Please
answer one (1) of the following questions, to be due by class time,
Wednesday March 11, 2009.
1.)
Halstead argues that the differences in the political
attitudes between the Boomers and the Millenials are mostly due to the
changes
in the political and economic environment in which each
generation
has come of age. He argues that the lack of economic stability,
and
lessened trust in institutions is the reason for the characterization
of
Millenials as apathetic, and further argues that Boomers should
not
be
viewed as the "norm" by which all other age groups should be compared.
What
do you make of his argument? Why? If he is correct, it
would also imply that Millenials will continue to have
different
political
attitudes all of their lives and “not grow out of it” and behave like
Boomers
once they hit middle age. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why
not?
2.)
Does Hiphop function as a cultural expression
of politics in contemporary times in the same way that rock and folk
music
functioned as a cultural expression of the movements of the sixties?
Why
or why not? Sullivan argues that the political potential of
hiphop
has not emerged because of the commercialization of it and the
focus
on style and not politics within the movement. Shepherd sees it as a
movement
that is explicitly political and only, now coming into its own. Who do
you
see as more right? Why or why not?
3.).
In the lecture on generational
effects on
political attitudes, we saw how popular
music is used as a vocabulary and an expression of a cultural style or
a political
outlook. What seems interesting is that ideology seems to
correspond to a particular genre of music. In the 1960's, country music
overwhelming reinforced the political beliefs of the "love it or leave
it" group, and rock music was overwhelmingly used to express protest
and anti-war sentiments. Please discuss if you think this trend
continues in contemporary times and why you think it does. Why is
country politically conservative and why is hiphop politically
radical? Feel free to use examples to illustrate your
points.
4.) In our discussion of deliberative democracy, we discussed
'psuedo-discussions' and public comments in which the public is offered
a chance to speak, but it really will not carry any weight against the
voices of administrators or political figures. We discussed this in the
context of
the disconnect between the voters and their political representatives.
Those who support elite models of democracy would argue that
administrators know more about the technical issues involved and
anything that the public says might be less informed, and if the public
are not listened to, it is often justified to go over their heads, even
if they don't approve. Others, using a deliberative
democracy model, would argue
that if administrators met with the public, explained their
actions,
listened to their concerns, and allowed public input, that it is
possible to persuade voters and build trust between them and
constituents. What do you think? Is it realistic to expect a
public official to meet
and have dialogues with constituents over policies or are things so
specialized and technical and the public attention span so limited,
that public officials must go ahead and make the "hard choices" on
their own?