Northview students discuss Presidents’ Day

Northview students discuss Presidents’ Day

Jay Hare/Dothan Eagle

Northview High School student Tim Granger talks about one of his favorite U.S. Presidents John Adams in Abigail Barne’s AP U.S. History class Friday morning.

» 2 Comments | Post a Comment

Miranda Bennett understands this Presidents’ Day is different.

“We have our first black president,” says the high school junior. “It’s a massive change and a symbol of how far we’ve come.”

Haley Hart said Obama’s election is significant.

“The fact that he was elected – it will open a lot of doors for people,” she said.

In recognition of Presidents’ Day, Northview High School teacher Abigail Barnes leads a discussion among the students in Advanced Placement U.S. History Friday morning.

She tells them that her generation had hoped one day to see a black president. “This generation,” she says, indicating the students, “this generation, the majority of you see the people, not the color, not the race.”
Some agree; others don’t.

A discussion ensues about the similarities between Obama and Abe Lincoln.

“Barack Obama has tried to identify himself with Lincoln,” Barnes said. “He idolized Lincoln.”

Katie Crawford sees a similarity between the two men, both of whom wanted change.

“Obama ran on the hope for change,” she said. “Lincoln wanted to bring the north and south together and Obama wants to bring the two parties together.”

The students discuss the stimulus package and how the parties were divided in their vote on the bill.

Summer Creel wonders aloud. “Ms. Barnes, you said our generation wanted change. Is the change in having an African American president? I’m just asking. If he wasn’t black, I mean, would it still be a big change?”

Barnes answers that Obama’s election was a historical moment but that the president never campaigned as “a black man.”

As the students converse in a lively way, they touch on the character of one president and explore which of the 44 were misunderstood or under-rated.

Bill Clinton was president when most of these students were born.

Haley looks at Clinton, and his successor, George W. Bush, and says the character of the two men can’t be compared. Clinton had a public affair with a White House intern while in office.

“I hated how Bush was so unpopular and Clinton is still popular, even after what he did. Bush was a good, Christian man,” Haley said.

“Clinton was good at talking his way out of it,” Alex Byrne said. “Bush was guided by religion. Clinton wasn’t.”
How do you know that – the teacher asks.

“Because of the choices he made,” Alex answers.

As far as presidents go, Chandler Clenney likes Andrew Jackson. “He seems like a really cool guy. He knew what he wanted and he went after it. He destroyed the National Bank. Then there was no debt.”

Tim Granger admires John Adams, who he believes is not given the credit he is due, and Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson, who expanded federal powers while believing in states’ rights.

“And William Howard Taft, number 27, actually did more than Theodore Roosevelt,” Tim says.

Alex said the political system itself is flawed. He doesn’t like the Electoral College which denies the presidency to the candidate with the largest popular vote. He also believes our basic freedoms, like speech, are not as intact as they should be.

“The system needs serious change,” Alex says.

Advertisement

 
View More: No tags are associated with this article
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by mvymvy on February 16, 2009 at 6:46 pm

Alex is right.

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states.  Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia).  Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.  Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.  Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.  Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

Flag Comment Posted by mrhunter on February 16, 2009 at 2:17 pm

I think we need about 364 more dead presidents. Then we wouldnt have to worry about getting up , going to work or school . We could set home all day, play games and watch the trash they show on televison.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement