From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: The media will choose the next president
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:38:35 GMT

    The number one factor in determining who will be the next president of
the United States is the impression the media gives us of the state of the
country.  Certain economic factors are down, but all things considered most
people in the US are living under the best possible conditions.  The media,
though, has the power to make people believe that even if you yourself
are doing well, the rest of the country is suffering.  If you watched
Nightline after Bush's acceptance speech, they set up remotes with
different random groups throughout the country to gather their responses.
One group consisted of firemen from Houston, another group consisted of
former Perot supporters on the east coast, etc..  They had these same groups
on after the Democratic convention and now wanted to find out who they would
vote for.
    Though ABC probably expected the responses to follow the current polls,
75% said they would vote for Bush with the remaining 25% saying they would
wait until November to make a decision.  When asked to explain their
choice, most responded that even though they HEARD things were bad out
there, their families were doing ok.  They said inflation was staying down
and with interest rates low people were now able to afford to buy their own
homes.  These people had been TOLD that the economic conditions were
terrible throughout the country, but when asked to cite personal experience
they did not know anyone who was unemployed.
    This country is simply reaping the fruits of cultural trends which
really took hold in the sixties.  I went through a public school system in
a blue collar, middle class suburb in the sixties and seventies.  Only
about 15% of my graduating class took school seriously, with plans to go on
to college.  Over half my graduating class (which didn't deserve to
graduate) came from blue collar union groomed families which had fathers
getting high pay for low skill jobs.  They went through school with their
'D' averages thinking that the unions would always be there to provide big
bucks jobs for illiterates.  Their parents never pushed them to get an
education.  Now with those jobs gone they are crying the blues and trying
to pin the blame on someone else.  These people were NOT poor and did NOT
come from broken homes - they simply wanted $$$ and did not want to work
hard to reach that goal.
    This country already provides some of the best educational
opportunities in the world (ask all the foreign students who come here to
study) - our people just don't take advantage of it.  Every time I here
someone bitching because there is not enough student aid or loans available
I recall all the people I met as an undergraduate whose primary purpose in
going to college was to avoid going to work and keep the party from high
school going.  For every person I knew that graduated, I knew five who went
out drinking seven nights a week and were booted out by junior year.  It
makes me ill to think of all the aid and loan money that is wasted by those
idiots.  I've met a lot of people from around the world and I wish they
could transplant the high regard that other countries have for education.
    In regard to my original point, most people think that 5% unemployment
is very good and the people who are left are those who are basically
'unemployable'.  With national unemployment running at I believe 8%, I
would like to know how the other 90+% would even notice this difference in
their daily lives.  The only way they 'notice' it is when it's rammed down
their throats by the media in a gloom and doom fashion.  There are people
who need help out there.  A lot of them are in trouble because they went
down the wrong path early in life.  The rest of the country can't be
expected to carry them the rest of their lives.  They might have to go the
traditional route which a lot of immigrant families take when they get to
this country working 80 hours a week at McDonalds, scraping money together
for an education for the next generation.
    Bush has a LOT of faults, but Clinton's economic plan puts a big
emphasis on giving jobs to people to rebuild our infrastructure (i.e.
shoveling tar on roads).  This will not produce workers with needed skills
and will only increase the deficit.  Both parties claim to support 'family 
values', but to me that's going to have to mean the current unskilled,
uneducated generation sacrificing their lifestyle goals so that the next
generation can get ahead.  Just my $.03 .

 
-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton