America in minds

People usually have a mental image of the things they hear. We form pictures of different things in our minds. Sometimes, there are images formed in our minds which may not be real. We may have pre-conceived ideas about different things. In psychology, the term, schema refers to a structure of pre-conceived ideas formed in the mind. These pre-conceived ideas may be different from the reality. One of the examples of schemata is stereotyping. Stereotypes have always been with us and few people really try to stay away from stereotypes. In Iran, we do see stereotypes about people of different ethnic groups which may not be really true but those stereotypes seem to be an indelible picture formed in the minds of people. When it comes to America, I think there are some stereotypes about America in Iran just like the stereotypes about Iran which exist in other parts of world such as the U.S. In Iran, we are only dealing with America’s government and its foreign policy but we do not know much about American people. So, we may think that American people also possess the characteristics of their government officials and they do the things that their government does. Some people may think that Americans are violent oppressors and do not have kindness and sympathy towards other people or may not care about others. However, in reality this is not true and we cannot judge people with a set of pre-conceived ideas that we have about them. The same thing exists in the west and in America about Iran. People have negative views about Iran and its people because of the way Iran and Islam are shown to them through the media. Thus, we have to be careful of stereotypes and do not judge people or countries by a set of fixed ideas formed in our minds which may not be true.

How is President Obama doing?

In order to find out how well a politician performs, we have to consider public opinion. In a democratic system, it’s important to find out the percentage of people approving or disapproving of the policies of the government. In America, public opinion polls are conducted quite frequently to seek people’s opinions regarding different issues. The same thing has happened with the President of Change, Mr. Barack Obama. Obama became the president of the United States while people were unhappy with many things in the country and wanted a change for the better. President Obama had to deal with big issues like economic recession, health care, and the war in Afghanistan. Now the first year of his office has passed and this is how people have rated his performance.

Although, people in general have a favorable view of President Obama, his job approval rating has declined. According to CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted on Dec. 2-3, Obama’s approval rating has fallen from 55 percent in mid-November to 48 percent and the biggest drop has come from non-college-educated white voters. As the poll director believes, this may show that unemployment has caused president’s approval rating to fall. People have also given their opinions regarding different issues like economy, the War in Afghanistan and health care. According to Marist Poll, a majority of registered voters, 51 percent, disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy. However, 65 percent of the people believe that today’s economic situation is the inheritance of President Bush. Nonetheless, most of the polls reveal that many people are very or somewhat dissatisfied with the present state of the economy. Another important issue is the War in Afghanistan. Polls conducted up to early November showed that the majority of people were against sending more troops to Afghanistan. However, after President’s speech explaining the strategies to deploy 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the number of people approving of his plan is growing. When it comes to health care, it is not so easy to compare the results of different polls since the questions asked differ from one poll to another. Some polls may have tried to measure people’s support or opposition to health care reform overall, while some others may have asked questions regarding different parts of the health care plan. However, there seems to be an agreement on the point that there is satisfaction among the majority of people who have health coverage and most of them believe that a change in the health care system will not improve their situation or may even make it worse. So according to Gallup, it seems that “the public does not feel a strong sense of urgency about passing health care reform.” While president Obama has been working hard to pass his health care reform plan, Americans seem to be more concerned about the problems of economy and employment.

As we can see, people are constantly being asked about their opinion regarding the overall performance of the president and the way he handles different issues. This is something we do not have in Iran. There are no polls conducted to reflect people’s opinion regarding the performance of the President and his cabinet. Now, the issue of subsidies is what many people are worried about but we see no polls measuring people’s support or position to the government plan. Although, media try to reflect public opinion, I think we need to have proper statistics of public opinion on different issues. This way, I believe, people feel that it is important for the officials to find out their opinion regarding different issues.

* taken from http://www.politicsdaily.com

Poverty is the gift of the New World, my child!

Last week I was reviewing a book named America Unequal. This book focuses on the problems of poverty and income inequality in the U.S. Today, I saw the news about the poverty of illegal immigrants in the U.S. and that the U.S. born kids of illegal immigrants are more likely to face poverty than others. According to the book I was reading ethnic minorities have experienced more poverty than the white majority in the U.S. and the passage of time has not only reduced the poverty in the U.S. but also widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Today, America is facing another problem and that is the growing number of illegal immigrants from different parts of the world especially from Mexico and Central America. Hispanic people come to the land of dreams hoping to find better opportunities. They may succeed but many of them do face a lot of difficulties making both ends meet. Although the U.S. born children of these illegal immigrants can get all the benefits provided to U.S. citizens, many parents are reluctant to apply for such benefits due to the fear of being asked to provide documentations. Many of these illegal immigrants are not highly educated and it’s harder for them to climb up the job ladder due to their immigration status. As a result, their children are more prone to poverty than the children of legal immigrants or native parents. These children are also afraid of losing their parents since their parents can be deported any time while they can remain in the U.S as American citizens. Despite all these difficulties, illegal immigrants believe that the situation of their children is much better in the U.S. than their home country.
I suppose a similar problem exists here in Iran. There are many Afghan immigrants in Iran both legal and illegal. Many of the illegal immigrants get involved in crimes in order to overcome their poverty and this endangers our security. While America has had a long experience of dealing with immigrants, our country has recently been involved with this issue. As the numbers of illegal immigrants to both Iran and U.S. are on the rise, it seems that new policies are needed to deal with this problem especially in Iran.

Book Review

Co-author Book Review
Marzieh Javadi Arjmand, Ata Karimnejad

America Unequal
Authors: Danziger, Sheldon / Gottschalk, Peter
Year: 1995
Publisher: Russell Sage Foundation
ISBN: 0-674-01811-7

About the Authors:

Dr. Danziger is a research professor and director of National Poverty Center, Research and Training Program on Poverty and Public Policy in the University of Michigan. His area of interest includes trends in poverty and equality and the effects of economic and demographic changes, government social programs and disadvantaged groups. His recent publications are:
Cancian, Maria, and Sheldon H. Danziger. 2009. Changing Poverty, Changing Policies. Russell Sage. Abstract. Publisher Link .
Danziger, Sheldon H., and Cecilia Elena Rouse. 2007. The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Abstract.
Blank, Rebecca M., Sheldon H. Danziger, and Robert F. Schoeni. 2006. Working and Poor: How Economic and Policy Changes Are Affecting Low-Wage Workers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Abstract.
Danziger, Sheldon H., and Peter Gottschalk. 2004. Diverging Fortunes: Trends in Poverty and Inequality. Russell Sage Foundation and Population Reference Bureau. Abstract.
Danziger, Sheldon H., and Robert Haveman. 2002. Understanding Poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Abstract.
Danziger, Sheldon H., and Ann Chih Lin. 2000. Coping With Poverty: The Social Contexts of Neighborhood, Work and Family in the African-American Community. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Abstract.
Danziger, Sheldon H., and Jane Wadfogel. 2000. Securing the Future: Investing in Children from Birth to College. New York: Russell Sage. Abstract.

Farley, Reynolds, Sheldon H. Danziger, and Harry J. Holzer. 2000. Detroit Divided. Russell Sage. Abstract.
Danziger, Sheldon H. 1999. Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute. Abstract.

Journal Articles:

Danziger, Sheldon H., Davis, M.M., S. Orzol, and H.A. Pollack. 2008. "Health insurance and access to care among welfare leavers." Inquiry-the Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing, 45(2): 184-197. Worldcat.

Dr. Peter Gottschalk, the co-author of this book is a senior research affiliate at National Poverty Center, University of Michigan. He is also research affiliate at the Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin and research associate at the Center for Retirement Research, Boston College. His research interest includes labor economics and human resource economics.

Review and Analysis:



This book, America Unequal (1995), shows us how “American dream” has not come true, as the writer contends that Americans have had hard “economic times” since 1970s. Before this turning point, people were highly optimistic about their children’s future, but the way history wove the threads of events showed us that poverty and inequality of incomes increased.
After the disastrous Second World War, there came an economic boom during which most of the people were employed with remarkable wages; however, this pattern reversed after the 1970s.


The author places his diagnosis on the issues regarding technological advances, globalization of markets, and structural changes in the body of economic system which put a division between low-skilled and high-skilled workers. He believes that the Republican’s “Contract with America” compounded the problem and helped widen the gap between privileged citizens and those who are not.


According to Danziger and Gottschalk, measures taken by the government, in order to combat the existing economic situation, have not been successful, thus the way, Danziger says, to get over the devastating outcomes of the above mentioned issues is “to adjust public and private sectors to changes in economic environment.”


Then a series of diverse plans and policies were introduced during 1960s-1990s. The second chapter centers on the policies adopted in the last four decades to reduce poverty. “War on Poverty” being the major plan of the era, introduced by President Johnson during 1960s, is originated form two strategies which have been dominant since the 1930s: The income transfers and employment programs. Johnson’s inefficient plan faced failure because, as some critics note, of the “throwing money at the problem” strategy. The last of the introduced policies were that of Clinton’s emphasizing antipoverty programs which did not achieve the desired efficacy due to objections constantly put forward by a Republican majority Congress which, at that time, had its mind locked on “government-is-the-problem” view of Reagan administration.


Danziger and Gottschalk go another step further by providing the readers with chapters revolving around arithmetical/statistical information and analyses trying to approach the problems of society in a more new-fashioned technical way. According to Danziger, there are multiple deficiencies regarding the measurement of family income methods such as: they seem to be ignorant of the rapid population growth rate, and they do not consider “decline in average family size.”
Another interesting situation is disclosed by the authors which is the delicate paradox in the 1980s economic situation. Despite the increase in family income, the inequality did not decrease. Based on the wrong assumptions, Danziger believes, the government of the post 1983 could not remove the problem of income inequality.


Regarding the different demographic groups categorized by age, sex, race and ethnicity, findings indicate that they were exposed to identical economic parameters although their standards of living drastically differed from one another. There’s a difference in standards of living comparing two periods as we distinguish as old and new. In the old one, young adults earned more than the old which turned out to be quite the opposite in the following period. Moreover, a fixed pattern in income inequality came into being which put the whites over other ethnic groups, married couples over single-parent headed families.


Demographic and economic factors are introduced as reasons for poverty remaining high. The period between 1949- 1969, also known as baby boom period, is being held as an important demographic factor, in this regard. Other alterations such as slow income growth, rising inequality and more demographic changes, which have taken place during 1973- 1991, are again among culprits leading to later poverty. The authors of this book; however, call out a number of changes regarding economic factors which are believed to have contributed to the status quo of poverty. Changes in distribution of earnings of family heads, changes in the distribution of earnings of other family members, and changes in the distribution of all sources of income are among them.


There is another perspective concerning the economic history of the United States; that is to bring into focus the changes in the labor market. Labor market has been flexible toward some changes throughout its recent past. First of them is considered to be because of inequality in men’s earnings during 1973- 1991. The other is technological changes and finally the ultimate transition in the industrial market into service sector. These changes, consequently, are to leave footsteps in individuals’ lives. So many people lost their jobs in manufacturing industry and had to choose one among low wage jobs in service sector.
Results from so many surveys have conveyed that from 1980s onward the trend in equality of earnings has been stable but inequality, both inequality between groups and inequality within groups, has not showed signs of falling.


Regarding the increase of the inequality of earnings, Danziger and Gottschalk contend: “mechanisms are important; if we understand the casual mechanisms, we could predict whether inequality would continue to increase or whether it would return to the level of the 1970s. An understanding of the causes of the slow growth and increased inequality of earnings can also inform public policy.”
There is an economic theory on inequality of earning which indicates that once there is a competition in any market place, a following allocation of resources will be inevitable and therefore technological advancement will be encouraged. However, obviously efficiency does not equal to equity. “There is nothing about a market economy that ensures that a rising standard of living will be accompanied by reduced inequality.”


Inequality of earnings seems to have enjoyed a remarkable increase in the 1980s which was triggered by employers hiring more educated workers.
The authors allocate the final chapter of this book, America Unequal, to antipoverty plans undergone in American History. The discussion continues giving a taste of what has been carried out to narrow down, or even terminate, the existing gap between the ever-growing rich and the poor. There have been attempts in this dimension starting from the declaration of “War on Poverty” to 1988 family Support Act and so on. But nothing ever done seemed to have been able to create dramatic changes in the so called domestic economic affairs.


"The planners of the ‘War on Poverty’ expected that the combination of rapid economic growth and antipoverty policies would raise the incomes of those families who were still outside the economic mainstream” and would help raise the people at the bottom of the income scale to the top and therefore put an end to inequality, but the oil embargo of the 1973 and the following three economic recessions over nine years made it a mere dream.


Sheldon H. Danziger and Peter Gottschalk in their book America Unequal try to get an important message across; the fact that economic forces, or one might incline to say determinism, have put frames to the dream of millions of Americans. This book, through so many graphs and scientific analyses depicts why is it that even major economic programs are impotent of making a drastic improvement addressing all the existing classes in the American society.

Friendship of faiths in America

America is a religiously as well as ethnically diverse country. Although the majority of people are Christians, we do see many other religions as well. How far are American people religious tolerant? Does inter-faith dailogue promote religious tolerance? Well, first we need to know the meaning of inter-faith diologue. “The terms interfaith or interfaith dialogue refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions (i.e., "faiths") and spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional level with the aim of deriving a common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world.”[1]
Inter-faith diologue is not something new. In fact it has existed since long time ago. Now, we see that in America the inter-faith dialogue between three clergymen has made them good friends of each other


The three Muslim, Christian and Jewish clergymen have tried to show people that people believing in different religions can be good friends.




All three clergymen are in the liberal wing of their respective faiths. Mr. Mackenzie, 65, is a minister in the United Church of Christ, and recently retired from leading a large congregation, the University Congregational U.C.C., in Seattle. As a young man, he taught in Lebanon. Rabbi Falcon, 67, is a Reform rabbi with a doctorate in clinical psychology who founded synagogues in Los Angeles and Seattle that meld meditation with Jewish tradition. Sheik Rahman, 59, is a Sufi; a path of Islam focused more on spiritual wisdom than strict ritual. He is the son of a diplomat from Bangladesh. He co-founded an unusual mixed-faith congregation in Seattle, the Interfaith Community Church. Today, these three friends first went to an Indian restaurant in Nashville and then attended a Presbyterian church where they delivered speeches to 250 people about how they had wrestled with their religious differences and emerged as friends. These three clergymen call themselves “interfaith amigos”. They said that they had managed to establish friendly relationships by running straight at their conflicts and not avoiding them. “One of the problems in the past with interfaith dialogue is we’ve been too unwilling to upset each other,” Rabbi Falcon told the crowd at the Presbyterian Church. “We try to honor the truth. This is the truth for you, and this is the truth for me. It may not be reconcilable, but it is important to refuse to make the other the enemy.”




They then recited what they regarded as untruth in their religions. The minster regarded “Christianity is the only way to God” as the untruth, the Rabbi referred to the notion of Jews as “the chosen people” and the Sheik referred to the “sword verses” in Koran like “kill the unbeliever”. He regarded this phrase as an “awkward phrase”. As one of the people present in the church said “Talking about the untruths of each tradition is very courageous. It gets it out of the platitude category and into dialogue.” However, I don’t think there is anything in Islam that can be regarded as untruth. Sheik Rahman said that some of the phrases are taken out of Koran without taking into consideration the context in which the phrases were used. He pointed out the Koran does not distinguish between literal, metaphorical and other phrases but we know that there are interpretations on the verses of Koran. Thus we have to refer to the interpretations before saying that there are “awkward versus” in Koran. Nowadays many have deviated from the straight path of Islam and what they represent to the world as Islam is not the real Islam brought to us by our prophet peace be upon him.Despite all these, the notion of inter-faith dialogue, I believe, is something that our society is really in need of. We in Iran have to express our religious ideas and also listen to what other religions have to say. This is especially important since the majority of people in Iran are Shia and there are many misunderstandings about this branch of Islam.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith
* taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24amigos.html

Film Review

The Great Debaters
Director: Denzel Washington
Producers: Oprah Winfrey, Joe Roth, Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein
Writers: Jeffrey Porro, Robert Eisele
Starring: Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker, Nate Parker, Denzel Whitaker, Jurnee Smollett
Music: James Newton Howard
Cinematography: Philippe Rousselot
Editor: Hughes Winborne
Release date: December 25, 2007
Running time: 126 min
Country: United States
Language: English
Budget: $15 million
Gross revenue: $30,236,407

The Great Debaters is a 2007 American drama film. Denzel Washington, the director of the film who plays the role of Melvin Tolson, Wiley College English professor, has won the Academy Award twice. Also, Forest Whitaker is the other African-American playing in this film who has won the Academy Award for best actor in The Last King of Scotland. The film is based on a true story taken from the article written about the Wiley College debate team by Tony Scherman for the 1997 spring issue of American Legacy. Wiley College is a black college situated in Marshall, Texas. Melvin Tolson, English professor of the college, inspired by the Harlem Renaissance and his clandestine work as a union organizer, coaches a debate team in the college. The story takes place in 1935 when Jim Crow laws were common and lynch mobs were a great fear for blacks.




There are four people in the college team including, Samantha Booke, the first female in the college debate team and James Farmer, a precocious 14 year-old boy. The team, trained well by Tolson, defeats most of the other debate teams from different colleges and enters into the first debate between U.S students from white colleges and black colleges and the winner is Wiley. Having gained a lot of victories, the team is eventually invited to face Harvard University champions. This final debate is another victory for the Wiley College debate team.

The film beautifully portrays the Jim Crow south of America during the 1930s when the blacks were suffering so much from racism and lynch mobs. There are some moving scenes in the movie like the humiliation of a black doctor, James’s father, in front of his family over a dead pig or the scene where a black is lynched by a white mob who set his body afire. Although some people may think that these scenes take the focus off of the debating at times, I think they are essential to the film since they help us understand the characters better and the feelings that go into their debate arguments. Black life is all about segregation and discrimination and the audience have to see that black achievement and victory are not easily obtained.

The Great Debaters shows how the black realized that education was the key to their success. Mr. Farmer, James’s father, is the first African-American who manages to get a doctorate degree in Texas. He very much wants his son to follow his path and urges him to study hard. Also this emphasis on education and knowledge is seen in the scenes where Mr. Tolson is giving instructions to the debate team. He tells them that the whites have tried to keep their body, and kill their mind. They want to keep them psychologically dependent so that they can never improve and Tolson tells them that his is “trying to help save their righteous mind.”




The issues selected for debating are interesting. Long scenes are allotted to the young debaters expounding on school integration, civil disobedience and other big Issues. Although the speeches are prepared by Tolson, at the end we see the success of the team when they are left on their own to prepare themselves for the debate with Harvard.

Tolson’s being endangered by working as a covert labor organizer for local farmers and the team being threatened by lynch mobs remind the audience of the volatile politics of the time, when a black man could be attacked for simply owning a suit and a car. This gives the movie a nice political undertone.
The climactic debate at the end of the movie is between the Wiley College and Harvard University. However, based on the real story it should be between Wiley and the University of Southern California. This is done deliberately in order to highlight the great achievement of Wiley debate team.

Overall, I think The Great Debaters is an honest look at the 1930s Jim Crow south. It enjoys believable characters with solid acting and invokes emotional reactions in viewers. You can share the feelings of fear, shame, disgust, pride and happiness with the black people especially the debate team. Also this film shows us the great efforts of people who paved the way for civil-rights movement to happen. Tolson, the strong debating teacher, teaches the team members how to stand up for their rights and at the end of the film we learn that James becomes one of the leaders of the civil-rights movement and founds the Congress of Racial Equality. Finally I think that this movie is emotional, educational, and uplifting and arouses our feelings of sympathy for the black people.

http://oprah.about.com/od/harpoproductions/gr/greatdebaters.htm
http://www.bvonmovies.com/2007/12/25/the-great-debaters-review/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427309/plotsummary
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935673.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/movies/25deba.html

Participation of U.S. citizens in 2000 and 2008 presidential elections

One of the manifestations of people’s interest in the political system of their country is their participation in elections. Voter turnout shows how important the system is for people and high voter turnout can make a country to be a representative democracy. United States claiming to be the representative of democracy has recently had a lower voter turnout in national elections comparing to European countries. “About 40 percent of the eligible adult population in the United States votes regularly, whereas 25 percent are occasional voters and 35 percent rarely or never vote.” (O’Connor et al, 2009, 347) There are different reasons for this low turnout. In this essay, I am going to investigate the voting behavior of American people by focusing on two presidential elections. 2000 presidential election is chosen as a case for which there was relatively low turnout and 2008 election is chosen as a case in which the U.S. had higher voter turnout comparing to the elections in the last few decades. These two cases should help us find out the reasons for people’s non-voting and voting.
In order to find out the voting behavior of people we need to know the factors that influence voter turnout and also the factors that lead voters to choose one candidate over another. O’ Connor at al (2009) state 6 factors that influence voter turnout. They are education, income, age, gender, race and ethnicity and interest in politics. Regarding the vote choice party identification and issues are stated as factors which influence individual’s choice.
In 2000 presidential election, 51.3 percent of the eligible voters, voted whereas the turnout for 2008 election was 62 percent. In 2000 presidential election the turnout was slightly above the lowest turnout in modern times which was 48.8 percent in 1996 election. However, in 2008 election the turnout was highest since 1996. Why was the turnout low in 2000 election? Considering the recent decrease in voter turnout, why did more people participate in 2008 election?
One of the reasons for low turnout according to McKay et al (2002) is the difficulty of registration for voting in America, as the burden of registration is put on the individual rather than the government. O’Connor et al (2009) add difficulty of absentee voting and great number of elections (twice as many national elections as other western democracies) as the other reasons for low voter turnout. These are the factors that normally affect all elections in the U.S. But as I am focusing on two cases of presidential election, I think we need to consider the situation of America before both elections to find out the reason for low turnout in 2000 election and higher one in 2008.
Before the 2000 election, President Clinton was in power since1992 for two terms. White House website delineates the period of Clinton’s administration as the time when “the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history.” Moreover, Clinton managed to “point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.” Based on this description, therefore, it seems that at the time of 2000 election, there was no issue causing people to be worried. According to McKay et al (2002) low turnout may be a sign that people are generally happy with the system and they see no need to change it. I suppose that might be the reason for the low turnout in 2000 election and also the reason why Al Gore, the candidate of the Democratic Party, won the majority of people’s votes. Although Al Gore did not win the Electoral College votes, I think the majority of people chose him because they were happy with the previous system run by a Democrat. Moreover, economy is both the driving force for people’s participation in election and a determining factor for their choice. O’Connor et al (2009) believe that voters usually “reward the party in government during good economic times and punish the party in government during periods of economic downturn.” so, I think that in 2000 election, people felt no need to participate in the election and since they were happy with the party in government, majority voted for the same party again. However, Republican Party became the party in government and President Bush took office from 2000 up to 2008.
During Bush’s first term of office, United States did not experience a period of peace and stability domestically and got involved in two wars. September 11 endangered American people security leading to the launch of wars on terror. However, passage of time showed that there was no WMD in Iraq which was the reason for the initiation of the war in Iraq. The wars did cost a lot. People felt that President Bush had lied to them and as the American death toll increased day by day, people became disillusioned with the government. All these events together with economic crisis provided the incentive for people to participate in 2008 election. They really felt the need that their participation could make a difference. At this time when people were tired of the existing situation, Obama’s motto, ‘change’, suited public’s taste. Moreover, his rhetoric and his plans for economy and job creation seemed to be more promising than his rival, McCain.
Another important factor which led to the greater participation of minorities especially African-Americans was Obama’s race. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 65 percent of blacks and 49 percent of Hispanics participated in the election resulting in higher voter turnout in 2008. 2008 presidential election also enjoyed an increase in young voter turnout. 53.4 percent of people between 18 to 24 years old voted in 2008 election while in 2000 only 45.3 percent participated. According to Erika Johansson, a project coordinator for Declare Yourself Survey “Many youth were dissatisfied with the current administration and caught onto the idea of change. In addition, young people gravitated toward common issues, such as the economy and climate change, that made it easy to come together.” Among the young people, many voted for Obama explaining that they chose him because for the first time in history he had paid attention to the youth. He was also more appealing to the youth since he was young and charismatic. 2008 presidential election enjoyed high voter turnout due to financial crisis and people disillusionment with Bush administration. Hence, they wanted to the current situation to change. As Obama promised to bring good changes and he was not from the party which people held accountable for their unfavorable situation, he managed to defeat his rival from the opposite party and win the election.

References:
1.McKay, D. Houghton, D. Wroe, A. 2002. Controversies in American Politics and Society. USA. Blackwell Publishing.
2.O’Connor, K. Sabato, L. Yanus, A. 2009. Essentials of American Government. USA. Pearson Education, Inc.
3.http://www.whitehouse.gov, retrieved on 2.11.09.
4.http://www.thetartan.org/2008/11/10/news/elections, retrieved on 01.11.09.
5.http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm , retrieved on 2.11.09
6.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, retrieved on 2.11.09