old cross-application

Old post from the Danegeld (school newspaper):

...by the way, for the probably 3-4 people that read this, you'll get more content of mine here.

At a time when national polling is a pretty scrutinized science, we are allowed a glimpse of certain psychological phenomena we would otherwise not have access to. I'll try to keep this both short and cerebral: the politics of cultural categorization and typology are notions so ingrained in our collective psyche not only as Americans, but humans, that those who create these molds receive little no scrutiny. That's a bad thing. My criticism is twofold; not only are the implications of their conclusions flawed, but the methodology by which they reach these conclusions, too, is pretty messed up.

While being aware of public opinion is an absolutely essential component to a healthy republic, the media attention, and thus necessarily the attention of political candidates, focused on them is absolutely ri-freakin'-diculous [sic]. It seems as though every decision is coldly calculated on public opinion, rather than either common sense or normality. If candidates/public officials spent less time catering so heavily to popular preferences about semantic issues (see: Mitt Romney) and more focusing on their stances on specific policies, we would be substantially better off.

Allow me a caveat/rant here: this notion of political capital is the biggest bunch of fecal matter since the Cowboys' Superbowl hopes. It's turning into the next "tipping point," "paradigm shift," of "perfect storm." Bush's constant insistence, not only throughout his election campaign, but also during his tenure as president, that he was going to "spend that there political capital like a coralled mare in heat" are quite vacuous (see: GWB senior). First, one does not "spend" capital--one would "invest" it. Bush's presidency, analogous to his approach to "political capital," has been one based on the shortsighted approach of spending when you don't have it. Kenny Rogers and Dubya both "got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."

Back to the pseudo-point. The way polls are brought about in the first place are not ok either. The static identity that they cast on each of their categorized subjects is symptomatic of the generalizing typical (no pun intended) of thought that takes into account different groups. This method of thought completely ignores the intersectionality of different groups, or the principle that often a member of one minority group is also a member of another. For example, a young black woman is substantially more likely to be a member of a lower income tax bracket/below the poverty line as well as a single mother. Because she only gets one vote in a certain poll, she can never be truly represented accurately. This skews poll results of different voting blocs to the point where they are pretty much meaningless, except for semantic reasons, which are apparently supreme important to those gunning for their party's nod for the presidency.