On politics.

[lionofgod]

I was listening to On Point this morning, and as usual these days the topic was politics. Some fellow in Somerville called in to talk about how he had been undecided, but that a speech by Obama that he'd heard this weekend was so powerful it made him cry. As a result, he's decided that what the country really needs is a great leader, and Obama is

Comments

[capsicumanuum]

And Bush seemed like the kind of guy you could have a few beers with. And see where that got us

[nakor]

"Disenfranchised" doesn't mean that the guy you voted for lost. It means you didn't get to vote. Some people have been disenfranchised. Please stop diluting the term: you want to use it to emphasize social problems, but I want to use its pre-existing meaning to build better election systems

[capsicumanuum]

Disenfranchised" doesn't mean that the guy you voted for lost. It means you didn't get to vote. Some people have been disenfranchised.I know what words mean, and I use that term deliberately. In my home state, the Secretary of State refused to prosecute obvious voter suppression tactics on the part of the Republicans. After reading many many technical reports on the Diebold voting machines in use in many states, I cannot say with confidence that votes were not rigged. Voting rolls across the country were purged of "ineligible" voters, many of whom were in truth eligible to vote. The city of Cleveland deliberately did not set up enough voting machines in poor and predominantly black neighborhoods to allow everyone to vote. Hundreds of voters were sent away. If you want to claim that the mass suppression of poor and black votes was not disenfranchisement, go right ahead, though

[lionofgod]

Huh. I hadn't considered the larger scale impact of inspiration. (And, to clarify, I am fine with people being inspired by him, and just think that that is a terrible *sole* reason to vote for somebody.) You may well have a point that unifying figures can have a worth of their own. I'm still a little nervous about the idea, and in many ways find candidates who can make people *feel* empowered without changing their inherent situation even scarier than the ones who make it clear that they're not, but it's certainly a much more valid point than I'd been considering. (Hopefully Obama also has some concrete plans to fix the actual problems with voter disenfranchisement of all kinds.)

[capsicumanuum]

Also, and this is totally the Mock Trial/Mock Congress/Model UN geek in me speaking, I think that watching the debates is utterly worthless unless you've read up on each candidate's platform, preferably from their own campaign websites rather than secondhand through news sources, and have double checked the facts of any controversies (like that whole whisper campaign about Obama being a Muslim terrorist) at someplace reliable like factcheck.org. What's really informative about the debates is to watch whether and how the candidates distort the facts, and how they go after each other.

Political strategery

[topologist]

It's so hard not to be cynical these days.

You're doing it wrong. Politics benefits three groups, none of which you include you: the politicians themselves, leaders of politically influential organizations, and idiots. The first is self-explanatory. If you don't want to run for political office, you can still ensconce yourself in the lowest, almost apolitical positions available. Alternatively, you can work for the campaign of a candidate whose goals you more or less support. This is difficult to do while you have a job, but that's the case with anything in politics; that's why polling stations are always manned by shambling hordes of the undead.

Mapping politics onto marketing, the second group is the client or customer in the relationship. No one cares about your vote. That is, no one is going to campaign on the platform of making the world a better place for lionofgod. Politicians do care about the votes of your demographic. The point of joining a politically active and influential organization (and here I'm thinking of something like a

Political strategery, continued

[topologist]

Anyway, it's a feature, not a bug. The executive-summarized, take-away item of the PowerPoint presentation that is democracy is that people should be allowed to determine the leader that they would be most satisfied with, even if their reason for that satisfaction is inane. (It must be nice to be that stupid; everyone wants your attention, and you can get excited and cheered up by car or beer commercials.)

Some fellow in Somerville called in to talk about how he had been undecided, but that a speech by Obama that he'd heard this weekend was so powerful it made him cry.

I certainly agree that Obama is an excellent speaker, but...really? A political speech made him cry? What the fucking hell is wrong with people?

Re: Political strategery, continued

[topologist]

Let me boil that long post down even further: It matters how well politicans can influence stupid people because influencing stupid people is how everything gets done in politics.

Re: Political strategery, continued

[sbyrne]

Some fellow in Somerville called in to talk about how he had been undecided, but that a speech by Obama that he'd heard this weekend was so powerful it made him cry.
A political speech made him cry? What the fucking hell is wrong with people?

Ha! Neither of you are cynical enough. If you want to get quoted on the radio, you have to say something outrageous! Was that guy really undecided?

To be honest, the main reasons I'm voting for Obama are because he always knew the Iraq war was a bad plan (like me) and because he represents academics from the South Side of Chicago (like me). I am so tired of seeing anti-American protests every time I go to Hyde Park (London) on the weekend.