Why Should Young People be Politically Active?

The other day I was watching a "Town Hall" on CNN featuring Hilary Clinton. In the show the host, the audience, and Tumblr users sent in questions to Clinton about her political positions on certain matters. One young interviewer asked Clinton something along the lines of what she thinks about the polarization between Democrats and Republicans and another interviewer asked her what she thought about Australia's system of compulsory voting. Her answers were to me very enlightening of our political situation today, especially to young people. The answers were actually so compelling I decided to make it into my own essay on the matter.

The question is often posed by teenagers and young adults all across this country: why should I vote? Why should I follow what is going on in Congress or what the President is proposing or what all those idiots in Washington are doing on their spare time? It is a good question in light of the growing divide between Democrats and Republicans and in an era where Congress's approval rating clocks in at a glowing 11%. However there is something sinister in that view that allows government and the powers that be to grow further apart from the citizen.

How? Well, let's look at the definition of democracy. Democracy is a system of government through which the people of the state elect their own leaders. With fewer and fewer young people going to the polls and with voting turn outs going down, how can a democracy function properly? The answer is that it cannot. Or at least it cannot function the way a democracy should: in accordance with the will of the people. If the majority of people do not care to show up to the polls, we see a political phenomenon that we see today: politicians growing more radical toward the left or the right and a schism between the two parties which grows larger and larger day by day. That is because the majority of the common sense people that comprise America aren't going to the polls, leaving the door to the people who are more on the opposite sides of the spectrum. I promise you that America is not dominated by conservatives, yet conservatives dominate the voting demographics.

I'll give a specific example of this phenomenon which will take us back two decades. In 1994, midterm elections were in full swing. The voting turnout: only about 40% or so. What occurred that year was a massive Republican takeover facilitated by a minority of voters on the Religious Right and other conservative demographics. Republicans took the House and the Senate that year in what the media dubbed the "Republican Revolution". But how much of the general population actually facilitated this uprising? A little over 20 percent. That means, in other words, that Congress was dominated by people only 20 percent of Americans wanted in office. Is this really a democracy, but an oligarchy of politically active voters dominating the American nation?

I would say that it would be an oligarchy. But before you take up your pitchforks and revolt against our political overlords, know this: You can change it. How can you change it? By going to the polls every two years. By putting in people you like and that represent your views. Don't cynically thrust aside the idea of politics simply because our politicians now are mudslinging bastards. Elect new people. This is the basic and beautiful idea of American democracy: that the people of the United States of America get to say who they want to run their country. Don't complain of political partisanship and radicalism in both parties if you cannot back up your words with a ballot.

So I think that what Hilary Clinton said nailed on the head what is going on wrongly in America. We, the people, must take action to shape government in the form that we want it to be in. Anything less is not in the spirit of democracy. Many of our politicians love to talk about terrorists, North Korean nukes, and the other party as the enemies to our democracy, but none of those pose a threat to our spirit that has led us through the last 240+ years in which America has existed as a country. The biggest threat to our American democracy is apathy. If we refuse to care, if we refuse the ballot out of cynicism, we have laid the gravestone for our beloved democracy.

My whole point here is that no matter how screwed up the government seems, we cannot lose the democratic values that made this country one of the greatest on Earth. That means to every person who can, especially to young people out there: get politically active. Vote. Make a difference in the best way of all: the way of non-violent change- a little piece of paper known as a ballot.

Ten Reasons for Dante's Divine Comedy

Boccaccio, Petrarch, and Dante were the three vital components of the "common man" Italian literature of the pre-Renaissance, late Medieval Period. Of course of those three gentlemen it is Dante who is remembered the strongest, almost exclusively because of his Divine Comedy. Here are the reasons that Dante and his epic poem have stood the test of time.

1. The idea of writing literature that one's fellow countrymen can read, understand, and enjoy. This was a large step of forward progress in Dante's age, when few institutions, especially literature, were not democratized for the common man. Dante is able to accomplish this through the informal language of the poem and the fact that the work's original language was in Italian, rather than Latin.

2. The rhyme scheme of the work, which is done in the terza rima style. Terza rima's rhyme scheme goes aba bcb cdc ded, etc. The fact that Dante is able to keep this scheme up through the 14,000 lines of the entire work shows a master of poetry at work. Though this rhyme scheme is rarely preserved in English translations of the work, keeping it in mind as an English reader is still important.

3. The imagery Dante presents. The vivid imagery of hell's enormous sufferings and lamentations as well as the horrid, ghastly landscapes of the underworld in "Inferno" and later of purgatory and heaven will leave a strong impression on the reader.

4. The allegory of The Divine Comedy, which can be applied both religiously or spiritually. Dante's quest through hell, rise through the mountain of purgatory, and into the Kingdom of Heaven can represent to religious folks the journey of men and women to reach God. Or if you prefer a less religious perspective, the work shows that in order to achieve happiness and fulfillment, one must face the misery, the hopelessness, the terror, the disgust, and the depravity of the dark sides of life.

5. Vivid depictions of both Classical figures of Greece and Rome and of 11th-12th Century political and religious figures of Northern Italy. One is able, in reading this, to learn a good deal about Classical history and mythology and also of the political and social conditions of Florence and its surrounding areas (at least from Dante's perspective).

6. The commentary on sin/redemption and good/evil. While outdated and rather fascist by today's standards, the work presents clear-cut moral concepts and though merciless in its treatment of sin and unwavering in its support of those who follow God, it still through the voice of Dante's character in the poem, provides within its own rigid moral framework, a fascinating commentary on the laws of good and evil. An example of this is in the case of Francesca da Ramini and her lover Paolo who appear in "Inferno" in Canto V. Though Dante punishes them in hell for their adultery, his character in the poem does feel sorrow for them and empathy for their plight. So even if Dante is still condemning the sin, he still in his own way, provides commentary on the nature of sins. In "Paradiso" Dante inversely provides commentary on the nature of doing good and following God.

7. Theological and aesthetic value. The work holds a theological importance in the sense that it provides commentary on the nature of the Judeo-Christian afterlife. Aesthetically, it holds a good amount of merit because it is artful in its composition (material sense of aesthetic pleasure) and manages to reach deep within the soul with its horrific imagery ("Inferno") and heavenly imagery ("Paradiso"). (This represents the spiritual side of its aesthetic value).

8. Insights into the life of a fantastic author. While people may be hesitant to learn about the life of Dante Alighieri specifically, the poem I believe, in its display of Dante's psyche shows something of the souls of all poets. Especially with The Divine Comedy we get this feeling as Dante is not only the writer, but the central character of the work. So it is not only is his stylistic conceits that we get a portrait of Dante.

9. Geometry of the writing. Each line contains eleven syllables (hendecasyllabic) throughout and is also divided into three parts, like the holy trinity. In the end, the three heads of Satan gnaw upon the spirits of Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot, representing again a sort of trinity, this time an inverted one of evil. Dante uses the numbers and quantities of things both within the writing itself and in its composition to create meaning.

10. The idea of proportional punishments in hell and proportional rewards in heaven. The nine circles proposes an interesting concept, that people in hell are punished specifically for the sin that they are guilty of and vice versa in paradise. It is not only an interesting idea, but one, that for a good deal of believers, may have a degree of validity. The punishments that Dante creates for his sinners in hell and the rewards he creates in heaven are also interesting to read about.

It Certainly is neither Crime nor Punishment to read Dostoevsky's masterwork (Spoilers Included)

     

Crime and Punishment was released in 1866, at a time when Russian prose was still trying to get recognition due to the fact that the massive nation was behind the Western world in those terms by centuries. After Crime and Punishment and perhaps with the help of writers such as Leo Tolstoy, Russian writing was on the map in the world's eyes. Certainly Crime and Punishment is a work that represents Russian ideals and social customs remarkably well, but it popularity can be attributed not only to its understanding of Russian culture but to its understanding of the moral and philosophical concepts that make up the fiber of every human being's psychology.

What is the book about?: Crime and Punishment is a title almost anyone with a limited knowledge of literature has heard of. It is usually, along with books such as War and Peace and Ulysses, attributed to an elite caliber of literature. In reality, the book is not at all hard to read, though it is long and has a complex system of moral psychology behind it. The plot of the book is relatively simple: it concerns the poor student Raskolnikov, who justifies to himself the murder of an old and haggard pawnbroker. Through these justifications, he murders the old lady and incidentally her half-sister as well. Afterwards, he grapples with his moral isolation and near-schizophrenic state of guilt. He is led to pursue redemption by Sonia, a prostitute he falls in love with and is pursued by a brilliant detective who plays a game of psychological cat and mouse with him. It is in jail, after falling in love with a young woman and accepting the love of God that Raskolnikov finds redemption from his crime.

Is it worth reading?: For people who are interested in moral issues, this is a very important book. Dostoevsky uses Raskolnikov as a model of askew morality, as a model of moral values gone horribly wrong and through this book, Dostoevsky is able to successfully portray the folly of Raskolnikov's ways and provides an interesting argument against Raskolnikov's abstractions on human nature.

Analysis: Raskolnikov is an interesting character to begin with. He is a walking contradiction of himself. These contradictions become apparent within the first part of the novel. Raskolnikov views himself as a "superman"; a man of higher intellect and interests than the rest of humanity yet he lives in complete poverty. He does not care about people, but he still leaves a poor family money. Contradictions are a major part of Dostoevsky's work, as well as divisions and conflicts between certain things. The conflict within Raskolnikov helps to illustrate the complexity of human nature (Freud was a big fan of the psychoanalysis of this book) and also the corruption of moral values.

To elaborate more clearly on this use of divisions and contradictions, I'll analyze the name of the main character himself: Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov. "Raskolnikov" comes from the Russian word "raskolnik" meaning "schismatic or divided", illustrating both Raskolnikov's isolation from others morally and his divide from Russian values. Breaking it down further, "kol" in "Raskolnikov" means bell in Russian. Bells serve a contradictory purpose in the book, Raskolnikov rings bells on the night of the murder but bells also connote churches as well. They serve contradictory associations within Raskolnikov's mind. "Romanovich" has the word Roman in it, which of course connotes the Roman Catholic Church. This is where we get into Dostoevsky's statements about Russian culture. Catholicism is associated with the west and is apart from the values of a mostly Orthodox Russian population. The west, during this time, was espousing a number of views that Dostoevsky found false and a danger to Russian culture. One of these is the very philosophy that Raskolnikov uses to justify the murder of the pawnbroker: utilitarianism. These new Western beliefs, such as Utilitarianism and materialistic philosophies that replaced human compassion and aesthetic values for others, Dostoevsky saw as harmful and morally repugnant. Rejecting materialistic philosophies, Dostoevsky argues that human nature is more important to the strengthening of a person's character or society. Raskolnikov is a follower of these new Western intellectual ideas and though he justifies the murder through logical means, he is unable to suppress his guilt over it. Yet again there is a contradiction. Raskolnikov, through his division from society and subsequent abstractions over human nature is driven to murder the pawnbroker, yet is unable to suppress his guilt, eventually submitting to spiritual punishment and falling in love with a young woman, which provides him redemption. As we can see, contradictions are the device by which Dostoevsky displays the ways in which Raskolnikov's mind finds justification in his criminality and eventual redemption.

What do I think?: Aside from the obvious intellectual weight of the novel, it is a thoroughly enjoyable read. The book is perhaps one of the most charged crime novels to come out of the 19th Century. The book is surprisingly well-paced and rarely dry, filled with vivid depictions of the poverty in Russia at this time period and the broken psyche of a man bent over his own guilt. The characters are believable as well such as Porfiry Petrovich (the brilliant investigator after Raskolnikov) and Sonia Seminovitch (the prostitute Raskolnikov falls in love with), though I do feel that Raskolnikov alone was the only character I can truly say was masterfully written, since he emulates such a complex psychology, alternating from hatred to love within instants and prone to delirium and hallucinations among other things. 

We must also not forget the moral value of reading this and Dostoevsky's work in general. The book, while giving us a raw and truthful look at poverty, crime, and pathology also demonstrates the power and triumph of love over all else, as when Raskolnikov redeems himself through his love of Sonia. There is also the religious aspect of reading it as well. Raskolnikov also redeems himself through his accepting of Christian virtues. I, myself, do not fully embrace all of Dostoevsky's conservative outlooks on spirituality, but I do see that in a larger sense, Dostoevsky is not simply arguing for Judeo-Christian values, he is arguing for a sense of spirituality over materialism, over materialistic philosophies. Which, of course, is the whole subversive message of the book as a whole, underneath the crime and its punishment itself.

A very, very good read. Masterwork.