Blaming the Messenger

From the eyes of an adjusting freshman, 1994 is a strange year to be a first-time voter--and from the standpoint of Harvard makes it that much stranger.

There is much at stake in the upcoming midterm elections, with both Senator Edward M. Kennedy '54- '56 and Governor William F. Weld '66 facing strong opponents. Yet, strangely enough, the individual races have failed to inspire much enthusiasm on Harvard's campus.

It's trend that seems to be reflected beyond the walls of the Harvard community. The citizens of Massachusetts--and across the nation--have grown weary of "politics as usual," of the failed expectations and broken promises of yet another presidential administration. It is this frustration that has ignited a feeling of helplessness, leading many to sequester themselves from the entire political process.

Harvard on the surface appears to be different. After all, students everyday debate the merits of political ideologies such as liberalism, conservatism, and socialism in various news papers and political organizations. Yet this seemingly obvious link to political action is misleading. Upon closer analysis, Harvard demonstrates the paradox of an intense political aura coupled with very little visible "real world" energy.

The political aura is everywhere. Images of the past bombard one's eyes at every turn. Men who were once shaped by this University have gone on to shape the world. It isn't possible to dive into the MAC's swimming pool without seeing a plaque honoring John F. Kennedy's memory. The robust and austere portrait of Theodore Roosevelt, stares down everyone who passes through the Union's doors.

And the present activity is highly visible, too. At this past fall's registration, the Conservative Club, College Democrats, and the Democratic Socialists all bombarded students with flyers. Student publications span a spectrum of political beliefs, ranging from the Left's defense of Ted Kennedy to the right's attacks on feminism. There's even a strange alien species only present here at Harvard: the government jock.

In early September it seemed that all of this political energy, all of these diverse views and earnest debates, would translate into a memorable election season. Come November, the undergraduate community would become a hotbed of activism, with the classroom theory and the political newspapers turning towards the present. The races in Massachusetts would serve as the context for passionate debates about what Harvard students want in their leaders and for America.

Yet despite the impending gubernatorial and senatorial elections, there is scarcely a murmur of political energy on-campus. In an environment of approximately 6400 people, there is no visible tension or overflowing enthusiasm. There are no sit-ins or sit-outs, and very few buttons flyers, or signs.

The reason for this? The state of national politics.

Vigorous debates about Question 9 and symposiums on the credentials of the Lieutenant Governor are not happening for a very simple reason: on both a state and national level, citizens are disenchanted with government. And Harvard itself does not function outside of this disenchantment.

However isolated us Harvardians may feel from the outside world, the thoughts and opinions pervading larger American society seep through the Yard's wrought-iron gates and into our minds.

As a country, we are gradually realizing that kicking out government officials just installs a new set of ineffective government officials. The same group of problems crop up year after year, and our elected officials are still without solutions.

Mark Roosevelt '78 tapped into this pervasive disenchantment with government in an October 19th speech at the Institute of Politics. He spoke to issues larger than party competition and agendas, underscoring disturbing truths about the current political climate. Cynicism, he claimed, is the number one enemy of Massachusetts, a painfully ironic statement given the sparse audience he was addressing.

Roosevelt condemned the apathy of voters, arguing that indifference undermines the very goals of those who wash their hands of politics.

Using the example of the once popular school of Social Darwinism to bolster his points, Roosevelt attacked the belief that society cannot be changed. Seeking solutions as Americans approach the turn of the century may not be easy, he maintained, but they do exist.

It is imperative that Harvard students not resign themselves to reconceiving the past and discussing remote philosophical dilemmas. Granted, it is a challenge to rise about the absurdity of poll results which exhibit the contradiction (as in the case of kennedy) that a substantial percentage of citizens will vote against the candidates that they feel are most qualified for the job.

It is a challenge to decipher the messages of candidates once they are funneled through the overly-sensationalistic media. And it is a challenge to separate the rhetoric from the reality in the candidates themselves.

Our entire system is built on a faith that the citizenship is up to this challenge. Harvard students owe it to themselves to support those candidates whom they feel have the answers, as well as opposing those who don't. And contempt and praise should be directed to the elected official, not to the office held.

After all, no one said democracy was going to be easy.