A 13-Year-Old is the Future of the GOP?

[the sandman]

It's not my intention to attack a 14 year old (the OP says 13, but the kid has had a birthday), but I do have concerns here.

First, is he being exploited by right-wing parents and political fundamentalists? I know his father says that he and his wife are not "political," but surely they see that their strict, conservative, right-wing homeschooling has shaped thier son. It's not like the kid woke up one morning and decided to be a Republican. His parents claim he came to his interest in politics entirely on his own at age 8 when there was a Democratic fillibuster in the Senate, but that's such obvious bullshit it barely bears repeating. There is not an 8 year old in existence that is even aware of the US Senate, much less partisan fillibusters, unless their attention is directed thus by their parents. Especially a home-schooled 8 year old.

So is he being exploited, or is this an actual child with such a maturely developed intellect that he can actually make such assessments of the abstract world with total autonomy?

Which is really the heart of the matter. At age 14, children are still developing their adult identities. They try on new personalities more often than they do outfits or musical tastes. Is a 14 (8 when he supposedly began) year old's identification as a "Republican conservative" valid at that age? Would it be any more valid if he declared himself to be a "liberal socialist?" Is any absolute declaration of identity at age 14 valid?

I don't want to marginalize anyone, regardless of age, but how seriously should a 14 year old be taken on matters of national and international politics? He has said nothing that is not merely parroted official party line. To listen to him is like listening to a very well-written book report on the Fox News Chanel. There is nothing original here, nothing showing any independant thought. From the dismissal of the stimulus packages, to the disdain for taxation, to the doubt about Obama's birth certificate, it's all just official right-wing GOP talking points.

He's got talent as a speaker, that's not to be denied. He has definite potential as a writer, absolutely. But when all is said and done, he is just distilling "Fox and Friends." There is nothing here that would make me take him seriously as a source of political thought.

He is not so much a "pundit" (as he self-describes) as he is a muppet allowing the GOP to speak through him, which makes me definitely lean towards thinking that he is just being used by the Republicans in a desperate attempt to catch the public eye. And that? That verges on child abuse.

[Undecided]

Mar 8, 2009 16:10:15 GMT -5 the sandman said:

It's not my intention to attack a 14 year old (the OP says 13, but the kid has had a birthday), but I do have concerns here.

First, is he being exploited by right-wing parents and political fundamentalists? I know his father says that he and his wife are not "political," but surely they see that their strict, conservative, right-wing homeschooling has shaped thier son. It's not like the kid woke up one morning and decided to be a Republican. His parents claim he came to his interest in politics entirely on his own at age 8 when there was a Democratic fillibuster in the Senate, but that's such obvious bullshit it barely bears repeating. There is not an 8 year old in existence that is even aware of the US Senate, much less partisan fillibusters, unless their attention is directed thus by their parents. Especially a home-schooled 8 year old.

I am afraid I must disagree: some of us grew up with National Public Radio, you know. I remember learning about Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Monica Lewinsky from public radio (and my parents) when I was seven years old. So it's quite possible that he got interested at politics at a young age.

So is he being exploited, or is this an actual child with such a maturely developed intellect that he can actually make such assessments of the abstract world with total autonomy?

I remember beginning to attempt such abstraction when I was thirteen. However, I would never claim that it was at the level I am today (I am currently seventeen), and I assume that the ability improves as one ages.

Which is really the heart of the matter. At age 14, children are still developing their adult identities. They try on new personalities more often than they do outfits or musical tastes. Is a 14 (8 when he supposedly began) year old's identification as a "Republican conservative" valid at that age? Would it be any more valid if he declared himself to be a "liberal socialist?" Is any absolute declaration of identity at age 14 valid?

It is obvious that the declaration lacks nuance: it cannot be a complete determination of his beliefs. However, it is valid in the sense that it describes the ideals towards which he aspires. After all, at what age, exactly, do one's beliefs become permanent?

I don't want to marginalize anyone, regardless of age, but how seriously should a 14 year old be taken on matters of national and international politics? He has said nothing that is not merely parroted official party line. To listen to him is like listening to a very well-written book report on the Fox News Chanel. There is nothing original here, nothing showing any independant thought. From the dismissal of the stimulus packages, to the disdain for taxation, to the doubt about Obama's birth certificate, it's all just official right-wing GOP talking points.

This is true. I do not yet see much evidence of independent analysis, only an assertion of well-worn sentiments.

He's got talent as a speaker, that's not to be denied. He has definite potential as a writer, absolutely. But when all is said and done, he is just distilling "Fox and Friends." There is nothing here that would make me take him seriously as a source of political thought.

He is not so much a "pundit" (as he self-describes) as he is a muppet allowing the GOP to speak through him, which makes me definitely lean towards thinking that he is just being used by the Republicans in a desperate attempt to catch the public eye. And that? That verges on child abuse.

I agree that he is not quite a pundit: a pundit is an independent voice who analyses situations.

[Sayna]

Mar 3, 2009 14:31:50 GMT -5 MaybeNever said:

A 13-year-old can barely be said to be sentient, let alone have politics. I guess that makes him a ringer for the modern Republicans...

*slap*

Kids and teens aren't all stupid.

[Paradox]

It's really painful for me to listen to this kid, because he's basically me at age thirteen.

[Death]

Mar 8, 2009 2:51:45 GMT -5 The Watcher said:

Mar 4, 2009 21:37:02 GMT -5 JonathanE said:

The math works. This kid will be ineligible to run for president for another 32 years. Sounds fair to me.

The minimum age to be President is 35, so he'll be able to in 22 years. Still long enough for me to forget everything I just saw in that video.

Because frankly--and I say this not just to be an asshole, but because I speak from experience--that speech sucks. The substance (of which there isn't any), the rhetorical flow, the attempts at humor...it's all terrible. Yes, I said the flow. Even though the kid is getting high praise for his delivery, even that was weak. Not the worst part, and he does pretty well with it, but he had his problems with that too.

Here's a few highlights, as I have it on in my other tab.


When your first word is "well" and your fourth word is "uh," you're off to a shitty start.


I'll leave the grammar alone. At this point, Krohn pauses, presumably expecting this line to draw some polite laughs. When he hears none, he looks slightly flusters, but continues.

Don't stop and shift gears in mid sentence, it sounds like you're lost. Especially if you do it and land right back where you started.


Oh you "decided" that, did you? You, a thirteen-year-old kid, have thus ruled that the pundits on TV don't know what they're talking about when they say "conservative," and now you presume to stand up in front of those same people and tell them how wrong they are? Yeah, that should go over well. (And yet, he gets applause for it?)

He then gets on kind of a roll, drawing scattered applause a few more times, but this line stood out to me.

Conservatism is not about the party, cuz the party is merely the shell. It's the inside, it's the filling, that really means something, so...

Wait, what? It's the party that's the shell, but "it's" the inside? Which is it? What "it" are we talking about? I know from listening to him over and over again what he means, but it's not clear on the first run-through.

--------------

Okay, that's enough for right now. I'm not going to analyze him to death, I just wanted to point out that the whole thing really isn't as great as people are giving him credit for.

Am I being a little harsh? Yes, especially considering that he's just a kid (which is what you were thinking as you read my comments thus far). But that's really my point; yes he's just a kid, but he wants to play in the big leagues. And if you want to play with the adults, you have to play by their rules. If you want to make speeches on an adult forum, you have to be just as good as the adults, and if you're not, that's just tough. Sorry kid, you lose. Go home.

That's the reason we don't have that many children doing adult things; because they don't measure up (just as Jonathan doesn't). He's good, I'll give him that. But he's not quite good enough. Nothing's stopping him from coming back in a few years, but he's not there yet. And pretending he's some kind of wunderkind when he really isn't all that special isn't doing him a service. I thought Republicans didn't like affirmative action!

Indeed. That all sounds lovely if you're analysing a college debate where grammar and the speech is what counts.

Thing is he is not making a speech as such, it's political oratory in the context of a political rally.

I'm going to post later and fill this out with some observations, using the same referencing that Watcher used. **********snicker***********

[schizophonic]

I'm gonna echo the NPR thing. My grandparents, who I spent a lot of time with as a child (My Mom was in the hospital when I was like 4-8), listened to NPR and Maine Public Radio (Same thing, but local to the state) practically all the time. I can't say as it formed me any unique opinions or anything, but it did interest me in politics.

Of course, by 12, I was in favor of Clinton, so it definitely didn't stick.

[Death]

Had another listen to Krohn. At least his balls have dropped, which is more than I can say for most of the GOP.

That said I think the kid is a genius with accomplished speaking skills. He plays the audience well, pausing to let the audience react a little but not too much, wouldn't want people to actually have time to think over the content.

Overloading people with ideas and concepts in a short space of time is a common technique used by scamsters, at the end of it the audience is left in a mild state of confusion and thinks that with all the big ideas and twenty dollar words thrown around the speaker must be really knowledgeable and intelligent.

The gesticulating is also interesting, it's a way of making people feel that the ideas expressed are in someway tangible by transmuting the abstract into the concrete. It's also a common hypnotic method, people watch the hands, their concentration is disrupted and they become more accepting and less questioning.

I saw the intro , snicker at the mispronounciation of wunderkind but they are republicans so what can you expect, and he wasn't given much of a beat up. But his extro was good, this kid is IMPORTANT, he has book signings to go to. If he has book signings and other people want him and he's so busy then he must be good!!!! It was nothing but the most shallow boosterism there is.

Putting him up their with the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh also lends him an air of credibility and importance, yes I know that's an oxymoron, that he wouldn't otherwise have if he was, say, addressing a Toastmasters meeting at a small town.

Why did the repubs put him up there?

Well, I think they are really desperate for credibility and to get in touch with the voters, who they just screwed for eight years.

And who is more credible than an uncorrupted by the commie public school system and untainted by the liberal media young lad of fourteen. He must have come to those opinions on his own, just using his head and heart. "See he knows the truth!!!! And we haven't influenced him, oh no, he got it all from books and seeing the world through the eyes of a child."

From what I've seen only the really stupid and ignorant love him, much like they loved Joe the Plumber, who ended up being not all he seemed . Well with a boy they can't go much wrong, unless they find his number on some sitting members cell phone.

Content? Was very shallow, he lacks the most basic understanding in what he is referencing, it's obvious he hasn't had a disciplined education.

[the sandman]

I still keep coming back to the primary difficulty: he says nothing original, thoughtful, or in any way deviating even slightly from the official GOP party line. This makes him nothing but a shill for the right-wing, totally irrelevant as an individual voice regardless of his age or skill at oratory.

The fact that he is 14 is meaningless. His message is just the same old shit shoved in a younger package to make it appear new.

[Death]

Mar 9, 2009 12:16:42 GMT -5 the sandman said:

I still keep coming back to the primary difficulty: he says nothing original, thoughtful, or in any way deviating even slightly from the official GOP party line. This makes him nothing but a shill for the right-wing, totally irrelevant as an individual voice regardless of his age or skill at oratory.

The fact that he is 14 is meaningless. His message is just the same old shit shoved in a younger package to make it appear new.

Oh shit yeah.

It's just repackaging but it might fool some people. :shrug:


Remember these are the people who tried to foist Palin onto the public. The die hard repubs loved her but the rest weren't really taken in.