The return of the Undecided -- an update

You may recall my exchange with my student Cathy -- here and here and here. Well, after my last posting she wrote me a thoughtful reply with many questions which seemed to necessitate a response including the whole history of American electoral politics and the two-party system. I was about to shunt her off to the Reader's Companion to American History as a starting point, and I was thinking of how else to respond, and I was busy with many other early semester activities when I received this surprising email from Cathy:

Hi,
I know you're swamped and I don't mean to add to it so respond whenever you have time but I needed say a few things. First, you are right about my problem was I was thinking with my emotions but it is history itself that made me see things more clearly. Thursdays I take HIstory for Social Studies Teachers so we have been discussing prehistory and early colonial history. Professor Weltman brought out a few points that opened my eyes and brought me to the point I am at now. History can be explained in many ways depending on the writers point of view. Basically, the changes that evolved over time in both periods have different interpertations. Since I don't want to bore you with a history lesson I'm sure you already know I'll skip to my enlightenment.

I believe that in order to succeed as a society we need have the ability to adapt to a changing environment and not be rigid in our beliefs or one sided in our opinions. We also need to respect the natural resources we have so that we will be able to leave something behind for our children. Lastly, diversity is what made us the great nation that we are and we need to continue to adapt our way of thinking about people who are different than us. So when I set my emotions aside and realized what I truly believed in, I came to the conclusion that George Bush can not possible be that man. He stands for everything I'm against; he is not trying to protect the environment, his policies are creating an even greater gap between social classes and although he may believe he is doing the right thing in Iraq, he has achieved the opposite desire. He has portrayed us as an imperialistic nation and though we aren't out to conquer Iraq we are imposing our beliefs on them. No one can deny Hussein was evil but I don't think we are any safer.

Now, I'm sot sure Kerry is the right man for the job either, I think that given the current circumstances he should be given a chance. If he doesn't do the job then he gets voted out in 4 years also.

I can go on but I don't want to get carried away, let me know when you have more time and we can have a more in depth discussion. As a side note, I don't believe Bush to be a bad man or a bad person, he just has different ideas about accomplishing certain goals.

That's all for now, but I do look forward to your reply,
Cathy

Now, that is really something, eh? Bet you didn't see this coming. First, all I could write back was "Wow." The next day I replied:

Cathy, let me just say that I am elated, and not just because I had a hand in convincing you to support the guy I support. I rejoice because you seem to indicate that it was your understanding of history that helped you make the decision. And not only the specific evidence, but the ways we look at and use history. Since those are the concerns I hold so dear, I am ecstatic to see someone else hook into history in this way.

In fact, I wish you would "bore" me with your new understanding of history. If you like, I would love to hear more about how your thoughts on the historical process helped reshape your attitude toward the current campaign.

There's more, which I will post in the coming days.