August 16, 2004
None of us are surprised to see the Bush and Kerry daughters campaigning for their fathers. That’s what makes Ron Reagan one of the more interesting stories of the conventions. For those of you who aren’t fully up on the story, Ron is the son of the late President Ronald Reagan. Unlike his father, he is an outspoken liberal.
He was invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention about his support of embryonic stem cell research, which he advocates because he and many scientists believe they could hold the key to medical advances and cures for many diseases. Embryonic stem cells are essentially blank cells that can develop into different types of organs and tissues.
The Bush Administration has banned federal funding for any research done on new stem-cell lines because it believes using embryos for research it is equivalent to murder, thus violating its position against abortions. The administration considers it a moral stand. While this won’t stop the research (it can be privately funded), it is definitely slowing it down.
It is a doubly interesting story because President Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. Stem cell research could eventually lead to a cure for this devastating disease, and therefore many people are drawing attention to the idea that the Bush Administration is slowing the research that in theory might one day help people like President Reagan.
I spoke with Ron Reagan after he interviewed me for MSNBC (incredibly nice guy). Like a lot of people, he hopes that this will be the year that younger voters head to the polls in greater numbers. “I certainly hope that people get involved,” said Ron. “It’s absurd that you go to a country like, say, Africa, where they don’t have a democratic tradition, they’ve been oppressed for years and years; then there is a civil war still going on, and people line up at the polls, even under the threat of death sometimes – 90 to 95 percent of these people go and will try and vote. Here? Fifty percent, if you are lucky. That’s pathetic. That’s sad. We ought to think more highly of our own democracy than that.”
Ron added, “I think efforts like yours will help. It has to seem relevant to people. The war in Iraq, like the war in Vietnam decades ago, will bring that home to young people. Once they realize that this is real, and they can end up over there in Baghdad, maybe they’ll get motivated to vote.”
I find Ron’s choice to publicly disagree with his father’s political ideology to be bold and fascinating.
That brings me to the Bush and Kerry daughters’ decisions to campaign for their fathers. This is a new twist on a presidential election for 18-30 year olds. While it is not the first time children of candidates have campaigned, it is the first time in the last few elections that we’ve had “kids” our age taking such an active role and not just one of them on one side, but two competing pairs (I smell a sitcom).
Because the essential question of who votes, how they vote, and why they vote is rooted in the type, quality, accuracy, amount, and context of the information that makes its way to potential voters when four new sources of information enter the glut, particularly when they can be considered our peers, we must take a closer look. These four hold a potentially powerful position, as they may be the most direct way the candidates can get young people to identify with them.
It seems to me that being the child of a national politician is a double-edged sword. On one side, it opens the doors to incredible opportunity. You get to go places you’d never otherwise see and meet people that you’d never otherwise meet. I just got done reading a Reuters report with the Bush daughters discussing their impressions of Russian President Vladimir Putin and British Prime Minister Tony Blair after hobnobbing with them. From that perspective, being the child of an important politician can be an incredibly thought expanding experience.
On the flip side, you suddenly have to live life under a microscope Remember the “scandal” over the nighttime underage activities of the Bush daughters? Let’s be real. What they were up to is the same thing that the rest of us did in college , with the only exception that if we got caught, it didn’t end up as national news. Even the people reporting it must’ve been shaking their heads (or at least they should have been).
Having been in the public spotlight on MTV’s “Tough Enough,” it made me reflect on the fact that the decision to campaign, for all four of them, will take them down an ugly, ugly road. Living your life in the public eye isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. There will always be cameras and microphones waiting for them to slip up (witness the hoopla over Teresa Heinz Kerry telling a reporter to “shove it”).
Soon, if they aren’t already, they will be recognizable to everyone. Believe you me, sometimes being incognito can be very valuable. A few months ago, I wouldn’t have been able to pick any of these girls out of a crowd, but now almost everyone will be concerned with who they are dating, what they are wearing, and if they have any skeletons in their closet that aren’t Halloween costumes.
The point is that they could have had the positives without the negatives had they chosen be silent partners in this campaign. But they haven’t. The Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, both 22 , are now in the game. The same goes for Vanessa and Alexandra Kerry, 27 and 30 respectively.
Let’s face it - in this election, these four( five if you count Cate Edwards) will be the only people who we believe might actually represent our views and who have a unique connection to the next president. There is no question that campaign strategists believe their presence will help their candidate connect with young voters. Will they make a difference?
They can and in my next column on Thursday, I’ll tell you how.
Return to Chris' Commentaries.