Want a job? Start caring about Politics

Proposing the question, "What are you worried about?" Professor Rojecki discusses finding a job after college and how political choices, or lack thereof, affect our lives as students.  The idea that young Americans allow these dysfunctional political woes to take over reinforces the idea that change can't happen unless you want it to.  As he tells the students to take control, he reflects the idea that we elect the politicians ourselves, therefore it's our fault.

Politics are usually framed by younger people as "boring" and media as "dishonest."  Both of these have negative connotation, which leads people to not care.  If politics and politicians are framed with such negativity, the people who aren't as involved or aware will adopt these frames and their own opinions.  From there, the morals and proposed solutions to these political, and ultimately social, woes can be  skewed from what a person actually wants to what he or she thinks they want.

As a society, Americans deciding to forgo jobs then go to other countries.  Professor Rojecki seemed to imply that buying products that are not made in the US are the key cause of this issue, also implying that electing politicians that are pro-American made will supply more jobs.  Yet, these issues of globalization can be applied to ethics as well.  Connecting this lecture to class, globalization can feed into insecurity as well as creating issues.

Challenging  political ideals ethically, if the majority of people elect a politician who will do the best for them, who's ultimately getting left out?  If politicians are supposed to represent a country and the views of its people globally, but don't -is this ethical?  The idea of electing a politician is supposed to be ethically ends-based.  After let's say a president is elected, we as a country are supposed to feel like he (or she) has good motives and will lead our country to the right conclusions.

Professor Rojecki discusses the failures of the Bush administration and how those failures parlayed into the radical ideals of the Tea Party.  If we're following ends-based ethics by definition, neither the Bush administration or the Tea Party are ethical entities.  In his presentation, Rojecki provides information that 2.9 million jobs were lost during the 2000s (the beginning of the Bush era) leading Americans to become pessimistic about the future.  Yet, while the decisions made during this era were unethical by definition, Rojecki portrays the image that it's not 100% the politician's fault, but society's as well.

I agree that people who don't vote shouldn't be allowed to complain when politicians make horrible decisions.  At the same time, I think that claiming to represent the American people as a whole and then not doing so is wrong.  The Tea Party exemplifies an extreme that many desperate, and ill-informed, people may flock to, however that will ultimately fail, too.  I think that Professor Rojecki's call to youth culture to take control and elect a politician that will help cement a more positive future for our generation is the only way to really start a change.