With the exception of those future Hill staffers who are actively involved in campaigns and get out the vote efforts, most Dartmouth students appear rather apathetic toward the upcoming election. Activism is a thing of the past, despite the vocal efforts of small progressive groups on campus. That, however, does not excuse Dartmouth students blissfully and ignorantly ensconced in the Dartmouth "bubble." This is a big election -- over 2,800 American soldiers have died in Iraq, North Korea just tested a nuclear weapon and income inequality is reaching levels not seen in the last 50 years. This may be one of the more important votes of our lives. It is not enough, however, to merely vote based on a couple of television commercials -- it is necessary to take the time to do the minimum of research required for an informed vote as well. The Dartmouth Editorial Board, by an 11-1 vote, feels that an informed vote in the Second Congressional District of New Hampshire is a vote for Paul Hodes.
Perhaps Dartmouth apathy is a result of our status as an elite institution. We are removed from many of the realities of our time. We are often much more willing to put the time into that perfect Halloween costume than into making an informed decision. Many of us assume that our education will privilege us to the extent where we can make foreign policy yet not need to fight in America's war. Senator John Kerry's remarks this past week may have been offensive, but there was a grain of truth in them -- ROTC is not a popular option at Dartmouth, and very few of us will ever experience military service.
Additionally, apathy at Dartmouth mirrors a greater national trend. Most discussion this election cycle has been more about who controls Congress than about the issues and the candidates themselves. The few Senate races where candidates are emphasized are those filled with personal controversy, as in Virginia and Tennessee, and even House races have been nationalized to an extent unseen since 1994. This year, all politics is national politics. Voting to break what many see as negative governmental trends is, however, a legitimate reason to vote if coupled with the proper information. The Editorial Board feels that Hodes is the better candidate, in large part because of his position on Iraq. While also an advocate for the environment and better healthcare, he is the pragmatic choice to change the balance of power in Washington, D.C. Though the extreme polarization of political discourse is unfortunate, it is a fact with which we must deal, and restoring a balance to the Hill is the place to start. We must recognize that what happens outside the bubble does affect us inside as well, and this is an opportunity for us to influence both.
