and the kerry campaign found some "novel" ways to tap into this:
Posted on 01/13/2005 3:41:50 PM PST by CHARLITE
Something occurred to me as a result of leftover November buzz (what happened in November?) about the American youth, that much-hyped group who were meant to have blown this election (oh that) out of the water. One question? Why did this youth vote necessarily ally itself with the challenger – why did that word, “youth,” send shivers down the spine of the incumbent? Why did their slogan, “Vote or Die” necessarily attach itself to the sly “Vote for Change”?
Well, so here’s what occurred to me – there’s a disconnect somewhere in this formula, and there is, more importantly and more perilously, an intentional perversion of that same fiery yet malleable youth. It’s all well and good, of course, to lead a campaign urging young Americans to vote – read your Federalist Papers and you’ll see that our republic is built on participation and dies without it. But those who preach fluidity and change to the young are missing something vital – that the youth’s vocation is more properly that of conservation.
This may sound strange, that an idea connoting the safeguarding of tradition, the establishment of institutions, and the preservation of order – has everything to do with the exuberant, sometimes tenacious, independence of the young. But this is precisely the case.
Perhaps this is the difference arising in the “new conservatism” – that it is the calling of the young. The greatest symbol of this is itself relatively young. The Constitution, by which the founders created a novus ordo seclorum (precisely by looking to the past, mind you), is the basis for the youth’s calling. It is the empowering tradition behind the youth’s participation – behind their ability to make a difference. Not, as popular thought would have it, their ability to “vote for change.”
Conservatism is about stability, but it is about stability achieved through a radical revitalization – a continuous and continuing communion between the living and the dead, who, as GK Chesterton reminds us, demand by the laws of tradition not to be disenfranchised by the accident of death (an idea some Washingtonians seem to have taken too literally).
So here’s where the disconnect in the formula occurs – between the young and the old, and not just the dead, who are being ignored by the youth in their arrogance, but the older, who are the cause of their own distance by their own dishonesty, by their own desire to mold the youth into just another channel for their own discontented voices.
The youth find themselves facing, then, an age-old conundrum – those things that appear to be badges of freedom – rejection of the past, obstinate autonomy, blind nonconformance – are shackles, and that true freedom and empowerment have costs. True freedom is an obligation – come to think of it, it’s the greatest obligation for which we’ll ever be responsible.
About the Writer: Kate Wilson currently does research for a non-profit think tank out of Seattle, WA. Mrs. Wilson graduated with a BA in Political Science from Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in New Hampshire, where she met her loving husband. Kate receives e-mail at katyw@discovery.org.
The opinions expressed in her articles are entirely her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her employer.
and the kerry campaign found some "novel" ways to tap into this:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.