 By Mason Bibby
On March 14, the United States Senate (with more than a few qualms from the Democrats) voted 54-46 to pass a Trump-backed stopgap bill to avert a government shutdown. But most Americans have been lost in the legalese of the situation, which has hampered both public trust in the government and the ability of the government to instill that trust back into their voters. Thus, we are left with a burning question: what is a government shutdown, what does it entail, and how does a “stopgap bill” like the one passed a few weeks ago affect it? For starters, it is important to understand what government shutdowns are predicated on. Imagine the government likened to a massive amusement park (inconceivable, I know, but let’s assume for the sake of an illustration that the Feds can have some fun). This park, we’ll call it Bureaucracy Bonanza, is filled to the brim with rides like Red Tape Rapids, Filibuster Ferris Wheel, and Paperwork Plunge. It also has a wide array of food and entertainment, like live shows. In order to keep its visitors, or in this case the citizens, happy, every year park management (Congress) agrees to a budget to keep the park running and fun. Let’s say they get into an argument over which rides should get the most attention and funds, and they can’t agree on a budget. Eventually some of these rides, food stands, and live shows—all of which require money for upkeep—eventually start to close and no one can visit. That’s a government shutdown. Now, to avoid disappointing all the “visitors,” the managers at Bureaucracy Bonanza can choose to use a temporary stash of tickets they’ve been hiding away in order to keep the rides running temporarily. It isn’t a permanent fix, but it will keep things rolling for long enough for the staff to hammer out a deal. This is what we’d call a “stopgap bill.” However, if a deal still isn’t reached, the same issues will crop up again and rides or some staff (government services) will begin to close or scale back. Some essential ones, such as Red Tape Rapids (the IRS), park security (the military), and the first-aid tent (government-backed healthcare), will remain open, but many others like the visitor center (museums and federal grants) will not. During this time, the visitors cannot access those parts of the park or receive things from them. To that end, many members of park staff, such as the hot dog stand operator (EPA or other such organizations), are furloughed, meaning they have to stay home without pay. The park can remain this way for a few days or even months. The last and longest shutdown lasted 35 days, from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019. During that time, airport lines stretched for hours and the DMV worked slower than its already snail’s pace. It is imperative to avoid shutdowns because they can cause economic disruption, erode public confidence in the government’s ability to manage and govern, prevent Americans from receiving essential services like welfare, and open windows to national security threats. Shutdowns don’t just stop the rides—they stop the people who keep America running. This isn’t just about “stopping Republican aggression” or “preventing Democratic obstinance,” it’s about keeping the government running and making sure it runs smoothly and efficiently for the whole country. Because in the end, no one wins when the gates to Bureaucracy Bonanza are locked.
0 Comments
Roanoke–much like the rest of the country–is a city of contrasts. It is quiet yet industrious, historically conservative yet home to diverse communities, and grounds for immense change. Here, I viewed firsthand how the battle for the White House could shape life in the region, and how quickly it could stir up political fervor. In March 2024, Donald Trump, with wins in the Republican primaries, easily became the presumptive nominee. He was to deliver an acceptance that July, at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Despite it being before his certification. The right-leaning populace in Southwestern Virginia, had already taken Trump’s nomination and run with it. This was evident in the form of many signs campaigning for the former. The sheer scale in which these signs cropped up was a bit idiosyncratic to me. During the 2020 election, I saw far fewer signs during my commutes. I could not help but wonder if the local economy was single-handedly kept afloat by the sudden demand for campaign signs. Nevertheless, I shrugged this finding off, believing myself significantly older and to that point, more observant. Soon enough, the nation was primed for the first presidential debate between incumbent Joe Biden and former President Donald J. Trump on June 27. There was a certain degree of enthusiasm for Trump; running after a Biden presidency that a large proportion of Americans from both sides of the aisle thought anticlimactic at best and disastrous at worst. To his credit, President Biden made several key points, including those about the COVID-19 Pandemic, the soaring prices of goods and services, and national security issues. However, it was only downhill from there. At the end of the night, top Democratic officials were practically tugging at their hair over Biden’s “disastrous” debate performance. Not only had Biden confirmed his age was an issue–a subject that millions of voters were already anxious about–he had failed to effectively combat the attacks on his administration. Republicans, meanwhile, were more than giddy. Trump had effectively destroyed the incumbent’s reputability. To that point, it was less than 24 hours before notable members of the Democratic began to call for his removal as the Democratic nominee. On July 21, his hand was forced, and he acquiesced to the demands of several members of his party. But who was to be the new nominee? Names flew around the nation like wildfire. But who better, the president thought, to run for his successor than the woman who had made history as the first female, Black and Asian-American Vice President of the U.S.? Who better than Kamala Harris? It was not long before the rest of the party began to rally around Harris as their nominee, to be certified at the 2024 Chicago Democratic National Convention. At this point, aforementioned signs had begun to proliferate more profusely, and in unexpected areas as well. Soon enough, the scale and location of these acts of political advocacy got me wondering about the race’s outcome. In Roanoke’s predominantly minority neighborhoods, for instance, I noticed more campaign signs for Trump-Vance, with slogans like “TAKE AMERICA BACK.” But just when I thought the election was decided in favor of the Republican nominee, a “HARRIS-WALZ” or “WHEN WE FIGHT, WE WIN” reset my sentiment and reminded me the only certainty in politics is uncertainty–and a lingering headache. The road to the White House, then, would lead through Pennsylvania—the Keystone State to finish the “Blue Wall.” What neither I nor arguably anyone else expected was a Trump rout, leaving Democrats stunned and Republicans euphoric. This got me wondering: how did Harris manage to fall short of the White House? What made Trump more attractive this time around? What did Trump get right, and what did Harris get wrong? It all came down to campaign strategy, party support, and even a sense of morality. The first thing I noticed during the race was the way in which the Trump campaign was managed. It showed a heavy desire to invigorate its base while simultaneously pulling in those who may be skeptical of the nominee’s policies. Trump’s overall goal this year was to paint himself as a unifying figure, a standpoint that ultimately depends on the voter–even some who voted Republican do not feel that way. However, the situation remains: enough people saw him that way, which led to his victory at several key junctions. He called for the scrapping of several government entities which a number of Americans saw as useless or overly bureaucratic. Donald Trump, overall, ran on the promise of returning several powers to the states: abortion, education and even some previously federal expenditures are all expected to forthwith (or at least, semi-immediately) be returned to the states come January. So what makes this practice particularly alluring toward Republican and swing voters? Right-aligned individuals typically seek to limit government size, influence, and oversight. This can yield positive returns, especially in the case of economic freedom, or laissez-faire, which the country is built upon. But above that, it also makes Americans believe they have more civil liberties than they would possess under a larger government. By returning interpretation of certain issues to state legislatures, Trump courted citizens who believed it is their right to decide. But this is not necessarily the prevailing stance for those to the center and left; those leaning in that direction argued that the best path to unity was through acknowledging all voices, rather than vesting their hopes into one person. Another thing Democrats could not foresee this time around was Trump’s utilization of different voter demographics. His campaign was unprecedentedly skilled at appealing to disillusioned minority voters, his own base of primarily White, older, rural males, and swinging voters in regions that had been principal Democratic strongholds. For example, the church I attend weekly is in a fundamentally lower income, minority community. While pockets of affluence are present, the scale is not comparable to those surrounding school or home. This cycle, I noticed several signs campaigning for Trump in front yards, on storefronts, and on street corners in the area. This was evidence of Republican work with those who may not typically swing towards the base. In battleground states, particularly Pennsylvania and Georgia, this was also the case. In 2020, Biden won 13 pivotal Pennsylvania counties to ultimately win the state and the White House. This year, Harris ceded five of them. Trump took fewer stops in Pennsylvania–22 to Harris’ 26–he was more adroit in using language that appealed to a broader demographic. He set up several “Latinos for Trump” and “Blacks for Trump” pop-ups in counties where those enumerations were the highest or most important, and continued to cultivate support by promising a better alternative to a nominee who many non-Democratic voters saw as too divergent from their values. Harris’ performance was not all failure; she won women by a ten percentage points. While the spirit of Obama’s ‘Yes We Can’ was perceptible in the Democratic campaign, it faced significant headwinds from economic challenges, global instability and erosion of trust in the government which occurred under Biden, all of which proved difficult for a candidate coming (literally) out of left field. In all, Harris failed to get a large enough proportion on board for what she presented as a noble cause. But it was not just in Pennsylvania where Kamala Harris fell short of her expectations. In Michigan and Wisconsin, specifically, there was a large disparity between expected outcomes and actual results, especially in the former. In fact, Michigan had one of the hardest right-oriented swings of any state in the Union–though all experienced it. In nearly every county, Democrats faced a hard shift to the GOP, one that stings even worse when it could be observed across every anthropological poll. What gave Trump the edge in the seven swing states was not necessarily his ability to draw in large swaths of people, which he certainly was able to do, but his personality that served as a foil to his opponent’s. Trump’s victory in the battlegrounds came not solely from drawing large crowds but from a strategic focus on incremental gains across demographics. By contrasting his governance reform-focused persona with Harris’ broader progressive vision, Trump appealed to voters seeking a transition into stability over one into social justice. As we now accept the results of the presidential election, the query of moral advantage is brought to light. Depending on who you ask, this election could be seen as either a perfect success or crushing failure on the basis of American morality which many dissenters argue has been shattered due to the election’s outcome. Many around the world feel these effects too, as the 2024 Election in the United States occurred simultaneously with a volley of far-right elections—and united left retaliations—in Europe. While many leftists around the country fear Donald Trump’s purported contempt for globalization and resurged nationalism, the right has viewed this as a new age: an “America first” one. When Joe Biden was a Democratic Senator from Delaware, he once lamented to Congress that “Europe cannot stay united without the United States. There is no moral center in Europe.” That thought has been reflected in Trump’s attitude toward foreign intervention, specifically in the context of broader global conflicts such as the War in Gaza—another focal point behind Harris’ loss. For example, Dearborn, Michigan, which has one of the highest concentrations of Arab-Americans in the U.S., voted 47 percent for Trump, 28 percent for Harris and 22 percent for Jill Stein. Trump was able to capitalize off of the geopolitical stress that has bemused the Biden Administration for the past four years. Much like Europe, Trump’s camp prioritized the importance of an ultranationalist America preserving its individuality in the face of mass immigration movements and international tumult. By conflicting with Harris’ progressivist hopes for an globalized society, Trump carried the narrative of moral high ground in an era where nations are receding into their own circles following crisis after crisis. In both the U.S. and Europe, the concept of morality was fundamentally reframed by rightists as a defense of tradition, sovereignty, and self-determination. He echoed this in a speech at a Turning Point Action rally, saying “You’re fighting against an oppressive left-wing ideology that is driven by hate and seeks to purge all dissent.” Morality, as they saw it, was ensuring America remained a certain demographic’s view of it. Trump cemented his policies as an ethical imperative to, literally, “Make America Great Again”, explicitly by protecting its denizens from perceived external threats—be they economic, cultural, or geopolitical. Trump altered his persona around the preservation of American individualism and exceptionalism. The recuperation of chauvinism across the Atlantic, furthermore, occurring concomitantly as it does in the United States has offered a vision into shifting tides. In this, Trump seized the opportunity, and rode the wave of an electorate becoming incrementally more resistant to internationalized governance. Kamala Harris lost: What did she get right? Harris was able to mount an antithesis in an election that appeared to have been decided. She shattered fundraising records. Harris took on the role of underdog against a well-known opponent. She endured relentless criticism compounded by her identity as a woman of color. Harris managed to craft a compelling counter-narrative against a GOP platform many Americans either feared or outright opposed. Her efforts laid the groundwork for future Democratic campaigns and inspired a level of grassroots resilience within her party. Her loss can teach important lessons about strategy, appeal, and how to combat polarization. The election is over, and ultimately, the outcome hinged on a combination of campaign strategy, party cohesion, and underlying questions of morality–a word with murky meanings as of now. These factors not only shaped this election but could also serve as a blueprint for a Democratic resurgence in the future. As new officials take office, signs are taken down, and individuals once again become unbothered by Washingtonian affairs, there is one fixture that remains as resolute as America itself. As I passed the campaign signs daily, gazing longingly and attempting to ascertain clarity on the situation, one sight always served as a reprieve for a mind abuzz with thoughts about the nation’s future. It was a symbol of the nation itself. There, resting triumphantly atop the peak of Mill Mountain sat the Roanoke Star, illuminated in its characteristic Virginia charm. The star does not shine simply for Republicans or solely for Democrats, but for all Virginians. It shines for all Americans. It shines as a beacon of unity, resilience, courage, and hope. In its light, we are reminded that the promise of America belongs to us all, no matter who we vote for.  “Shopping for a human who understands my needs, treats are non-negotiable.” Jase Rhodes ‘26 There are so many things in the world that make us happy. So many things that induce dopamine, or the “feel-good” hormone.
But what makes us especially happy, and why? It may be something we’re passionate about, like playing a sport, reading stories or it just may be watching television. It could be helping others. Altruistic behavior releases endorphins in our brains. Giving to others releases oxytocin. Our Help Save the Next Girl Club raised money and supplies for the Lampstand Drive for young sex trafficking victims. “Donating made me feel like I was making an impact. I felt so accomplished,” said club leader Fiona Parnell ‘26. Things that make us happy and excited in life are incredibly important. In order to live with balance while dealing with work, we must prioritize free time spent doing exhilarating activities and spending our time with purpose. For example, a good purpose is exercise, which is one of the most valuable things for the brain and body. When asked about what makes him happiest, Cole Cass ‘25 said “Lifting weights. It takes my mind off things. I only worry about my workout. It feels great both in the moment and after, it’s healthy.” “Dance makes me happy,” said Jahanvi Patel ‘25, “I love the performance part of it. And the movement with the music, it’s like an energy rush.” Hunter Basile ‘25 said “I would say sports, when I am bonding with teammates, sharing experiences and competing.” Winning games boosts confidence, enhances attention and focus. It sparks neurochemical changes by releasing dopamine, testosterone and endorphins. Sports are fun; they are beneficial to the mind and the body, also while influencing positive psychological effects. “Music makes me the most happy, always,” said Tyler Bloomfield ‘25, “It’s calming and relaxing. Listening to a band also can really get me going… I get lost in it.” Meanwhile, another contributor to happiness is spending time with animals. Pets, especially dogs, are a valued presence in the household. They not only surround us in a loving atmosphere; those who own pets gain the ability to raise beings. Pets can lower stress levels and even keep owners in shape as we walk them around the block. Finally, family and friends, also in the household, our loved ones are the most important people in our life. They give life skills, wisdom, emotion, nurture and much more. “The feeling of security, knowing that there’s always someone to be here for me,” said Mia Rueda ‘26. “My mom is a built-in best friend to be here with me for life. My brother I can always rely on. He gives me protection.” Over Winter Break, I had the great satisfaction of humoring myself with a bit of personal time at the mall. While not my favorite place to be, as I much prefer the little silence and sanctity I can garner my own home, I decided a moment of mental clarity would greatly work to my advantage. Valley View Mall in the later hours of the morning is definitely one of the finer experiences in the Roanoke Valley, allowing me to freely traverse the building’s vast concourse without much hindrance from passersby.
While not much of an avid shopper, I have always found a humble reprieve from the constant nagging of everyday life between the simple folds of a book. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to treat myself to a new book and maybe a few other items. I entered Barnes & Noble, a store that has always served as a calming atmosphere. Hit immediately with the colloquially known “new book smell” and other scents such as freshly ground coffee beans and the ever-present aroma of pretzels, I felt free to browse books of my interests without interruption, of course. As I perused the enticing catalog of books, magazines, and toys on display, a bright-red hardcover caught my attention. On it, the single word “WAR” was scrawled across in all-capital white letters. My eyes journeyed to the bottom of the glossy jacket, which contained the author’s name: Bob Woodward. Intrigued, I meandered over to a vacant chair, where I set my coat down and opened the book. Inside, a map of the current situation in Ukraine was displayed, including all territorial advances through October. “Okay, now it’s definitely piqued my interest,” I thought as I methodically flipped through a few more pages. I glanced at the table of contents, which covered a vast number of topics including the War in Gaza, the domestic situation, Donald Trump’s resurgence, among many others. It wasn’t long before the pages pulled me from the peaceful hum of the bookstore into the stark realities of global conflict and political intrigue. “Alright,” I decided, “I’m absolutely buying this.” While waiting in line, I noticed a copy of TIME Magazine’s latest issue: “PERSON OF THE YEAR: DONALD TRUMP.” This was not necessarily out of place; TIME’s Person of the Year has been the victor of the presidential election for years. I figured I would purchase that too, along with the weekend publication of The Wall Street Journal. Approaching the checkout, my eclectic mix of selections certainly garnered a strange look from the cashier who was ringing me up, and for a brief moment. I wondered if she was silently crafting my political profile based solely on my reading material. Was I about to be pegged as a staunch conservative? Or just someone who takes their news seriously? Either way, I grabbed my items and walked out, leaving the mystery intact. Somehow, I figured, she knew it was a little bit of both. I left the mall around noon, granting me free rein to spend the rest of the day poring over my new acquisitions. I quickly became engrossed in Woodward’s book, which prompted reflections on several foreign policy challenges that have emerged in the wake of the presidential election. While I’ve been inundated with chapter and verse over which candidate was “better” or “more deserving of the win,” the reality remains that the victory has been bestowed upon the 45th President, Donald Trump. Nearly every American is well-acquainted with the domestic debates surrounding the election, yet few pause to consider its implications for international relations—most notably, the intense friction between the United States and Russia amid its escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War through a full-scale invasion in February 2022. Will Putin’s paranoia force his hand, or will President Trump’s characteristic volatility push Russia over “the red line?” Donald Trump, then a household-name business mogul, said in a 1989 interview that “instinct is far more important than any other ingredient if you have the right instincts. And the worst deals I’ve made have been ones where I didn’t follow my instinct.” That attitude, it seems, he has carried into the White House. Nearly 5,000 miles east of Washington, Vladimir Putin, the cautious, analytical, multi-term “modern tsar” of the Russian Federation, has often been characterized as paranoid, oligarchist and vehemently oriented towards restoring Russian territorial integrity in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. The meticulously pragmatic president has been benchmarked by his resonant megalomania and misguided savior complex. Despite a multitude of pleas from Biden and the West to de-escalate the situation before its onset, Putin deflected, simply saying that “we defend the interests of our countries, our peoples, and our relations are always primarily pragmatic in nature.” Trump’s instinct-driven “go for broke” tendencies and Putin’s calculated Amero-skepticism represent two clashing ideologies with the power to reshape not only U.S.-Russia relations but also the broader stability of European allies. It all comes down to the perpetuation of a strained, high-stakes relationship, renewed indifference toward allies, and the uncertainty surrounding U.S. support for Europe during Donald Trump’s rebirth as the 47th President. In 2017, after securing a significant underdog victory in the prior year’s election, Donald J. Trump, a New York native, was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. Immediately thrust into the pressures of the White House—pressures often at odds with his campaign promises—Trump’s first priority was not closing the border, deregulating the economy, or confronting China, but addressing growing concerns over Russia’s alleged interference in the election. If true, such interference could have potentially tipped the scales for either candidate, raising questions about the integrity of the election process itself. Questions that, as observed, have continued to this day. Trump’s initial perceptions of Putin were favorable; he admired his ability to assert control over such a vast nation and agreed with some of his more conservative policies of anti-LGBTQ governance and an integration of Eastern Orthodox ideals into the country. This praise of the ex-KGB head was old news by the time Trump even stepped foot on the campaign trail, as he once said on a 2007 CNN interview that “[Putin] has done – whether you like him or don’t like him – he’s doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period.” This unusual relationship also was not one-sided. During the race, Putin said of Trump that he was a “genius” and “the absolute leader of the presidential election.” They appeared on 60 Minutes in the same 2015 episode, and amassed some of the show’s highest ratings to date. In ironic contrast to Trump’s aforementioned characterization of his instincts, Putin said that Trump “doesn’t have the usual political instincts, but I think that can be a good thing.” In the same interview, Trump said that “I think that I would probably get along with [Putin] very well. And I don’t think you’d be having the kind of problems that you’re having right now.” So with this myriad praise, one must ask: is there any contention at all? Well, yes, and it stems from a few key factors. For starters, Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the subsequent Mueller investigation made Trump's relationship with Putin a domestic liability. This limited Trump's ability to forge closer ties without facing bipartisan backlash. So in essence, President Trump was forced to give Putin the cold shoulder or risk suspicion of treason or collusion. This reaction, however, was not immediate, and drew even stronger criticism after the 2018 Helsinki Summit, when Trump appeared to side with Moscow over security concerns rather than points stipulated by U.S. intelligence. This damaged his public image even further, and led to adopting a tougher stance on Russia. Post-presidency, Trump has been a vocal opponent of Russia’s 2022 Invasion of Ukraine (albeit praising the strategy), and repeatedly claims that he would have prevented it if given the opportunity. Across the Arctic, this sentiment is echoed. Putin reportedly became disillusioned with Trump’s unpredictability and limited ability to deliver outcomes that were advantageous to Moscow. While Trump’s rhetoric was often favorable, many of his administration's actions—sanctions, support for Ukraine, and NATO strengthening—worked against Russia’s interests. Trump’s rage at Putin was cemented during the 2024 Election which, although a victory, served as a reminder of the Kremlin’s souring attitude toward a second Trump Administration. The Russian president expressed a semi-sarcastic will for Harris to come out on top, saying that “[Harris] laughs so expressively and infectiously. That means that she is doing well.” This comment was meant to be a gut punch, and served its purpose directly the way it was intended. only served to enrage her opponent. Although this election was a victory, the damage has absolutely been done, which leaves us with a nagging query: What is this new relationship going to look like? Washington and Moscow have already allegedly come to blows over the president-elect’s strategies in the years to come. Russia’s premier foreign agencies have already dismissed Trump’s peace plan, one that stipulates postponing Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and stationing British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine, as a complete non-starter and vowed to leave the negotiation table if refusal to acquiesce to amendments continue. Trump, despite the Kremlin’s grievances, has not publicly released the plan, saying that it would become “worthless” if shared. With this gridlock, we are presented with two options for the future of US-Russia relations. The White House could opt for a more intimate relationship with Vladmir Putin, though some argue at the expense of allies, and mitigate the risk of the Kremlin seeking other allies in Iran or the People’s Republic of China. Conversely, President Trump could double down on his growing contempt for Putin, invigorate NATO and Ukraine, while simultaneously presenting a heightened sense of peril. Regardless of the situation’s outcome, one thing is certain: global dynamics are ever-changing, and the next four years will remain rock-solid evidence of that.  Winners of the Caption Contest
“Stop acting like animals, control yourselves,” said the teacher, glaring at the students. -- Elizabeth Jackson ‘28 The Zoo for Presidency -- Kaylie Johnson ‘27 “Ok class, today we will be playing this or that: politics edition.” -- Indira Weed ‘25 Herald staff members chose their top three and these three were chosen more than others. By Mason Bibby
It is time to stop beating around the bush. Whether Republican or Democrat, I believe there is a large degree of consensus around the premise that neither candidate, Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, is ideal for a majority of people. In fact, this has been the case for a multiplicity of presidential candidates, leaving many to opt for the proverbial “lesser of two evils.” Too few have stopped to consider what a hypothetical “ideal candidate” would look like. Specifically, what would a campaign look like that synthesizes and juxtaposes all of the beliefs, values and visions that one holds dear. For myself, it is relatively easy to discern. However, that averment may be difficult for others, and so I have used myself as an example. This was a more arduous task than one might expect, which surprised even me, as I took a great deal of care in ensuring that my beliefs aligned with things I may say or attempt. To do this, I took a quick political test (which I strongly recommend by the way) and found that I side with the GOP, or Republican Party, on about 81% of issues. I was not unsurprised; I tend to lean further to the right on a multiplicity of issues, such as economic policy, infrastructure improvement, and individual values. Conversely, I found that I sided with the Democratic Party on about 46% of issues–far less than the Republicans, and far less than half. Other parties, such as the American Constitutional and the NoLabels movement, also made appearances, mostly through answers that were similar throughout most or all parties. Therefore, I figured, my ideal candidate would most realistically either be on the right, center-right, or a more conservative iteration of the left. Next, I did a bit of self-searching to determine what kind of qualities, characteristics, and general demeanor I would want a presidential candidate to exhibit. Honesty, transparency, and integrity, are perhaps the most important benchmarks of an individual competing for the highest office in the land. Lastly, it all comes down to how my opinions will change as I grow. I am neither a true office holder nor a voter, and there are many, many, many things I still need to learn and experience. But for now, I can safely say that I would value the true characteristics of a candidate rather than his or her party.   How often do high school students reflect on or think of politics?
The daily life of a student at NCS: wake up, get ready for school, attend four block periods, have an assembly, a break and lunch in between, then head to extracurriculars, athletic practices or home. But what do we think about throughout the day? Should students be more educated on politics? How do I look? My shoes don’t really match my uniform. Is my homework done? I can’t wait to watch YouTube when I’m home. Is Mrs. Sprouse here? What time do we go back to class? What are we eating for lunch? I’m sick of chicken tenders. I wonder if I should get a Celsius or Frappuccino from the snack shack. I’m afraid my best friend won’t be able to hang out with me this weekend. What about the world outside? Politics are always mentioned in Government classes. But are we actually informed on what’s going on in the world aside from what we are taught in school? Do we know which side we favor in politics, and do we know who to vote for if possible? AP Comparative Government and regular Government classes are only taught in the later years of high school. We don’t have a class for politics. Political education defines our politics. Students need to be educated in order to build democracy. We need to be learning, especially at a young age. “The history department aims to produce engaged American citizens,” History Department Chair Ryan Demarco said, “by not only teaching students about the contents of American history and the principles of American government, but also by fostering skills needed by active citizens including critical thinking, digital media literacy, engaging diverse perspectives, and active listening.” Some students clearly get the message. “Learning about the structures of government and the different roles that everybody plays helps me become more active in politics,” Valeria Dancea ‘25 said, “and I have also learned from government class about the importance of voting in smaller, more local elections.” Politically active Mason Bibby ‘27, sophomore class president said, “I think of politics at least once every couple minutes. I’ll be sitting in class, and my mind wanders to something political. What does the electoral map look like? What states are going to flip or stay the same?” “Sometimes I think about what all I need to get done. If the people who I wanted to email have responded,” Bibby said. “I’m genuinely a busy person, whether on campus or off. When not focused in class, which is often, I’m thinking of things I need to get done. But like everyone else, I do think about random things like what’s for dinner and which parent is going to pick me up from school. I think about whether I will mess up on the script I have to read on stage or for volleyball games as well,” he said. “As a student close to the age of 18,” Lauren Boone ‘25 said, “I only think about politics when it is mentioned. I think about it in Government, when I’m watching the news or talking to my parents. It is not something that I’m too passionate about or interested in unless elections are coming up. I’m sure that I can speak for other high school students too.” Dear seniors,
Congratulations, it’s been quite the year! You all have accomplished so much and been through so much together that it’s hard to remember it all. Balancing classes, giving senior speeches, playing sports, performing shows, making college applications, socializing with others—the list of achievements is endless. In a survey conducted by the Herald asking students to use one word to describe your class, one sticks out among the rest: community. Undoubtedly, our school has the foundation for having a strong community, but you seniors have expanded this to a level beyond. Not only have you become overachievers and leaders in our community, but you have worked together and alongside one another forming unbreakable bonds. As the school year comes to an end, we will miss you dearly and we will never forget the lessons you have taught us. Because of you, we have not only formed a community, but we have truly become a family. Whatever the future holds, we wish you the best, and no matter what happens, we are beyond proud and grateful for all you have done. Love, The Herald “The Class of 2024 stands out to me for their ability to build community -- across grades and divisions, and across our region and the world. I will miss them dearly for their strong leadership, for their many talents - academic, artistic, and athletic -- and for their deep devotion to North Cross School. They have been all in this year as senior leaders, and I will never forget them.” -- Head of School Armistead Lemon |
Editors:Co-Editor-in-Chief: Archives
April 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed