The first time I voted in a presidential election was in 1988. I’m ashamed to admit that I voted for George Herbert Walker Bush. I don’t even have a good defense for my actions. Like most members of the armed forces, I voted Republican. It’s my shame.
I joined Reagan’s military machine in 1986 at the age of 17. I did not do a lot of research in making this decision. I remember seeing a pamphlet for the U.S. Navy at my high school’s career center, and as I leafed through the pamphlet, I saw that the Navy had journalists! As a budding journalist (I wrote for my high school paper) I thought enlisting in the Navy was a great idea. I didn’t realize the other branches of the armed forces also had journalists. If I had known that I would have gone with the Air Force; they have better uniforms and call their barracks ‘dorms.’ Also, they were very generous in allowing members to take time off to work on political campaigns. Oh wait, that’s wrong, sorry. I’m thinking of the Texas Air National Guard.
My first duty station was at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. As I was land-based I have no good excuse as to why I didn’t educate myself about politics. Although, and I’m a little embarrassed to say, I was drunk most of the time. Just kidding. Some of the time.
I don’t even remember if I registered to vote when I turned 18. It was a different time, I guess, and without the benefit of information sources like the Internet, I had no easy way to learn more about the candidates or collect pornography.
Today’s children are more politically savvy than I was at that age. Case in point: World Net Daily columnist Kyle Williams. The kid is 16 and already he’s writing a column and has even published a book. Although his style is a watered-down version of Sean Hannity’s philosophy, still, he knows more about politics than I did when I was 16. At 16, if you had asked me what the line of succession was, I surely would have brought up Disney Land. Hell, even grown adults who are supposed to know what it is get confused. I’m looking at you, Alexander Haig.
So, I voted Republican. And my horrible shame – my vote for Bush/Quayle – resulted in a victory for Bush, and a symbolic kick in the groin for Dukakis. I should point out that the Willie Horton ads did NOT influence my vote. In fact, I actually thought Willie Horton was Dukakis’ running mate, that’s how ignorant I was.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
Good post, Scott.
By the way, I had no idea that WND had a 16-year-old commentator. Why would anyone think that a teenager who's never even filed tax returns as an independent, or voted, could have a mature opinion (let alone a professional one) about politics or anything else????
2 - Temple Stark
Some 16-year-olds indeed can.
3 - Temple Stark
and scott seems a pretty typical american path towards politics, you turned left. Some turn right. Some have pet issues. Most ignore everything when it comes to voting but do complain constantly - and rightly in many/most cases - about pocketbook issues.
4 - Anthony Grande
Usually they go from Right to Left.
5 - Anthony Grande
Scratch 4.
Usually they switch from Left to Right.
Winston Churchill once said:
"To be 17 and a Conservative is to have no heart, but to be 40 and a Liberal is to have no brain."
Words from o great man.
6 - Jon Fowler
Nice post.
"Now I'd have a venue to write anything I wanted on any topic I wanted! I was so excited I did nothing with it for two years."
This made me laugh. I was so excited that I had a domain a few years a go I had no idea what I was going to do with it.
"Some 16-year-olds indeed can."
I agree 16-year-old can definitely hold very strong and well informed opinions, but I think that until experience is granted their views should not be weighed so heavily. When I was 16 I thought I was well informed on issues, but it wasn't really until experience that I really understood those opinions. But a good place to voice your opinion when you're young like that would be a blog... too bad they weren't around when I was younger.
"Oh, and Sean Hannity sucks."
You can't argue with the facts.
7 - Luke
Why were you unhappy with the Bush administration? Saddam started it by invading Kuwait, if you're going to blame someone, blame Saddam, if he hadn't invaded Kuwait back then, there would be no sanctions against WMD's and therefore no pretense for the current war, Saddam gave America the ammunition needed to go to war in the region for a second time.
and then a Michael Moore rally, that guy is a lying piece of shit.
8 - Scott C. Smith
What kind of America-hating, Bush-bashing liberal would I be if I didn't attend a Michael Moore rally?
I've also seen Bill O'Reilly at a speaking event, and he's sooo boring.
9 - Anthony Grande
So you been at a Michael Moore rally AND a Bill O'Reilly rally. [edited] You saw Americas two biggest losers.
10 - Luke
Scott, what about my first question, if you could do history over, you'd let Saddam have Kuwait? That's not good for anyone, as far as Michael Moore is concerned, you can't really take that guy seriously can you?
11 - Michael J. West
Some 16-year-olds indeed can.
As Jon said, they can indeed have strong and well-informed opinions. Intelligent ones too. But mature ones? That is EXTREMELY rare.
12 - Scott C. Smith
No, I wouldn't have let Saddam invade Kuwait. I think our military action during Desert Storm was justified. As far as the current Iraq war goes, most experts agree that Saddam Hussein's weapons were all but destroyed by 1998. He was no threat to anyone when we attacked. Let's not forget what Colin Powell said in 2001 about Iraq, on Oct. 24, 2001, in Egypt:
link
"We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."
Michael Moore is entertaining. Unlike Bill O'Reilly.
13 - Anthony Grande
Desert Storm was justified but I believe that we should have taken Saddam out right then and there.
Bush probablly would have been reelected if he would have done that.
14 - Luke
Okay Scott, but why then are you ashamed of voting for G.Bush senior? He did what he had to do because Saddam started some shit. Would you have been proud if you voted for the other guy? Things probably wouldn't have turned out any different, unless they took the opportunity to kill Saddam, which would've been nice.
15 - Scott C. Smith
My comment about voting for H.W. Bush was meant in jest. But no, I wouldn't have voted for Dukakis because at that age I just wasn't well informed about politics, and to be honest, most of my shipmates voted Republican, so I pretty much followed suit.
16 - Jon Fowler
The problem with the 1988 election was that both HW and Dukakis had major flaws in my opinion (not that any canidate usually doesn't have some major flaw). I would not have voted for HW just for the simple fact that he was the vice president for Regan. But Dukakis really wasn't any better in my book. Although he was liberal and I usually sway that way, he had some character flaws that made him seem like a horrible choice for president. My personal choice would have been Ron Paul. The problem with America is we have such a bipartisan system that the 3rd party canidates don't have much of a chance.
17 - Bill B
Scott-
Your discussion w/ Luke about the justification for going into Iraq the first time made me think of April Glaspie, Ambassador to Iraq leading up to Desert Storm. You may remember the controversy over whether she gave Hussein a green light or not to invade Kuwait.
A pretty good read on this topic is here if your interested.
http://www.answers.com/topic/april-glaspie
18 - Winston Jen
I don't know, Anthony. I know many conservatives of all ages without brains, such as Fred Phelps...
19 - RogerMDillon
Winston also said, "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
Remember that when defending your precious President and his war on terror
20 - Bill B
To AG re #13.
You should peruse this
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051031fa_fact2
A little education on the administration level thinking re Desert Storm and taking out Hussein. I don't want to assume too much about how familiar you are with it, but by my estimation you were what, 4 yrs. old?
21 - Anthony Grande
The thing with the Communists and Nazis is that they threw people into prison just because they were either different or that their views contradicted that of the dictator's or that they were a threat to the current administration.
Bush is only throwing known Terrorists in prison.
There is a big difference there. Do you see it???
22 - Michael J. West
Bush is only throwing known Terrorists in prison.
Not quite. Bush is also throwing SUSPECTED terrorists in prison. And not presenting any proof that they're terrorists. Therein lies the problem.
23 - Dave Nalle
>>By the way, I had no idea that WND had a 16-year-old commentator. Why would anyone think that a teenager who's never even filed tax returns as an independent, or voted, could have a mature opinion (let alone a professional one) about politics or anything else????<<
I volunteered to work on a political campaign for the first time when I was 15 and had my first professional writing published at 17, so I don't see 16 as improbable. The brain is pretty well formed by then. I imagine the writing may lack the depth which experience brings, but I'm sure good, analytical writing can be done at that age.
Dave
24 - Anthony Grande
"Bush is also throwing SUSPECTED terrorists in prison. And not presenting any proof that they're terrorists. Therein lies the problem."
Yeah and I bet that 99% of them actually have terror affiliation. As for the other 1%, better safe than sorry.
25 - Michael J. West
Dave Nalle:
I imagine the writing may lack the depth which experience brings, but I'm sure good, analytical writing can be done at that age.
I don't dispute that a 16-year-old can do good analytical writing. I flatter myself that I did good analytical writing at 16.
What I question is the experience that you mention. When you're 16 (generally speaking), you've never filed your own tax return, paid any bills on your own, bought insurance, or really made any life choices that Mom and Dad couldn't instantly and completely override.
What, really, does even the most intelligent and articulate 16-year-old have to say about the major political issues that affect and are affected by these things? This, after all, is the same reason that we don't let 16-year-olds vote--they don't have the experience, and therefore the maturity, to take on those issues realistically.