I think our biggest strength was our moderate/progressive platform. A lot of people are concerned with global warming and "going green" -- it seems like an issue that will stick with the American people, especially with our targeted youth and environmental base. And since the green movement is being hailed as the next great job market, I think that Americans will really embrace these policies. We also included scientific progress, specifically mentioning research for heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and continuing research into stem cells. This, specifically, should appeal to older Americans, and to those who noted President Bush's efforts with HIV/AIDS program in Africa.
I think our weakest point was our huge base. The problem with grouping all these different ideologies into one party is that there'll be vast disagreements, particularly involving controversial ideas such as stem cell research. I think we could've spent more time analyzing why we chose each person we mentioned, and ensuring that their ideologies would mesh with the party's. We also didn't have a strong plan of action. We stated that we'd be a strong contender within 10-15 years, but we didn't really mention how that would come about. I was struck by group 1's plan, which involved a grassroots organization similar to the one that helped Obama's campaign. I think slowly building credibility through the community is the best way to gain enough popularity to run a decent campaign.
While looking at the other group projects, I was struck more by the similarities among them than the differences. Most groups, if not all, projected the downfall of the Republican party, but included the basic Republican ideals into their platforms. Most included small government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and individual choice/liberties. Some included an environmental element like we did, while others pushed for gay marriage or illegal immigration reform. I think group 4, with the Foundations Party, did a remarkably thorough job of explaining their platform and key members, and I was really struck by their idea of using outsiders -- leaders from non profits and the business community -- instead of mainstream politicians. While I don't know how well this would work realistically, I love the idea of it.
I think our group suffered the same problems that come with group projects. Invariably, one person will take it upon himself to do all the work, while the rest of the group wonders how they'll contribute when all the work's already done. I think it would've been helpful to require an outline, before even starting the project, stating exactly what each person would contribute. This way, no one person can jump in and do all the work, leaving the rest with little to do. Also, I think using programs like campfire would allow everyone to be in the same place at the same time, allowing each person to join in the conversation. It's really easy to forget to check the d2l board, but it's not easy to miss a scheduled group meeting.
The use of email, message boards, and chat programs is really the wave of the future, and it's something we're going to see more of between politicians. It's much more convenient than trying to get together in person, and with the right programs, it's almost identical. I think the challenges will lie in allowing each individual the time and opportunity to contribute ideas and opinions, and I think that regularly scheduled meetings, through video and voice chat, will alleviate this challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment