2005 First Place Essay Winner!

     1. The percentage of young voters actually going to the polls to cast their votes has been declining in recent years. Why do you think this is so and what steps would you recommend to increase voter participation?

     During a recent post-election gathering of liberal citizens in an Atlanta bar, John Kerry said that had "half the people...at an Ohio State football game" cast a different vote, he would be our current President.

     Perhaps if the entire student body at Ohio State University had voted, my peer group –those infamously lazy, apathetic eighteen to twenty-four year-olds – would have a better reputation.

     But why should I, or John Kerry, make hypothetical excuses? The number of young voters that turned out to voice our opinion, to fulfill our civic duty, in this last election was embarrassingly low. Despite rappers and rock stars bombarding us with "Vote or Die" t-shirts, somehow, we just didn't get the message. Almost every facet of the media published headlines concerning the consequence and impact of the 2004 election, hut apparently, my friends just didn't care. During wartime, during a time of economic turbulence, with such controversial issues as abortion and stem cell research on the table, my generation just couldn't switch off MTV and get off the couch to vote.

     However, let us –just for a moment – disregard the labels with which adults are quick to assign us. We know we're lazy and apathetic, but did anyone ever consider that we just don't want to vote?

     Shocking, I know. Although I consider myself to be well-educated concerning current events and issues, I'm finding it hard to tell the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Republican Tom DeLay recently ignited a torch to states' rights in the Terri Schiavo case. The new approach to the controversy of abortion proposes right- and left-wingers working together to promote contraceptive use. John Kerry, notorious for being vague about inane issues (such as whether it was the actual medal, or simply the ribbons, that he chucked over the fence in a Vietnam protest), is also muddling in the middle of the political spectrum. To some extent, so is his victorious counterpart. So, P. Diddy, for whom should I vote? The Democratic-Republican or the Republican-Democrat? Should I embrace the impending death threatened on your t-shirt? Or, perhaps I'll have to be satisfied with just casting any old vote, knowing it won't matter much anyway.

     Perhaps the problem isn't simply the loss of staunch liberalism and conservatism. The dilemma really is a full-scale political crisis, caused by the extremely confining two-party system. Somehow, during the history of our country, we have simply accepted this system as the only method to use in determining the way in which the United States operates. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but this is a democracy! Neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties embody my values, my ideals for the future. I want to be represented! Not only do I want a voice, but the Constitution guarantees that I will have one. When there is a political party that I can believe in, one with a plan for the future consistent with mine, with values and opinions that embody my own, then I will vote. I might even move to Ohio and vote.

     But until then, I'm not wasting my time on a system that doesn't represent me. I'd rather watch MTV.

2005 Second Place Essay Winner!

     In the streets of Washington and in cities across the United States, opponents of the Iraq war have been voicing their opinions. The techniques and messages of the protesters have come under almost as much scrutiny as the war itself. Protesters have been identified as anti-American by those who support the war. Dissent, however, is an integral component of American history, our value system, and the democratic process.

     America was founded on dissent. The leaders of the American Revolution were extreme radicals, revolting against the established political order. Their concern was to cleanse a corrupt system and deter the conspicuous growth of privileged power in a new government. The dominant influence on the Revolutionaries was a mixture of Enlightenment ideology and a strong tradition of British intellectual and political dissent. The tradition of dissent was particularly significant and acted as an interpretative lens through which other ideas were focused. These ideas were expressed in a specifically American context. Eventually, the newly adopted tradition of dissent led to confrontation with the expanding authority of Britain. The traditional ideas of representation, consent and sovereignty were overthrown and replaced by a democracy. The foundation of this representative democracy is the citizens of the United States, the people. From the people comes the power to govern. The framework of the government guarantees a voice for the citizens and allows popular challenge to government policy, dissent.

     Freedom of speech and assembly is a core value in America. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy. The First Amendment ensures, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/...). Freedom of expression is necessary to the American system of self-government. By definition, that freedom includes the right to dissent. The prerequisite for a free society is an informed population. If the public is informed, the populace cannot be manipulated by the government for their own purposes without some opposition. This hinders government corruption and tyranny.

     Citizens can disagree with the government and remain patriotic. Governments often seek to control their populace. This power provides the government with enormous political influence. By adopting the political language of patriotism in promoting a war, a government is able to deflect criticism of that war by saying criticism of the government policy is criticism of the country. Governments take challenge to their authority as a threat, and use patriotism to defend themselves from attack by the dissenting group. A patriot does not blindly follow a government policy. Patriotism, as defined by Webster, is the "love for or devotion to one's country" (http://www.m-w.com/...). A patriot defends what the country, and not what the government, stands for. There must be a distinction between the country as a whole and its values and the government that controls the country's policies.

     Dissent is the foundation of the United States. It is a core value and is essential to democratic freedom and political vitality. Protesting the policies of the American government on the Iraq War is truly American.

Sources Cited
"Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: Patriotism." Internet. March 26, 2005. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=patriotism
"Legal Information Institute: U.S. Constitution." Internet. March 26, 2005. http://www.law,cornell.edukonstitution/constitution,billofrights.html

2005 Third Place Essay Winner!

     "If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. "-Aristotle

     What if no one protested the policies of the American government in Iraq? What if people did not voice their opinions? The thought of America without freedom of speech is frightening. Imagine an America with segregated schools, women who could not vote and slavery. These conditions were once part of America, and were only altered because of dissent. If people like Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. didn't speak up, America would not be anything like it is today. It is not un-American to protest the policies of the United States government in Iraq because every American is entitled to his own opinions and has the right to voice them. If every citizen agreed with the government all the time, America would not be the great country of freedom and democracy that it is today. Not only is it the prerogative of every American to protest, but, in many ways, it is his obligation.

     What is a true American anyway? No matter how someone defines it, the key is one virtue: Freedom. America was established as a haven for religious tolerance and a place that championed individualism. It has evolved into a nation perpetually concerned with guaranteeing justice, liberty and independence to every citizen. Every American has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Every American is guaranteed the right to vote, practice any chosen religion, and most importantly, exercise his freedom of speech. Americans have these unalienable rights for a reason, why shouldn't they use them? Protesting the war policies in Iraq is not un-American. Contrarily, it is a privilege that was given to people to use, not to encourage silence.

     In 1787, our founding fathers drafted the Constitution, arguably the most powerful document in American history. The authors of the Constitution framed a system of government based on checks and balances. This system guarantees Americans their prized values. We proudly call this system a democracy. In order for democracy to be effective, the people must remind the government of their purpose. Protesting the war in Iraq does just that. Checks and balances only work effectively when there are opposing ideas that need to be perfected. In order to ensure a balance of liberty and security, the government needs input. Our government is made by the people and for the people, effectively giving people the right to question the system. If the public didn't challenge the policies of American government, it would be ineffective, stagnant and useless.

     It is understandable that people believe protesting government policies is un-American. Opposition causes people to question the direction in which they are being led, it causes fear in many cases, and, people see it as blatant disrespect. While these claims have some merit, they are greatly outweighed by the necessity of questioning the government's policies in Iraq. America was designed to be a nation that would act in the interests of the people. It's a nation where people can voice their opinions without persecution. Democracy is a system that thrives upon opposing beliefs, as it only works when it can balance out ideas until a happy medium is reached. Protesting the policies of the American government in Iraq is not un-American. Americans have been given the right and the chance to help shape their present and the future of their nation. Keeping protest silent would abruptly end the legacy of the most successful democratic nation in history, America.

Written by: Jamie Hennick
School: Coginchaug Regional High School, class of 2006