This makes sense. Like other life skills formulated in our early years, it's the parental unit which sets the standards and expectations, whether it be religious ideals, intimacy levels, critical thinking, communication skills, aggressiveness, literacy, or how one deals with relationships (personal and professional).
This isn't always true, obviously. I know people who have never shifted their political ideology in 50 years, hard-liners who are unwilling or unable to even consider change. I know others that have turned 180 degrees from their parents' political views, and can only imaging the dinner table discussions at Thanksgiving. I know some liberals who have shifted more to the left, conservatives who are much farther to the right, some whose political stances change more often than Michigan weather, and some who have zero interest in politics whatsoever.
For many, their first concrete political memory may have been something dramatic that took place during their youth. It might have been a major event, such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the Iranian Hostage Crisis. It might have been a political corruption issue, such as Watergate or the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings. It might have been a mock voting booth during elementary school, or a war which impacted family or friends, or parents running for office.
A few years later, after we'd moved to neighboring Bloomfield Township, he participated in the January 20, 1973 anti-war march on Washington, D.C., where more than 100,000 demonstrators marched on the nation's capitol during President Richard Nixon's second inauguration. I remember our family sending him off on a Greyhound bus, and recounting the experience after he'd returned home, with photos and tape-recordings of protestors singing anti-war songs to and from the Lincoln Memorial. Sadly, the family photos, recordings, notes, and other materials related to the "March Against Death" have been lost, but the memories remain.
Since then, I've been both passively and actively involved in politics. I became a conscientious objector, and attended many meetings with others who were opposed to war. I watched and listened to broadcast news reports. In 11th grade, I campaigned for Republican-turned-independent presidential candidate John Anderson, for three reasons: (1) my history teacher offered extra credit to the class as part of a 1980 election project if we worked on a campaign; (2) I thought the local Royal Oak office's secretaries were more attractive than those of Republican Ronald Reagan's or Democrat Jimmy Carter's offices {I was 16; that was kind of a big deal}; and (3) I related to his political stance.
Yeah, that was kind of important, too.
As the linked obituary above notes, even though he was aligned with the GOP, Anderson was liberal (possibly the most of the three) on social issues - he supported gun control measures and abortion rights. Fiscally, he was conservative. He was opposed to right-wing extremism. While campaigning, he received heavy support from college students, bucked the establishment, and was seen as a "thorn" in the sides of the "chosen" candidate.In the grand scheme, I related to him far better than I did to Reagan or Carter.
I still do.
We've see similar adjustments in political indoctrination the past few years. In 2016, Bernie Sanders (to a degree) pulled an Anderson, electrifying the college crowds and challenging the Democratic Party establishment. This past November, young women (many of color) won political office and have put a wrench in the seemingly tired Washington, D.C. governmental process. Newcomers like Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Deb Haaland, Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar, are turning heads and making waves, and in turn are making young adults look deeply at their own political viewpoints.
Over time, I've voted - and campaigned - for conservatives and liberals. I've voted for the establishment and the rebels. I've written in names on ballots (including my father, for Michigan governor, in 1986). When I was a political journalist in the 1990s, I maintained a "no political party" stance (I wrote about this a few years ago), and regularly attempted to let the story tell itself and allow voices from various political platforms comment on the topic of choice.
Last year's tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School - located only about half an hour from Wellington High School, where I've taught since 2002 - added to the young adult political activity that has been becoming stronger the past decade. As I noted then, we want - and need - young adults active on all sides of the political arena.
As both a journalist and an educator, I believe my job has been, and continues to be, to present the information and let the consumers (readers and students) analyze the data to form their own informed, viable position.
But I do have my own political philosophy, and it aligns closely (but not 100%) with the Democratic Socialists of America platform. What do I mean? For 2020, I am supporting candidates with clear plans to promote:
- Shared prosperity and a jobs guarantee.
- Equal rights and protection from domestic and public violence.
- Sensible gun violence prevention.
- Affordable comprehensive healthcare for all.
- Free public higher education.
- A reduction in interest on college loans AND/OR forgiveness of college loans taken out prior to 2010.
- A sustainable planet.
- Support for a free and independent press.
- Ending voter suppression while promoting free/fair elections.
- Decreasing the influence of money in politics.
- Immigration justice.
Notably absent from this is the DSA's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the DSA supported Israel throughout much of its history, including socialist and progressive individuals and movements, in 2017 it endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. I wholeheartedly disagree with BDS and believe it to be a misguided and counterproductive measure to resolving Middle East issues (in part because sanctions of any sort have been proven rarely effective, and when they appear to have worked, it's unclear if the sanctions were the deciding factor).
{Sidebar: I fully support Israel, and understand what the BDS movement is attempting to achieve, but disagree with its methods. At the same time, I'm opposed to legislative efforts to suppress free speech (and choosing to do business, or not to do business, with others is a free-speech option). Efforts to silence BDS supporters are as misguided, IMHO, as the movement itself. Legislative attempts to penalize or criminalize BDS activities is not a way to achieve open discussion, conversation, and debate of the issues. It is counterproductive to resolution of a very complex issue.}
Like I said - close, but not 100%.
I've never bought entirely into a specific political platform, and probably never will. And I have no problem with that. I plan to research where each candidate stands on these values. I’m not going to engage in in-fighting or relitigating 2016. I’m focused on the issues, and each of the candidates’ ability to make change and to win the election.
So may we all.
