Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is What Happens When You Rip a Hole in the Safety Net
- So Your Groundwater's Poison and Your Tap Water's On Fire. Not to Worry: Fracking Chemicals Are Trade Secrets You Don't Need To Know About
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- More 'Corporate Welfare': Obama Signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' Into Law
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Palin Choice
The Reality of the Political Mind
This election matters because of realities-the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform.
Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.
The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness.
The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.
All true, so far as we can tell.
But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind.
The Obama campaign has done this very well so far. The convention events and speeches were orchestrated both to cast light on external realities, traditional political themes, and to focus on values at once classically American and progressive: empathy, responsibility both for oneself and others, and aspiration to make things better both for oneself and the world. Obama did all this masterfully in his nomination speech, while replying to, and undercutting, the main Republican attacks.
But the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind-the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.
Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse. There is a reason why Obama and Biden spoke so much about the family, the nurturant family, with caring fathers and the family values that Obama put front and center in his Father's day speech: empathy, responsibility and aspiration. Obama's reference in the nomination speech to "The American Family" was hardly accidental, nor were the references to the Obama and Biden families as living and fulfilling the American Dream. Real nurturance requires strength and toughness, which Obama displayed in body language and voice in his responses to McCain. The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought.
The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is well aware of how Reagan and W won-running on character: values, communication, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity - not issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is central.
Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.
Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West.
And Palin, a member of Feminists For Life, is at the heart of the conservative feminist movement, which Ronee Schreiber has written about in her recent book, Righting Feminism. It is a powerful and growing movement that Democrats have barely paid attention to.
At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking the Democrats' language and reframing it-putting conservative frames to progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at using the progressive narratives: she's from the working class, working her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to Mayor, Governor, and VP candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the conservative populists that she is one of them-all the things that Obama and Biden have been saying. Bottom-up, not top-down.
Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing. Just arguing the realities, the issues, the hard truths should be enough in times this bad, but the political mind and its response to symbolism cannot be ignored. The initial Democratic response to Palin - the response based on realities alone - indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.
They have not learned the nature of conservative populism. A great many working-class folks are what I call "bi-conceptual," that is, they are split between conservative and progressive modes of thought. Conservative on patriotism and certain social and family issues, which they have been led to see as "moral", progressive in loving the land, living in communities of care, and practical kitchen table issues like mortgages, health care, wages, retirement, and so on.
Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: Inventing and promulgating the idea of "liberal elite" and focusing campaigns on social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.
What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future-empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration. These lead to a concept of government based on protection (environmental, consumer, worker, health care, and retirement protection) and empowerment (through infrastructure, public education, the banking system, the stock market, and the courts). Nobody can achieve the American Dream or live an American lifestyle without protection and empowerment by the government. The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.
What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values.
Our job is to bring external realities together with the reality of the political mind. Don't ignore the cognitive dimension. It is through cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and express our ideals.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
141 Comments so far
Show AllYou mean "democrats", not "progressives"!
Some are both.
You are falsely making a generalization here. Democrats or progressives or whoever should and did question the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections with good reason.
The most thorough Florida recount suggested Gore won. Bush's cousin and brother and friend were insiders in the recounts where Gore lost. Black voting precincts were a major target of "purging" the voters from registrations as orchestrated by people with ties to Bush. Black voters, who hadn't voted conservative for decades felt betrayed by their country (especially conservatives) and were absolutely livid by the 2004 election. Somehow, in spite of reality, black precincts "voted" 60% in favor of Bush in 2004. Exit polls had black voters closer to 90% Kerry. Tell me there is nothing going on but sour grapes!
In one Columbus, Ohio black precinct Bush got 4,128 votes out of 623 total votes cast. That was not a typo. I repeat, that was not a typo. Bush's campaign Ohio manager, Blackwell, was in charge of the investigation in Columbus. His report said, "There was no evidence of foul play. The machines must have been fatigued."
The outcome of the 2006 elections in which the Democrats assumed a majority in Congress was probably a far greater victory than the numbers showed. I think the programmed miscounting was set too low for the Republicans to swing the result to a narrow Republican win in the districts where their wicked little machines were used. I would dispute the outcome -- I reckon the Democrats really defeated the Republicans by a 60 - 40 margin, not the 51 or 52 to 48 or 49 margin that most races were decided by. But, why bother to contest a winning margin?
And, because the electronic voting machines will be in use in ever more districts, it is important that voters who want to assure that their votes will count, should request mail-in absentee ballots. This assures a paper trail available to be re-counted if a dispute arises. And it will disclose early any attempts to purge voter rolls -- maybe in enough time that the public focus will halt the wholesale denial of voting rights. There is so much to recommend this preemptive voting. I hope it is widely used.
The racial element will be a huge obstacle for Obama to overcome in this election. The Bradley Effect will mean that he will have to be leading by at least 10 points in the polls on election day to even have a chance of winning. On the other hand, conservative men, and to a lesser extent women, will still not want to vote for a woman, even if she is a conservative. So Palin does not bring much except the appeal to the Christian extremists. They were very important in 2004, but they seemed to have evaporated in the mid-term elections of 2006. It's hard to say what kind of impact they will have this year. That is the wildcard. Will they support a mother who has failed to live up to their ideals? They are true crackpots and I can't begin to imagine how they will react to this woman's problems.
The biggest faling of the Democrats was to not push an end to the war. That's why they were elected in 2006. They are too compromised by AIPAC money to do anything. They may end up paying dearly for this.
As for this article, I find it odd. We are supposed to win over people who don't base their life in reality? With values and symbolism? My thinking is that there has been enough stark reality since 2004, in the form of the war, Katrina, skyrocketing gas and heating oil prices, the bursting of the real estate bubble, etc. to penetrate even the thickest of skulls! Shy away from this painful and powerful reality at your own risk, Democrats. Come up with solutions. Of course, don't forget to dumb down the complexities for public consumption. Average attention span of today's voter is about 4 seconds.
"The biggest faling of the Democrats was to not push an end to the war. That's why they were elected in 2006. They are too compromised by AIPAC money to do anything. They may end up paying dearly for this."
That and the fact that they failed to impeach Bush and Cheney.
Lobo Gris
I think we are going to find out how conservative men and women feel about a woman for VP or potentially president, we know how the liberals feel about a woman for president, or VP, divided. One half of democratic voters are now hunkered down in the disaffected Hillary stronghold. I bet they will eventually be disillusioned by Hillary if she makes too strong of an attack on Mrs. Palin. Which she will probably need to do.
For the first time in over twenty years for the undecided voter, the disaffected voter, the uninspired voter, and for the first time ever, the conservative voter, will have a new choice that represents more dramatic change than we have ever had. A lot has changed in those twenty years, we are going to have the chance, thanks to the Republicans, to find out just what a woman and a mother can do for us again after a few millennium too many in an ultimately faltering administration. Often called 'empire' by men who would like a return to a more mother earth sustainable reality, minus the mother as represented by women. This is the main weakness and the main frame missing with progressives and their movement.
The plain truth is this: Republicans are much better at marketing than Democrats are.
Marshall MacCluen, (a Canadian Conservative, FYI), said it best, "The Medium is the Massage".
I cannot believe that the US is considering a person for the potential post of Vice President, who is:
Pro Creationist
Pro gun lobby
Pro capital punishment - very strange for a "Christian" who says they are "pro life".
Anti abortion (for any reasons, including rape and incest)
Opposes same sex partnerships, and would deny same sex couples equal rights to health benefits.
She only received her US passport last year, and her trips abroad have been to Kuwait (to visit US troops), Germany (to visit injured US troops) and a trip to Ireland.
She does not have the credentials to do the job, unless you think that the US should adopt a 14th century viewpoint of the World and it's problems.
I guess thats why we are truly free and you surrendered your rights to the nanny state...we don't need to go overseas...we ARE the center of the universe!
(Just kidding about that last part...but not the rest)
The US is truly free? Patriot Act? CIA/Pentagon domestic spying? 47 million without healthcare. More drug addicts than honor students; only 70% of American adults are "free" enough to read well or graduate from high school. Only 23% have earned a college degree. The average American is just free to go to Walmart with foodstamps and grow fatter on the couch eating junk food watching bottom of the barrel TV. I would rather be a poor 3rd world farmer than the average American.
"I would rather be a poor 3rd world farmer than the average American."
You obviously are not a third world farmer or you wouldn't say that.
If a woman for VP can wake you up to how it is in America, and if you are an indicator for any portion of society, which I would hazard a guess that you are, this is a very good thing for us all from a different perspective.
American Dream? Why is this dream always stated as being exclusively American? And why when one looks at the reality of that dream, (which seems to be world domination using capitalism as the vehicle.) Would anyone want it?
When at the heart of it,is exploitation of human resources for profit.
The soul of the so-called American dream, is an empty soul. And I think that many in the world have seen the emptiness of that dream, and are slowly turning away.
The article was the best I have read recently to explain the fundamentalist Christian mindset!!!! Most of this I can understand even though I don't agree in the slightest with it. But, what really disturbs me is the hypocrisy in the fundamentalist mindset. They tout all of these supposed family value's, moral's, discipline and etc. But, deliberately leave all of the ethic's out of it. In my mind you can not have any form of moral's without ethic's! They walk hand in hand! And I say this because fundamentalist Christian's are good at overlooking duplicity when it serves their cause. The last time I went to Mass lying, cheating, stealing and many numerous other human maladies were sin. In my mind, abortion isn't a big a sin as loss of one's ethic's! Because that is a personal attack on your character and your whole value's system. The current administration has been guilty of so many crimes that go against these people's supposed value's structure. That I am only left to wonder how they can look at themselves in the mirror every day and reconcile themselves to the corruption that has become the Republican Party! How they manage to look the other way and actually vote for this corruption. I couldn't I had to leave their party 20 years ago (and it was nothing compared to what it is today). Is it that these people don't have any moral's themselves? They have the ability to ignore what they would normally consider sin when the price is right (making abortion and homosexuality illegal). Or Christianity in this country has actually sunk to this new low of behavior? To my way of thinking this speaks to the worst that can be found in religion.
"Or Christianity in this country has actually sunk to this new low of behavior?"
It has.
&YYY&
Nothing wrong with conservatism, from the individual winners point of view.
For their rules of race and species, in the conflict of life, the winners and survivors take all.
Just the sum of all too many human winners makes life into trash, and cooks the world into stew.
Hell is now full of billions of starving thirsty humans, who are suffering yet living and still do call.
If not all are culled in mercy soon, then whatever is left, even in the Vampire States, will soon fall.
This is an extremely long-winded way of stating that (American) voters do not make a rational calculation when they vote. They vote their guts: their prejudices, fears, superstitions, self-serving myths. Republicans have long recognized and exploited this, but Democrats have yet to figure it out.
To me, it's not exactly a new insight.
John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis was quoted on Democracy Now this morning as confirming Mr. Lakoff's assertions that this campaign is not about issues, but rather personalities. It certainly does seem as if this a carefully scripted, made for TV, reality show......"Survivor - Washington Island" (aka "Land of the Lost!").
Vote Green locally, Nader globally.
Great column George, but you never got around to making specific suggestions for framing the issues relating to the flip-flopping soccer mom. Give us some examples of how you would frame her and we will go forth and multiply them (abstinence be damned).
I'm not George, however, I think the appropriate image for Palin is a Teddy bear in one hand (see how friendly I am?!) and an AK47 in the other (see how I do 'Shock & Awe'?).
Sooner or later, the realities that Lakoff talks about will trump symbolics. And even metaphors will pale in the face of starvation, drought, and depression.
I think we are going to find out how conservative men and women feel about a woman for VP or potentially president, we know how the liberals feel about a woman for president, or VP, divided. One half of democratic voters are now hunkered down in the disaffected Hillary stronghold. I bet they will eventually be disillusioned by Hillary if she makes too strong of an attack on Mrs. Palin. Which she will probably need to do.
For the first time in over twenty years for the undecided voter, the disaffected voter, the uninspired voter, and for the first time ever, the conservative voter, will have a new choice that represents more dramatic change than we have ever had. A lot has changed in those twenty years, we are going to have the chance, thanks to the Republicans, to find out just what a woman and a mother can do for us again after a few millennium too many in an ultimately faltering administration. Often called 'empire' by men who would like a return to a more mother earth sustainable reality, minus the mother as represented by women. This is the main weakness and the main frame missing with progressives and their movement.
How does Palin's gender have anything to do with her policies or governing style? She espouses reactionary, religious fundamental thought. Her equivalent in the animal kingdom is a female African wild dog that grows a false penis to assert authority. She is not a woman in the sense that you hope she is. Think Maggie Thatcher here.
I said nothing about what my verdict is on what kind of woman she is. I don't have enough information in that regard, and I wonder if anyone does.
However one thing is certain, she is a woman, and a mother.
These facts are very important, and cannot be cut out just because a group of people instantly take offense to her.
I was just listening to NPR and in the discussion one of the interviewee's said that the media is completely missing how motivated and inspired the republican party is by this choice, and that this is very revealing and is a big indicator of what kind of a political impact this is going to have on the race in general.
Anyways, the media is also floundering around and very confused and excited by this unexpected VP choice.
Well it's all very interesting and I just keep a curious attitude and I believe a wait and see approach to this whole thing is very prudent.
I think we are going to find out how conservative men and women feel about a woman for VP or potentially president, we know how the liberals feel about a woman for president, or VP, divided. One half of democratic voters are now hunkered down in the disaffected Hillary stronghold. I bet they will eventually be disillusioned by Hillary if she makes too strong of an attack on Mrs. Palin. Which she will probably need to do.
For the first time in over twenty years for the undecided voter, the disaffected voter, the uninspired voter, and for the first time ever, the conservative voter, will have a new choice that represents more dramatic change than we have ever had. A lot has changed in those twenty years, we are going to have the chance, thanks to the Republicans, to find out just what a woman and a mother can do for us again after a few millennium too many in an ultimately faltering administration. Often called 'empire' by men who would like a return to a more mother earth sustainable reality, minus the mother as represented by women. This is the main weakness and the main frame missing with progressives and their movement.
Palin was picked because in order to win the election he has to reel in the soccer moms and the Christian Right. (The 2 most clueless areas of the American populace). Since they are unable to understand the issues or comprehend what their vote means, Palin's record will not work against her and she'll be able to draw in that vote.
Palin was clearly picked because the ticket needs a woman. She has no experience, no plan, and a very thin background. In other words, Senator would be a long shot. Vice President is simply a joke. (By the way, Obama wasn't 'picked because he was black'. It took months of campaigning and all states voted the candidate they wanted. Obama was chosen through deliberation. Palin was PICKED for her gender.)
The question facing us and what will decide the election is if the ignorant Christian right and the bimbo soccer moms outnumber the intellectuals and patriots.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Good posts: Rick, Tetti Tatti (7:08 AM), MY Conscience, Kivals, Wsws.org, Musawwir, Tumbleweed and Saila. You've raised a number of interesting points.
LEEA: (As per your last posting), You buy right into the "packaging." Black man/woman... but the POSITIONS of these candidates does NOT depart from the status quo of militarism and insane domestic policies; I say insane due to the derailment of civil liberties (as if this is the business of a democratic republic, business as usual); the rape of the treasury alloting no funds for USEFUL, constructive pro-citizens' welfare style programs, and the criminal neglect of the environment, as per global warming, in the continuing use of force to procure the very resources that are destroying the natural balances that life (for humans) depends upon. ETC ad nauseum.
Rose,
I really do not know quite what to tell you because I'm not sure what you mean in regards to my post.
I understand that your opinion seems to be that one side is good and one side is evil and you are on the good side. You perhaps believe I have been sold by the bad sides packaging of their party?
I just don't choose to see the world through that prism as a primary view point, and as the old saying goes,
There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, it hardly behooves any of us to point fingers at the rest of us.
take care, and thanks for your input.
Mr. Lakoff talks about how to frame issues correctly, but he is mistaken when he praises Obama for his approach to framing. Obama talks about the government as the helpmate of the individual. Americans are individualists. We don't want to be dependent on Big Brother. We want to establish a health care system just like our army, our highways and our social security system. That is, as one of the civic duties of government. We don't want help, we want the government to fulfill its mandate- do its job. Government is not our friend, its our servant. Use that frame and the whole socialist, overbearing argument by right-wingers loses its force.
.
Now it is becoming clearer; KKKarl selected sacrificial lamb to be burned on evangelical alter of media rage, knowing full well Palin would be crucified by press and Dems/blogs – what better way to energize rabid base – and justify the coming loss to Obama.
McDouche and Palin – both sacrificial lambs brought to the alter by Rove.
“Remember the crucifixion of Palin” will be the rally cry four years from now!!!
.
.
Rove is several moves ahead on chess board – he knows his party is going down – so he is planning way ahead. This isn’t about winning this election – this is about four years from now…
Righteous anger of the evangelicals over how the good spiritual warrior Palin was horribly abused will be fully available next run for president.
Besides – who would actually WANT to win this cycle???
The cluster Obama will have to clean up defies description;
better four years from now…
.
Talking about the "bimbo soccer moms". I've discussed this choice with several conservative men, and to a man they all say, awwwww... give her a chance. They've all been suckered in as well, and none of them are particularly religious. They say it's the "liberal "media" who's showing her in a bad light. She's cute and perky, give her a chance. Ok, right. It's actually been the women I talk to who aren't taken in.
.
Iknow.. I know!!!
Let's have a beer with her!!!!!
.
.
Let’s count and then review the Fools in Play…
Three oh, no wait - four!
1. Yes, as always, at the top of the list, the totally gullible and so effortless to manipulate Evangelical ProLife wing of the Republican Party – left standing at the alter every election cycle since their god-on-earth Ronny RayGun first played them for suckers.
The Fool’s Fool, they are used like an old wash rag and then thrown away by the GreedHead wing of the Republican Party to win elections, and lured along EVERY election with the carrot and stick promise of overturning RvW.
2. McFool himself; so narcissistic he actually believes HE is running for President, when actually he was selected from the discard queue to be run in a race that has been PRE-planned to Lose!
Another FoolTool of the GreedHead wing of the Republican Party, he is still the arrogant loser he was when his graduation at the bottom of his class at military school was purchased by his Admiral Father.
Losing the Super Bowl by 21 points his handlers have nothing to lose throwing the Hail Mary Palin long ball. Hell, why not pull a flea-flicker too!!!
3. Palin herself; with insufficient brain power to even qualify as a pawn, is pushed up over the edge of the chess board by the invisible hand of the GreedHead/NeoConJob wing of the Republican Party whose leader KKKarl has cut a back room deal with the biggest fool of all – 4. Dr. Dobson.
The robotically programmed Palin comes to attention, falls in lock-step, and protected by her Lemming Armor dutifully marches directly off the opposite side of the chess board – is buried, and on the third year rises from the dead to run against the Dark Side’s evil Hillary.
Make it so.
.
After reading the comments of umpteen left-leaning blogs I have to ask: Why is there still an unhealthy obsession with Karl Rove? After the 2006 election it should be clear to all that the guy is no better than any other political schlockmeister. He may be as sleazy as Lee Atwater, but he certainly is no genius. Hurricane Katrina convincingly put the lie to the Republican's biggest asset, the claim that they could keep the country safe. They were always one trick ponies, and that trick is played out. He has NOTHING to scare people with now. What I would be worried about is an October surprise in the form of a "terrorist attack". But even they wouldn't be so brazen to actually carry one out would they?
They already have one "terrorist attack" false flag op under their belt, why not another?
The obsession with Rove is that he is a political bottom-feeder who will never go away. His ruthless tactics, once used with great effect on McCain, are now the policy of McCain (much as torture, once used against McCain, is now the policy of McCain.) No red-stater recalls or equates the Katrina disaster with national security, which of course it was. Rovian scare tactics will drive the ignorant into the Repub camp once again. He and his party are scum whose policies have not once improved the human condition.
I suspect that the nomination of Obama was part of Rove's plan. The Wall Street owned media duped the hippies to push Obama through the primaries; they gave him a movie star build-up, convinced the blacks he could win because he'd won the white state of Iowa (never mind that the Obama vote was hippies and GOP crossovers for the day)and the right wing pundits showered him with praise. So now Wall Street, in a year when the GOP is the weakest it's been in years, now has the weakest Democrat ever to run against. How convenient. The Dems who pushed Obama's nomination are now scratching their heads wondering why he still hasn't "closed the deal" with white working class voters. Well, DUH! or DONE. Obama is seen by white working class people as everything they hate, fear and despise. The affirmative action, Ivy League snoot who looks down upon them and would send their job to China in a second.
"Obama is seen by white working class people as everything they hate, fear and despise. The affirmative action, Ivy League snoot who looks down upon them"
The truth is hard for barack to hide and his "angela davis wanna' be" wife is even worse at hiding her racist attitude.
Representative democracy just doesn't work.
FREE AMERICA
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Obama was right, most of what was said about him was untrue. But now all of us here must enter the probablistic realm. Demographics, slick schtick. I mean we will hazard a quasi-calculated yet quasi-imagined projection about the artifice of crafted personas and of the "hidden persuaders." We will try to imagine how shibboleth, doublespeak and argot might sway those who have little grasp of the issues. We enter here the realm of groupthink or perhaps the political aspect of the Lebenswelt (unless you can convince me it's outside same).
The Pubs were grasping at straws. They took a gamble. And with media's hooplah endorsement it looks as though it could impinge on an Obama landslide (Obama needs a landslide to counter the Pubs' predelection for election fraud IMO). What kind of mythology it was that got the results Wednesday night I have given my 2 cents on on Liberal Land blog's Wednesday night message board, but Lakoff demonstrates many more aspects right down at the root. Little laymen here just needs to get the obvious off his chest.
"What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology." G.L.
Not 100% sure of this, but it would seem the best frontal attack (at this moment) re untruths Palin, Romney, and Lingle laid down [I found time to concentrate on their messages] might be some escalation in terms of explaining what's involved in the relevant issues...as in the Nader and Perot approach. [Perot was probably right only about the size of the debt...just like Peterson] This involves percentages and numbers. David Brooks noted the rad conservativism of Romney too (which I perceived in Lingle and Palin as well...I guess he did too). They are playing it, and it is working a little too well for my comfort. Yes, they're going for extreme ends (even for these times). They're ridiculing the Senate as a source for candidates. Same old schtick; they're extolling CEOs and laughing community work to scorn. Alternative: lay out the extremes of the sinking Titanic that is the US economy AND WHY. If they're going to say what is untrue, there is only one solution. Speak the truth ten times more often...with ten times less sugar coating. Obama's outrage is tamed, sharp, dry, and I can relate. But perhaps he could sort of string the absurdity-exposés together in trains that are longer, faster, and tighter. Just my thought for the evening--maybe God willing there'll be more light tomorrow.
The elites turn off thing is powerful. Michael Young and Lasch tried to explain it to us.
George helps my thinking on all this.