The Instigator
NalgeneClimber
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
o1oo1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Influence and size of the Silent majority.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 497 times Debate No: 61730
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

NalgeneClimber

Pro

On September 11th, 2011 the twin towers were attacked and America dealt with a terrorist attack on its own soil. George W. Bush hearing the 'public cry for blood' then went to Iraq and one thing led to another and we were at war.

In 1963 President Nixon stated that "And so tonight to you, the great silent majority of my fellow AmericansI ask for your support." This quote was in reference to the Vietnam war. The Silent Majority being defined as an unspecified group of Americans who do not vote or state their political opinion.

Since September 11, it has been said many times that it is time for this 'Silent Majority' to stand up and end the tyranny. It happened with George W. Bush, and it may happen again with President Obama.

In this debate the topic of whether this silent majority exists is not the point. The question I would like to debate is how influential this ' Silent majority' is and how much this 'silent majority' has increased or decreased.

I will take the pro side of the silent majority having a large influence on America as well as the side of this 'silent majority' growing larger.
o1oo1

Con

It seems peculiar to use the attacks of 9/11 to address the silent majority's potential influence, and then to go on to say that you define 'silent majority,' as those who don't vote, nor state their political opinion. Surely then they would be the apathetic majority, those who are ignorant to the nuances of such issues, and in many polls the crucial, headlines, of an issue. A 2006 Zogby Poll revealed 42% of the US public could name all three branches of government, leaving the 58% of the majority so ignorant to such a basic fact that one can hardly expect them to make a lasting change on a system they don't understand in the remedial.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of us all," - JFK
So that admittedly doesn't address your point about whether it influences the process or not, rather the possible benefit of such people having influence.
However to the contrary of your proposal is to summarise the current discourse and both the implied and the actionable results within in political system. So for example best used primarily would be the study from the dual sources of Princeton and Northwestern Universities published for the press in April 2014, which stated 'America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic,' and concludes ' When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.' This in itself is a damming conclusion from academia about the influence of the average person in the majority.
This legislative domination by the minority elites, can to a large extend be quantified. The minimum wage in 1968, when the silent majority did have clear influence; the civil rights movement before them and the anti-war movement gaining heavy traction, was raised for inflation and productivity from $1.40 to $1.60 (modern terms - $10.55). Now the minimum wage is currently is stuck at $7.25, due to industry lobbyist writing laws, when it should be $21.16 with the productivity and inflation rises taken into account. Yet where do we see such rises in profit? At the other end of the spectrum, in a place on the spectrum which one would be unable to see without a jeweller's eye. Yet in 2013 the top 10% took home 48.2% of total earnings. It seems rather difficult to see how the silent majority does have any influence left on the legislative process, the process is exponentially moving into the hands of the elite and I can't think of any major influence such a defined group has had in recent time.
Bush may have had approval ratings fluctuating in the 30%s for his last year of office however he was hardly undone by the silent majority as both McCain and Obama basically argued for the continuation of many such policies, which Obama has economically and militarily overseas. The power of the silent majority is on a quantifiably and worryingly massive decline.
Debate Round No. 1
NalgeneClimber

Pro

The idea of Silent majority is an interesting topic, it was chosen primarily because it not necessarily the "apathetic majority". About two years after the 9/11 incident it was said that if the "silent majority" had spoken up we never would have gone to war and while I agree with you that approval ratings and presidents are intertwined but it"s a completely different debate.

The definition of the silent majority given is the normal definition that I have generally heard The ideals of the "silent majority; is the idea of the American public who are . not necessarily the uninformed apathetic majority, but are the unspoken group in America, there is a certain percent that are uninformed and less educated.

Democracy has been identified as a government run "by the people, for the people." So the underlying question that comes with the ideal of this "silent majority" is the idea that if they spoke up they would be and have a large influence on the population. There are several authors that have spoken about this. Robert J. Wolfe who wrote "The Awakening of the Silent majority? : I pray its not to late." It was written as a call to action specifically to face our own national debt. Obama"s recovery plan only worked so far and quite truthfully and quite personally it annoys me that he borrowed from a future he will no longer be president for; but again I am straying off topic. The idea of the Silent majority is this group of Americans that are not necessarily completely uninformed but a group of people who have chosen not to speak because of a lack of time or simply a lack of desire. According to Robert Langley ( a Us government expert) when the California voter foundation released its statistics out of the 6.4 million people that were eligible 23% said they were to busy, though 93% of them agreed that voting was apart of being an good citizen and 81% agreed that it was important to voicing their opinion. Many of these infrequent or non voters are young, single less educated or people of specific ethnic backgrounds. (http://usgovinfo.about.com...)

You left the end of your opening with the idea that "The power of the Silent majority is on a quantifiable and worrying decline." I want to pose the idea of their "power" in a different way. Having in the previous paragraph spoken about the voting habits specifically of Californians, I want to purpose that the power fo the "silent majority" as it were is growing, but its growing in an infallible direction. The power of the silent majority rests in the fact that many Americans do not voice their opinion for whatever reason, but there is the lingering question that if the American public were to voice its opinion would it truly find a "by the people for the people." Government?
o1oo1

Con

o1oo1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
NalgeneClimber

Pro

NalgeneClimber forfeited this round.
o1oo1

Con

o1oo1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If you really want to get rid of the low information voter, then take voting privileges away from anyone taking a government handout.Most of them vote for only one reason, to get more freebies from government. And the majority of them vote democrat.Which would effectively end the democrat party as we know it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.