On Nov. 30, the Christmas tree destined for the Blue Room arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 

A select group of White House employees selected the tree, from River Ridge Tree Farms in Creston, N.C., at the National Christmas Tree Association’s (NCTA) national Christmas Tree contest held in August 2008 in Des Moines, Iowa.

The tree’s delivery marks the beginning of the holiday season, and is eagerly awaited at the White House, First Lady, Laura Bush, said.

On Wednesday, Dec. 17, HGTV viewers can have a visual tour through the White House to see it in its total holiday splendor. The presidential residence has been decorated based on a theme for the holidays each year since Jackie Kennedy first decorated the home in nutcracker decor in 1961.

This year’s theme is “A Red, White and Blue Christmas.”

The aforementioned research conducted by UNL’s Professor Hibbing and colleagues, as well as other political science research, provided various physiological and genetic explanations for voter behavior. Ultimately, researchers submitted that voters choose their candidate largely based upon personal instincts, and are therefore less influenced than some might think by the candidates’ campaigns. These inherent pulls toward one candidate over the other may allow voters to invest less time researching the merits of the candidates than some may think necessary.

This apparent shortcut excusing voters from an obligation to learn more about the candidates would frustrate Michael delli Carpini and Scott Keeter, who conducted research on what Americans know about politics.

They say Americans know more about public figures with greater political power and connection to themselves – for example, The President, their state’s governor – but they argue that “knowledge of public figures and of the institutions and processes of government serves little purpose if citizens are not also informed about the substance of the politics itself.” They say that people do not know more about these other aspects of politics because this information is not accessible to them. They would argue that even if people agree with the aforementioned research that even without extensive research they already know who they will instinctively vote for and even though information on the political system is difficult to access, “this [does not] relieve citizens of their individual responsibility to be informed.”

While delli Carpini and Keeter worry about Americans’ lack of political knowledge, Carroll Glynn et al. in their article titled, “Public Opinion and Democratic Competence,” say not to worry about it as much. They discuss the shortcuts voters use to learn the essentials of each candidate and issue to be voted on, and say, “What citizens do know, and what they learn about issues when they become salient and important, appears to be adequate for many purposes.”

Ultimately, the question becomes whether we are satisfied with a government elected by citizens voting instinctively and without any considerable amount of knowledge regarding our political system.

If voters 18 and older rarely do more than show up and cast a ballot, why even have a minimum voting age? According to the articles on genetic influences in voting, children are aware of the same instincts adults use in casting ballots. Therefore, only if Americans maintain that they have a responsibility to understand their political system – an understanding that comes from years of study and thought – should the voting age continue. Otherwise, let the children’s ballots they start casting for fun in kindergarten count. What’s the difference?

It can be puzzling to consider exactly what makes a person say he is a liberal or a conservative.

According to a recent article published in the Daily Nebraskan, two University of Nebraska-Lincoln professors, Kevin Smith and John Hibbing, say the reason may lie in your genes.

The professors published an article in mid-September describing their research on “the relationship between social ideologies and the sympathetic nervous system,” the article says.

In the study, the professors observed participants’ reactions to various visual stimuli generally considered threatening and others generally considered peaceful. Based on the respondents’ level of fear, the professors assigned them as more politically conservative or liberal. Those who reacted stronger to the threatening stimuli presented a politically conservative response, and those who reacted less presented a politically liberal response.

In an article by John Jost, titled, “The End of the End of Ideology,” he explains the connection between reactions, personality and political ideologies as they may be recognized in young children:

Preschool children who were described by their teachers as energetic, emotionally expressive, gregarious, self-reliant, resilient and impulsive were more likely to identify themselves as liberal as adults. Children who were seen by teachers as relatively inhibited, indecisive, fearful, rigid, vulnerable and over controlled were more likely to identify themselves as conservative adults.

In another article Hibbing contributed to, published in American Science Review in May 2005, the researchers examined data collected in a twins study in Virginia, which provided information on identical as well as fraternal twins. Through the information provided, they determined that:

Genetics matter more than paternally created environment in influencing social attitudes and behaviors, personality traits and intelligence.

The researchers allow for deviation from genetic predisposition by acknowledging the power of free will and an ability to adapt their ideals to fit their security needs.  But overall, the articles all seem to contest that people are predisposed based on their genetic makeup to react in certain ways. So, if you’re predisposed to often focus on security issues, then you’ll most likely vote for McCain this year. And if you’re predisposed to focus on following impulses, you’ll most likely vote for Obama.

It is tempting to counter that social influences start affecting people the moment they’re born, so there is no way to tell whether nature or nurture takes the upper hand in determining one’s political identity. However, in the May 2005 article Hibbing participated in, the twin studies show results from twins not only raised in the same house, but also results of twins raised separately by different sets of parents. And regardless of the family situation in which the twins grew up, their political ideologies as adults remained quite similar.

So does this research give voters even less reason to study the candidates? It seems that these results would suggest so long as voters recognize which candidate is more concerned with national security issues, the voters inherently know for whom they will vote.

In Gallup’s latest pollon how the voters are divided based on race, 93 percent of non-Hispanic black voters say they will support Obama. At the same time, only 51 percent of non-Hispanic white voters say they will support McCain. So why is there nearly unanimous support of black voters for Obama?

In my political science class, some black students suggested the support is due to the U.S. history of excluding blacks from positions of power. Therefore, regardless of their personal political views, the students say, the black community is coming together to achieve a great step toward racial equality.

This idea is echoed by Lani Guinier, President Bill Clinton’s nominee for civil rights enforcement chief. In her book The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy, she speaks of black government officials, saying:

“As role models, these black achievers presumptively represent equal opportunity. With few exceptions, their election signals that society’s institutions are ‘color-blind’ pure meritocracies” (57).

Some critics may be concerned to hear that a large portion of voters will cast ballots based on the candidate’s race. However, why should this be any less desirable of a voting determinant than the candidate’s personality or religion?

Sarah Palin is scaring voters.

Not only are voters scared of the possibility of President Palin, they’re laughing at her, too.

In this weekend’s special report on CNN, “Sarah Palin: Revealed,” the narrator explains why Palin decided to quit her job as a TV sports reporter:

Sarah was too busy to continue at the station. She became active in the PTA and worked out in the local gym.

Really? She quit to become active in the PTA and to work out? Maybe she was too busy taking care of her growing family, or pursuing another career to continue at the station.

Not according to the CNN report. The narration simply continues by saying, one day while workingout, Palin met Wasilla’s mayor.

At least she knows the importance of networking.

But really? Not to become the president of the PTA, but to become active. How active is a PTA member? How many meetings are there to attend? 

How often was she working out? Eight hours each day? I suppose that would take time away from a career. At least if Matt Damon’s fears do come true, and Palin becomes president, we’ll all be sure she is in relatively good shape.

After a fit of uncontrollable laughter, my doubts in the wiseness of McCain’s decision increased tremendously. How can I vote for a candidate whose running-mate values a gym membership over her career?

Sarah Palin has got people talking.

Since McCain chose Palin as his running-mate, voters and the media have been extremely mixed in their reactions — some hailing the choice for its historical significance, others bashing it because of Palin’s family life and political experience (or lack-there-of). Nevertheless, a large portion of Palin’s coverage focuses on her appearance.

Her victory in the 1984 Miss Wasilla contest in her home-state of Alaska as not gone unnoticed. Pictures of her from her pageant days — and even pictures of her in her “short-shorts,” high-school basketball uniform — appear on Google.com.

Noted fashion magazine, Vogue, interviewed and photographed her for the February 2008 issue. In the article, Palin acknowledges the attention she’s getting because of her appearance:

I wish they’d stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots. A reporter once asked me about it during the campaign, and I assured him I was trying to be as frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm glasses.

But that hasn’t kept people from talking.

Fashion critics for the Los Angeles Times assess and commend her style. In an article, published Sept. 7, the writer describes the styles of Hillary Clinton, Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama, but says, Palin “has stolen the campaign’s style spotlight, causing a run on Kawasaki 704 eyeglass frames and upswept hairstyles.”

In group discussions on Facebook.com, members are describing those frames as the new Jackie-O pillbox hat.

Past simply commenting on her beauty, however, many people — notably those on Facebook – have started groups dedicated to Palin’s sexual appeal as well. With names such as “Vote Hottie 08 (Sarah Palin/Cindy McCain),” “Sarah Palin is way hotter than Hillary,” and the very direct, “Sarah Palin is hot!” (in addition to many extremely uncouth others),  these groups have spawned thousands of discussions almost entirely devoted to Palin’s sexual desirability.

The significance of this may be observed through the names of some of the more-than-500 other Facebook groups devoted to Palin. Groups such as, “I am definitely voting for Sarah Palin and old what’s his name,” and — again, the more direct — “Sarah Palin is enough reason to vote McCain.” On the comments and discussion boards for these sites, members aren’t debating the political and societal advantages and disadvantages to having Palin serve as vice president. Rather, members post comment after comment regarding her physique and, all too often, their very sexual interests in her.

So, has the presence of the former beauty queen transformed this election into a pagent, to be won by the most attractive candidate?

Certainly, considering the attractiveness of a candidate — or in this case, his running-mate — is not a new concept in American politics. In fact, the voting-public’s perception of the attractiveness of each candidate has arguably played a very large role in determining who wins the election, dating back to the very first televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960.

Historynow.org describes the Kennedy-Nixon debate as one between a young candidate who “had served little more than a single undistinguished term in the U.S. Senate, and could offer no experience to speak of in foreign affairs,” and another who was “a two-term vice president, had made a successful political career out of battling communists at home and abroad … even going toe-to-toe with the Soviet Premier himself.”

Sound at all similar to the backgrounds of this year’s candidates?

Ultimately, Kennedy defeated Nixon, due in-part, the website says, to the way the candidates appeared on TV:

Kennedy appeared young, athletic, handsome and poised. Nixon … appeared tired, pallid and sweaty.

So, with Obama’s aforementioned strong-hold on the title of most charismatic candidate, perhaps McCain has found his campaign security in Palin’s (TV-)pretty face. And while she is annoyed by the attention her black go-go boots are receiving, her appearance may very well be enough to get many voters — or at least, many male voters — to choose McCain on November 4.

On Saturday evening, CNN aired a two-part special program aiming to reveal who the presidential candidates truly are — to show what they were like growing up, how their friends see them and how experiences shaped them into who they are today. The program devoted 90 minutes each to McCain and Obama.

The piece on McCain began by describing him as a rebel and a troublemaker. He went out often with friends and was popular with the girls, his friends said.

When asked about those days, McCain laughs — a surprising sight — and seems to fondly recall his days at the Naval Academy.

The narration then focused on McCain as a solider, a pilot on an aircraft carrier. He is described as brave and daring, as the report says McCain told his officers not to worry about him when setting-off on a dangerous mission.

Viewers saw footage of McCain being captured by the Vietnamese, of him lying in a hospital bed being interviewed by a French doctor, and listened to the solemn and gruesome details of his 5-years as a prisoner of war.

The fact that CNN produced this program shows how important a candidate’s personality is to the public in deciding whom to elect. In conversations with friends and family, people defend the candidate they “like,” as was the case in the 1952 presidential race, in which Eisenhower supporters said, “I like Ike.” Often, the best — and admittedly, some of the most destructive — leaders are described as charismatic. Voters choose candidates who share their own opinions and viewpoints, things which can often influence one’s personality.

So, with Obama’s seemingly secure hold on the title of the charismatic candidate, this special on McCain, with the rare glimpse of him laughing rather than shouting, and describing his courage and even his rebellious side, was an interesting look at McCain’s personality, and is just another example of how important one’s personality is in deciding an election.