinton has leaned toward secrecy as opposed to transparency. The same behavior can be seen in regards to her email server scandal. Hillary Clinton repeatedly lies, withholds the truth, or tells half-truths to the American people. Those scandals are certainly reasons that people distrust Clinton, but I chose to focus on a different aspect of her identity.

            Clinton flips positions on social issues and her political identity is based on whatever group she is currently pandering to. Kelly Riddell (2015), writing for the Washington Post, states that, “last time Mrs. Clinton took the stage for a presidential debate, she was against same sex-marriage, [and] a supporter of the Second Amendment” referring to the 2008 presidential debate. This is contrary to the 2012 presidential debate, about which Riddell writes, “Flash forward to Tuesday in Las Vegas, and Mrs. Clinton enters as a backer of same-sex couples, [and] a supporter of tighter federal gun control measures”.

            As a scholar, I have done plenty of research on the topic. I have found information that acknowledges that Clinton did support civil unions (but not official marriages) over a decade ago. Some people are quick to assume that she did a complete 180, so to speak, but that simply isn’t true (Sherman 2015). I think that Clinton may have always supported gay rights, but she did not speak her mind because doing so could mean losing votes. This supports the theory that her political identity, or at least the one she portrays to the public, is based on pandering. Her ideals and values may not have shifted, but her publicly voiced opinions are anything but consistent. This inconsistency creates uncertainty, and it shrouds Hillary Clinton in skepticism that leads people to distrust her.

References

Katz, J. (2016, September 20). 2016 Election Forecast: Who Will Be President? Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0

Riddell, K. (2015, October 12). Hillary Clinton flip-flops from 2008 positions in bid for liberal voters’ support. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/hillary-clinton-flip-flops-from-2008-positions-in-/

Sherman, A. (2015, June 17). Hillary Clinton's changing position on same-sex marriage. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

On the Media Post #1- My thoughts on "In Defense of Trigger Warnings"

“In Defense of Trigger Warnings” features the opinions of Kate Manne as they pertain to “trigger warnings”. Manne argues that trigger warnings are beneficial and that they help students with “relevant sensitivities” prepare for lectures and lessons that involve those sensitivities. She says that a trigger warning, in her opinion, simply means sending out an email ahead of time to warn students about potentially “triggering” content in the upcoming lesson.

I do not completely oppose trigger warnings, but I am certainly not a proponent of them. I believe that young people need to be prepared for the real world, and I think that trigger warnings have the exact opposite effect. Manne says that she might give a trigger warning for “a description of active military combat.” That is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous. I acknowledge and respect the fact that many people do not support the armed forces or war, but those concepts are a part of life. When these students graduate college, they aren’t going to receive warnings every time military combat is going to be brought up. In order for students to be prepared to enter the real world, they need to accept that these concepts exist, and they need to move past it.

Manne also says she would issue a trigger warning before a lesson detailing a sexual assault. This trigger warning is more warranted. Sexual assault survivors are, rightfully, very sensitive to material pertaining to sexual assault. That being said, the real world still doesn’t give trigger warnings. Newspapers and news stations don’t give trigger warnings before running stories on rape or sexual abuse. TV shows and movies don’t give trigger warnings before depicting sexual assaults. If students are going to be adequately prepared to face the real world, they have to be able to get past these obstacles. As many people will point out, the trigger warnings don’t appear to have adverse effects on anyone. People say that the students who don’t need them can ignore them, and those who do need them are content. I would argue that trigger warnings do have adverse effects, but those effects will not become apparent until many years down the road.

The physical setting of the podcast is Cornell University. Manne is a professor of Philosophy at Cornell so all of the experiences that she shares center around her classroom at Cornell. Manne talks about how she teaches many classes that involve content that may be graphic for some students. For example, she says she teaches classes on gender equality and feminism. Manne says that those courses mention rape and sexual assault and could be traumatic for survivors of those atrocities. As a result, the psychological context would be a state of fear, anxiety, and pain. The students she wants to protect are scared and anxious about the topics that they associate with negative and damaging experiences. The cultural context is outlined by a society that is fighting for equal rights and fair treatment of sexual assault survivors. Rape, especially on college campuses, is a hot topic in the media and in the justice department. People are looking for solutions and preventative measures, and that cultural context is what probably guided Manne’s decision to issue trigger warnings to her students.

I don’t think that trigger warnings should be banned, by any means. I do believe that they should be discouraged, however. If a student takes offense from, or is triggered by, the content of a class, they should not take that class. I propose that if a professor knows that their subject involves potentially offensive topics, they should disclose that at the beginning of the semester. That disclosure would serve as one large and overarching trigger warning for the rest of the semester. At that point, if a student has a problem with any of the content, it should be their personal responsibility to decide whether they want to stay in the class or drop it.