The Sky Is Falling, and I Have the Numbers to Prove It
It’s a numbers game.
Not everything is black and white.
Compromise is 50-50.
These are things I learned as a child and you probably did as well—truisms passed down from generation to generation as a way to guide us through life. But concerning politics and policy, religion, spiritualism, secularism, family rules, workplace rules, 
and our hobbies and creative outlets—which are basically all of the areas of our lives we take most seriously—these notions of compromise and fairness do not really exist.
No one really wants to compromise. Not on anything. We have our standards and ideals. We are right. Those who agree with us are right too, of course. And everyone else is wrong. Right?
Another truism—that with true compromise, no one is happy—exposes the bitter reality that it is difficult for people with different points of view to happily co-exist. It’s a basic instinct that motivates most of us: we defend our land, our stuff, our ideas, and our ideals. It’s an “I versus You” world. Nevertheless, in this country, we have constantly strived to co-exist even in the face of history…even in light of the fact that humans have always operated by another truism that “might makes right.”
So, it should be no wonder that anger seems to be the mood of the day. Let’s face it. Anger is a major motivator. If we are smart enough, we read the writing on the wall. We see injustices. We see tragedies that could have been avoided if only someone listened to us! There are future tragedies just waiting for an insane finger to find and press that proverbial button. Some are real and some are imagined. But in fact, we could very well blow all of humanity into oblivion if we aren’t careful. To a thinking person, it is a wonder that anyone can remain calm in the face of this.
I have come to a conclusion: It’s much less taxing to keep one’s head in the sand.
My father, an anti-nuke peacenik, used to say there is only one reason man has not destroyed the planet 20 times over: men still hold out hope they will get laid on Saturday night.
As kids, we used to laugh at that, but he was right. At the end of the day, or at the end of the week, we realize we have a life. We are not in a state of perpetual anger. There is an ebb and flow. After all, we have our distractions. Holidays. The Olympics. The Super Bowl. Valentine’s Day. Spring Break. Memorial Day. Summer vacation. Our jobs. Our families. Our hobbies. But it doesn’t take much for some of us to throw ourselves headlong into anger and despair. All it takes is to turn on a 24-hour news channel, and we find ourselves riled up again.
One thing is certain: the current anger from Americans, all Americans, is palpable. But there is no one common cause. We are myopic. Very few want to see the big picture, and if we do, our big picture looks nothing like our neighbor’s big picture. We magnify our petty differences. While I don’t ever expect that this will stop—as it is the nature of humans to compete and squabble—the problem is that while we are squabbling about which horrible injustice is the worst injustice, and vilifying anyone who doesn’t see the world through our prisms, and while the minority in Congress are belligerently obstructing good policy ideas, and blaming Obama for every horrible thing wrong with our economy—nothing seems to change fast enough for the middle class.
The richest among us probably don’t care as much, since it’s not too difficult to live on 10 million dollars rather than 20 million. After all, big-moneyed interests always view the world in terms of exploitable resources and economies. They win, they lose, they’ll win again. Meanwhile, our tiny protests, signed petitions, and faxes to our Congressmen seem to fall on deaf ears. Sometimes they listen, and many times they don’t. They live in their worlds with their own myopia, which is to keep their jobs. Until there are term limits and real campaign finance reform, that, sadly, will not change. To me, it’s black and white. For our representatives, the numbers game is all about huge dollars to finance their campaigns and keep their jobs. It’s also about their poll numbers. It all amounts to how many of their constituents will bother getting off their butts and voting in an election.
The angriest seem to be the ones who are the most motivated to vote. Are the rest apathetic, or just tired? The head-in-the-sand approach is certainly enticing. Look at Massachusetts. Forget the fact that the voters and Senator Scott Brown were not of like minds as to why they wanted to kill the health care bill. There was no common cause. The voters didn’t think the bill in its current incarnation went far enough. Brown didn’t think Massachusetts needed it because they already had a universal health care plan for their state. Myopia. Brown said he was willing to start from scratch, but who would believe that in light of the fact he said Massachusetts shouldn’t have to subsidize the rest of the country. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the constituents would have supported a single-payer bill if it promised the stars and the moon. They didn’t need it, so why pay for it?
Poor Teddy, not even cold in his grave. If only he knew his beloved constituents threw out his 47-year legacy in favor of a schmoe who was smart enough to call his seat “The People’s Seat.” Their message of the day was to scream loudly to our federal government that they can’t be trusted. It was one day. One small state. And they roared. They voted on one idea, and let the power of that vote send someone to the Senate who did not even have common cause with the majority. That’s really something. On that single day, Teddy’s legacy was easily tossed to the curb like worn-out upholstery.
On that fateful special election day in Massachusetts, another old lesson was thrown out the window. Apparently “compromise is not 50-50.” Or, in this case, it’s apparently not even viable at 51-49. This year, in this Congress, it’s 60-40. It’s a numbers game that leaves a thinking person frustrated and disheartened.
All of the debate over what that vote actually meant brought up a lot of opposing views, the loudest of which were patently incorrect. A quick poll after Election Day revealed several interesting things: that only the angriest voters voted, that Democrats voted for a Republican for the first time in their lives, and that the majority voted for Brown because they didn’t think the health care bill goes far enough. And yet, Republicans and pundits insisted they ignore all of those numbers and spin this decision to their own agendas: that the Obama Administration was asleep at the wheel; that no one really wants health care reform; that Democrats everywhere are in trouble in the upcoming elections; that the VA and NJ gubernatorial elections, which put Republicans in those seats, meant the same thing as the MA election. These local elections had nothing to do with each other, but let’s not let the facts get in the way. Let’s just conflate all of the issues and manufacture evidence to support our views.
The most common opinion was that President Obama lost the message, that he isn’t listening to the will of the people, and he doesn’t communicate with the American people often enough. To this last point, Obama himself admitted to George Stephanopoulos recently that he could have been clearer with the American people on his agenda and what actually has been in process to make their lives better.
However, while a clear communication is often incumbent upon the communicator, Obama has been anything but silent in the first year of his term. He is often interviewed, his website sends out regular email to his base, and he has a weekly Saturday address. The question is not whether he is communicating. The question is whether anyone is listening. The question is whether the smarter message has been obfuscated by the louder message.
It is all about who is communicating the LOUDEST.
Prior to the State of the Union address, Obama’s approval rating was at 50%. Immediately following the address, it soared 15-20 points. In a matter of 70 minutes, which is how long the address lasted, 65-70% of the respondents thought Obama was in touch with their concerns.
Wow, that was fast.
In the same interview a couple of weeks ago, Obama had also revealed to George Stephanopoulos that as president, he needed to remember that Americans need a lot of “reminding.” I could not have put it better myself, and in fact, I was happy the president was reading my mind. I had just said the same thing a couple of days prior in response to the Massachusetts vote.
If you want to take that insta-poll after the State of the Union address as any measure of proof that Americans need only be reminded, one need only see that if you have the floor, and lay out a plan in a cogent fashion, and a bunch of people applaud your ideas at the end of every sentence, your constituents will instantly believe you are listening to their needs and care.
I can’t help but believe that if this address came prior to the Massachusetts election that the result of that election would have been entirely different.
It has been a hard lesson learned. While the health care bill was getting hashed out over the summer, conservative lobby machines took over the public forums and town meetings in August. They screamed the loudest. The meetings were designed to rile up Americans and tell them that the pig in a poke, the health care reform bill, was going to basically ruin their lives. Those meetings resulted in Tea Parties galore. Their messages were loud and plastered all over the media: “Health care reform means we will be living in a fascist state.” “Obama is a Radical-Commie-Pinko-Hilter-African-born Fascist.” “Government can’t run anything! Don’t subject our wonderful health care to government.”
Never mind that the “government” includes the very people who ask for and receive your election donations year after year. Never mind that you vote for them. It seems that the correlation doesn’t get noticed.
So, how did the American people ever get so dumb?
It didn’t happen overnight.
Ever since Ronald Reagan told Americans not to trust that government was on their side, Americans have distrusted the very institution that created the safety nets and maintains the infrastructure that make our lives possible. But Reagan convincingly said that we could trust him to lead, but government was the Boogie Man. Don’t trust politicians and government because they are definitely out to get you. And it stuck.
George H.W. Bush and his “read my lips, no new taxes” mantra proved that his Thousand Points of Light were in for a rude awakening.
And then came the first Gulf War, and enter: CNN. While it was already a news network since 1980, seemingly overnight, Wolf Blitzer and twenty-four hour news was all the rage.
Suddenly, we got a play-by-play. We felt informed. We could see SCUD missiles flying overhead in real time. We could tune in day or night and feel like we always knew what was going on. CNN seemed at the ready with dedicated reporters who were working around the clock to bring us to the forefront of the most pressing issues of the day. This was exciting!!
And the rest of the media were suddenly thrust into playing catch-up.
Enter: Infotainment. News is boring! How quickly they figured out that leading questions, and the promotion of tantalizing features—and more explicitly, non-news features—were the wave of the future. Why bore people with important facts when they could entertain them with catch phrases, Breaking News Alerts, flashing video features all over the screen, and a scroll at the bottom to add even more information than we could possibly absorb? This was perfect for a non-thinking society, short on patience, which was fast becoming A.D.D. in their approach to almost everything.
If someone told me that there were a hypnotizing feature, imbedded in the blinking lights flashing in the margins of the TV screen, which was making the average citizen pull the lever for stupidity, I would believe them.
While we were all becoming mesmerized by the news of the day, enter: Bill Clinton, a media darling with a twinkle in his eye and a facility at every town hall meeting. And better yet, he was replete with fascinating scandals galore, and a personal life that the media deemed important for all to see. Sure, his meetings-in-the-round were smart, and he had a facility with the media that was, and may still be, unmatched. However, through all of his personal scandal, the 90s were an investment boon and the middle class was comfy and mollified. The rich were getting richer, and the “little” war in Bosnia was not long-lasting and most Americans were behind it. Stocks were going through the roof, 401Ks were flying, and IPOs were daily. That the underlying deregulation that took place during his administration would cause us to crash and burn years later was only known by a few experts who were marginalized and sent packing. So let’s agree, for all intents and purposes, that everything seemed hunky dory.
At this point, trust in government was almost remedied, until Bill Clinton’s relentless attraction to women other than Hillary finally caught up with him. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr cost the taxpayers millions ($60 million, to be exact) to prove that it really matters “what IS is,” and cigars and blow jobs under a desk are more important than foreign policy, domestic policy, and the ability to do the country’s daily business. Through the vehicle of 24-hour news, the country’s trust in government, once again, fell into a tailspin.
And we all know what happened next. Enter: George W. Bush, puppet-master-extraordinaire Karl Rove, the Project-for-a-New-American-Century clan, two stolen elections, and dare I say, Fox News.
I suppose I should blame Ted Turner. He started it, after all, with CNN. But I prefer to blame Rupert Murdoch, who took 24-hours of news and recreated it into 24-hours of lies and deception.
You might ask, how can I blame the systematic dumbing-down of our society on one “news” station? I would have to agree. There isn’t just one culprit. I can blame the dumbing-down of America on the lack of civics education in public schools, and the lack of public education funds resulting in a 25-year absence of consistent Art and Music programs in our public schools. I can conclude there is a lack of creative problem-solving skills as a result. I can claim we have become a country of whiners because people have become lazy. Winning is easy because all kids always “win,” because no one is allowed to “lose.” Everyone gets a gold star even if they have mastered nothing.
I can claim that young people entering the work force are ill-prepared to compete and give up easily because they were all allowed to be “winners” in school. While the government has been insisting No Child is Left Behind, almost every child is left behind. They can pass a standardize test which allows them to advance to the next grade, but they can’t find England on a map. It’s deplorable.
I could blame the elimination of Gym and the fact that kids today don’t exercise every day, while they do spend a minimum of eight hours a day on computers and cell phones and watching TV. I can blame a lack of motivation on the fact that more and more people are obese and understandably can’t be motivated to do more than just get through the day. Obesity has become such a huge epidemic that today, 25% of American children are obese. Most of them are from minority or low-income households. All of this will no doubt tax our health care systems even more in the future.
I can blame our government, which has for decades denied every American the right to affordable health care. While type-II diabetes and heart disease are on the rise, I can easily blame poor nutrition. While so many could use common sense and eat sensibly, it is difficult to hold uninformed, or low-income, families entirely responsible for some of their bad habits. After all, in a bad economy, it is important to remember that one dollar buys three times the number of calories at McDonalds, or in the snack-food aisle, as it does in the vegetable section of the supermarket. Fast food and processed food and mass-produced food are much cheaper to manufacture than real food. If you want a nutritious diet, you have to be able to pay for it.
I could offer that most people really have no idea what is going on. Too many don’t know the basics of politics, good nutrition, or even simple geography. However, more people know who won American Idol last year than know the name of our vice president.
And yet, if you ask them, they say they are informed. More accurately, they feel informed. Why? Because they watch Fox News all the time. Fox News: which is mostly opinion, and very little “news.” Fox News: where their anchors create rumors, express their small-minded and often racist opinions, and then announce to their viewers that “people are saying” something—leaving out the small fact that someone on Fox News made it up. Lo and behold, in less than 24 hours, their audience is indeed repeating this rumor as if it were fact. Who created their own reality? Fox News did. It happens time and time again. It begins in the morning with Fox and Friends, and is carried throughout the day by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. Teary-eyed Glenn Beck scribbles nonsense on a blackboard and becomes one of the most “trusted” personalities on television. And know-nothing Sarah Palin—who was recently described by McCain’s campaign manager Steve Schmidt as grossly ill-prepared to lead on domestic or international policy—became the newest Fox personality to impart her pearls of wisdom.
It’s enough to make a thinking person very, very worried.
So I blame Fox News for the dumbing-down of America and America’s gross lack of understanding of what is actually going on in the world.
I have said this for years. I was scoffed at. How dare I blame one media outlet? Where are my facts and figures?
In my family circle, figures and hard evidence are paramount. But I didn’t need hard numbers. At parties, I’d hear a conservative guest claim a false and inane piece of information as fact. Where did they hear this, I would ask. Fox News. Sean Hannity. Bill O’Reilly. Bar none, they would smile when they thought about how “entertaining” Fox New is. Don’t worry, they might say to me…it’s just fun to watch. But in truth, part of their glee was that to them, Fox News is their secret weapon against the government which is out to get them. And they love Glenn Beck. And by love, I mean looooovvvvvveeeeeee him.
And then the numbers came out. I was vindicated. On January 26, Public Opinion Polling proved my point. 49% of Americans trust Fox News over any other television news source. (37% don’t.) 74% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats put Fox News at Number One on their list. No surprises there.
CNN came in second with a favorable 39%. Oh, how their PR staff must be spinning, trying to come up with a new tagline to replace “The most trusted name in news.”
NBC came in with an overall 35% in favor, 44% against. 62% of Democrats ranked NBC as their number-one source, presumably because of their interest in MSNBC.
CBS, and ABC followed.
I have been taught that if I could prove something statistically, I’d win the argument.
But this is not an argument I’m happy to win. Apparently racism, ignorance, and completely false statements are winning the day with the majority of Americans. Apparently petulant pundits and misdirected anger have wormed their way into the American world view.
If Fox News anchors and pundits are the most trusted speakers on behalf of our citizenry, well, folks, the writing is on the wall.
I could assert that most Americans are complete and total idiots, but I would be accused of seeing this country in black and white. And the numbers are not really on my side.
After all, 49% is not a real majority.
And apparently, 51% isn’t either.
No one is happy, and everyone is angry. We hear more and more polarity: The president is trying to do too much; the president is trying to do too little; changes are getting rammed through Congress; change is not happening fast enough; Republicans are not true Republicans unless they support the Tea Party Movement; Democrats are not true Democrats unless they have progressive ideals.
On January 29th, President Obama said in his Q. & A. with the House Republicans that if they are going to insist on using political tactics…if they are going to obstruct change in favor of re-election…if they are going to say only what they think their constituents want to hear…nothing is going to get done. It was a simple truth. The underlying message was that they are the minority party and it’s high time they realize that. They had 12 years of Congressional power to present and pass their ideas on health care and energy, and everything else they are thwarting today.
He added that they can’t expect that 100%, or even 80%, of their ideas are going to be made into law. “That’s not how democracy works.”
In other words: compromise. Or else.
It sounded so simple. So tempered. So poised. So true. And even a little condescending. Had George W. Bush said, “That’s how democracy works,” I am sure that through my prism, I’d have seen him hunched over his lectern, shoulders heaving with his snarky “Beavis and Butthead” snicker, trying to get a pat on the back from Congress for remembering what he learned from is Government 101 primer. And in that instant, regardless of how upset I am about current foreign policy, I was so happy to have a president who could say those same words, knowing that the underlying message is that he’s willing to consider the best alternatives if their ideas make sense, and if the “math works.” He is willing to do what so many won’t: compromise. Because, that’s how democracy works.
In that moment, I had a little bit of hope.
Obama was not willing to take a flat-out and stubborn “No” for an answer when it comes to moving this country in a better direction. He insisted he would not accept or tolerate that polarized ideologies would win the day.
It was a good lesson: perhaps an even temper and good humor, backed by intelligence, knowledge, desire, and well-used power, can move a person to compromise.
It is a numbers game, and if we can’t work with each other and compromise…if we are going to stamp our feet and act like petulant two-year-olds because we can’t get our way 100% of the time, nothing will ever change.
But at the same time, we are combating a fierce foe: ignorance and misinformation. It must be remembered: Americans listen to who is screaming the loudest. And today, it’s clear that the angriest inmates at Fox News are running the asylum. One could even argue they have actually created the asylum.
If it’s a numbers game, the odds are stacked against us. The sky is falling, and the smartest and most capable among us are the only ones who will be able to hold it up, if only we can get out of our own way.
However, it is clear: it’s not enough to be smart or educated or well-informed.
Maybe it is time to get really, really LOUD.
Email this article...
or Socialize with
Print This Article
TOP
callmeslick comments:
nice piece,Dorian, with some sound observations. Part of why Obama was elected was to be just that sort of ‘loud communicator’ for a common sense approach to government. Not necessarily the purest Progressive point of view, but certainly, one that would help negate the vitrol spewed on a daily basis from both pundits and Conservative activists.
I really think the Mass. vote showed one key thing: the populace is awakening and angry. Now, it is incumbent upon Progressives to harness that anger into a focus on fundamentals. It isn’t the time to rail against every perceived flaw in our current society. It’s time to right the ship of State.
callmeslick comments:
“So, how did the American people ever get so dumb?”
possibly, the hardest part of the problem, in a nutshell.
gpawelski comments:
I agree. I think the Massachusetts election was a result of the health care bill not going far enough. Obama promised a public option, no mandates and no taxes on the middle-class. There is no public option in it, we are mandated to buy private insurance company policies, and they added the Cadillac tax. The people, via Massachusetts, spoke this issue.
Some say that the more progressive and active people who were bouyed by “change” and “hope” saw the compromises, dealings and sell outs on healthcare as neither and decided not to become active in the Massachusetts GOTV campaign.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
If you think the people not voting are doing so because they are dumb… then you are an out of touch Elitist!
I talk with hundrends of people here in Reading every week, specifically about politics, and over and over again, I hear why they don’t vote.
They have been lied to far too often. Here we have it again, the thousands of extra voters in 2008 for Obama, won’t vote again, for they believe Obama has broken his promises. How can you argue with that? He has!
It isn’t even about wining the fight for health care, it’s about actually engaging the powerful interests on behalf of the People. This I say, as do so many others, the President has failed utterly to even attempt. So why vote, when you end up with the same thing economically speaking as what the Republicans offer?
Clinton said it best… “it’s the Economy, stupid.”
Obama can promise all the abortion, gay rights and gun control, but they mean squat to those who can’t pay the bills. DLC Democrats like Obama and Clinton simply care more for vested power (just like a Republican does) then they ever did for the working people of this nation. The people not voting are not stupid. They just don’t have someone representing them, and being the lesser Evil only works on the marginal people.
callmeslick comments:
nonesense, Stefan. Abdicating the exercise of voting rights is abdication of participation in a representative system. Do they not vote because they are stupid? I certainly didn’t mean to imply that, but I would imply that the stupidity that has marked the cable news cycles(and, yes, I would include MSNBC right in there with Fox in that category) reflects NOT some sinister corporate plot, but a desire for market share by for-profit broadcast companies. In order to attract that market share, they have to appeal to a public with the attention span of a gnat, that has little or no grasp of how our nation functions. As for those folks, which you mention, that ‘won’t vote again’ for Obama, they weren’t lied to, they simply didn’t pay enough attention to what he said throughout the campaign. He promised a unifying, centrist approach, emphasizing compromise and consensus-building(there’s that word again). That is precisely what the man has tried to deliver. Hopefully, he can work up the courage needed to throw a lot of his party’s old guard under the wheels of the bus, marginalize the far right, and do the people’s bidding.
DENNISBAYLOR comments:
I think people should look at the full range of facts, sometimes taking the form of statistics, when seriously considering anything. In Mass, in the recent “special” election, there were 6.8 million residents, 5.3 million were qualified electors, 4.1 million were registered to vote. Of that number, despite the campaigns’ flood of $23 million dollars in advertising in the last three weeks, to whip up the electorate, only 2.2 million chose to execise the franchise. Of those, 51.7% voted for Brown, or slightly more than 20% of the people that could, choose him. Which isn’t very good representative democracy.
When people hear “special” election, I think they take the expression at face value, but if you look at the statistics behind them, there really isn’t anything “special” about them save how inimical they are to democracy. In Pennsylvania, in the current General Assembly election cycle, 228 seats are in contention, 6 are vacancies that will be filled by “special” elections. In the most recent instance in our area, to fill the 29th district seat in the state senate, 33,454 votes were cast. An average senate seat in our state is comprised of roughly 250,000 people, and in the general election 4 months earlier for the same seat, 108,531 citizens participated in making the choice.
My point is that it is easy to get worked up about such things, but on closer examination, it is the process that is wrong, not the result.
The other point you make, that I would like to comment on, is your belief that all you have to do to carry the day in contemporary politics, is be LOUD. I don’t believe anything is further from the truth. I think what works today hasn’t changed over our country’s history, and smart beats loud every time.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
I hear over and over again, that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party truly represent these people not voting, and 3rd party and independents have no chance, so they specifically choose to not vote.
So how is voting for candidates that won’t serve their interests actually hurting them?
When are you going to recognize this fundamental truth?
It is the winner take all election system, that dictates two political parties, and that always boils down to the one party in power and the other party seeking to replace them. So in reality, there is only ONE corporate political party with two-factions comprising it, the Democratic faction and the Republican faction. Neither of these political party serves the working people. Both serve the rich, while one throws a few crumbs to the poor.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
Sorry for the ackward sentence… I meant:
How is voting for candidates that won’t serve your interests going to help you?
Please spare me the Republicans will hurt you more argument… I no longer believe it, for the Democrats always seem to be in power when the worse is done to working people, be it the Taft Hartley Act that eviscerated the unions, NAFTA & the WTO that is responsibe for outsourcing, or the latest shafting on health insurance and forcing the working poor to buy private insurance that is all but worthless.
DENNISBAYLOR comments:
Stefan, I didn’t have any partisan context in mind when I said that the “special” election process was inimical to democracy. The process is inherently corrupt, and the two-party system that you seem to view as inevitable is at the core of the problem, because only the democrat and republican parties have access to the “special” election ballot under the laws that these two parties have enacted solely to protect themselves.
In part, this explains how you can have a Mass outcome. What you have to keep in mind, is that in “special” elections the two “brand” name parties don’t have primaries. Under our federal constitution, election laws controling ballot access are within the sole jurisdiction of the states, so there are slight differences between the states. But in Pennsylvania, the candidate nomination process that replaces having a primary is, believe it or not, controlled by the partys’ by-laws, which in turn means that democrats would have their candidate picked by party state committee people from across the state, and republicans pick by mini-convention which is composed of a weighted delegation from the counties covered by the district.
The outcome in Mass shows the danger in picking the person who is the darling of party insiders.
By the way, in Pennsylvania, an independent or third party candidates only route to inclusion in the “special” election ballot is to gather in a 14 day to 21 day period the same onerous number of signatures that they would normally have a 8 month period to gather. The reason the two “brand” name parties have created this blatant disparity is that they realize that “special” elections are “turn-out” elections, and represent a very real chance for third-party candidates to get a foot in the door. Since Pennsylvania adopted the election code sections referenced above, almost a century ago, there has not been an independent elected to the General Assembly. Prior to its adoption, there were generally five distinct parties represented in our General Assembly.
callmeslick comments:
Dennis wrote:”The other point you make, that I would like to comment on, is your belief that all you have to do to carry the day in contemporary politics, is be LOUD. I don’t believe anything is further from the truth. I think what works today hasn’t changed over our country’s history, and smart beats loud every time.”
very well put. Actually, that might be my only real differing point with the original article.
Stefan makes some good points re: the current state of party politics. However, it gets to this point after years of the public sitting idly by and letting the status quo get entrenched. The first step to changing this is for a mass movement to develop (I’m talking statewide, and nationwide) that calls for the wholesale defeat of incumbents. Only when these folks are in true fear for their re-election will electoral reform be made possible.
Sometimes, my view of the electorate, and Stefan’s view of the politicians turns into a true ‘chicken and egg’ debate. I’m not at all sure which is the true driver, but I emphasize the responsibilities of the individual citizen, because, by my way of thinking, that is a foundation of our system of government. We will not get power back, until the vast majority of us agree to demand it.
Dorian Snow comments:
Interesting comments, all.
I feel a clarification of my point about being LOUD is in order. I didn’t mean to imply we need to shout or yell. Rather, we need to be insistent. While many who read these pages are already vocal on issues, there are many who complain silently. Many are afraid to discuss politics for fear of offending someone. I know a lot of people who keep their mouths shut when someone says something political which they may not agree with, for fear of making waves. Speaking about politics has been taboo in our culture because it becomes a source of heated debate, and people just hate to ruin Turkey dinner over a partisan debate. While growing up in my family, we spoke about politics all the time at the table, and many were and are activists. But this was and is not the norm. Yes, absolutely, it is necessary to be educated in civics in order to make better judgements. But without a voice, what change can you effect in the realm of politics? If we have a majority in this country, who statistically are for the ideas we are for, they should not be the Silent Majority. The grassroots campaign which got Obama into office and which would have also worked for Hillary had she won the primary, was highly motivated. But most voters were not activists. And most who worked on the campaign probably sat back after the election. So easily are they dissatisfied with the Obama administration because of policy choices they don’t agree with, and refuse to accept the real fact that there are actually positive “Changes” which have taken place. No, it’s not perfect. Yes, many Bush people are advising Obama. But realistically, would we still have preferred McCain and worse, Palin, running the show? No one can convince me that everything would have been better with them in charge. But if I say patience is in order, that change doesn’t happen overnight, and we have a long road ahead to overturn the sins of the past decade or two, invariably I get the angry smack-down from someone who is pissed that everything else they want to change didn’t happen yet. Tom is absolutley right. Anyone who thought Obama was a progressive or liberal was not listening to him. He’s a conciliator, not a dictator, and that’s one of the things I like about him.
As far a volume goes, it also depends on your audience or your area of influence. If you are preaching to the populace, the louder the better. Think Dukakis. Need I say more? Unless you are motivational, people are not going to get up off their butts and vote for you. And if you ask David Plouffe, who ran Obama’s campaign, the way to guaranty the vote was to remind the base three days in a row before Election Day. Having worked for Obama, I saw how much redundancy there was. They were insistent, though. If you didn’t want to do the tedius, boring, nitty gritty stuff, that’s okay, but they found someone who would. Door hangers were hung on the same doors three days in a row. Calls were made over and over. They were convinced this method of reminding was a requirement. They made an assumption that the electorate had the memory of a gnat. Which they do. Like Tom, I make reference to this constantly. This was the campaign’s version of staying in front of the voter, continually getting their attention, or being “loud.” They didn’t care how many man-hours it took to get this all done. And it took huge organization and lots of time. But in the end, most of the the voters who said they were going to vote for Obama showed up, and that’s the bottom line.
Yes, we are combatting ignorance, apathy, a lack of education, the sense of disenfranchisement, and a populace angered that they lost their 401k if they had one, or their house, or their job, or they are afraid they will lose their job. I know lawyers who were laid off. No one is immune. But it is difficult to make someone care about the real workings of politics when they can’t make ends meet, when they are exhausted because they are working more than one job to support their families, and they are fighting an illness or disease and can’t afford their medication.
So it only compounds this problem that we are also combatting a very vocal and “entertaining” propaganda machine at Fox News who are not inconvenienced by facts or truth. They may not influence you and me, but they are getting more and more popular. And they are appealing to the angry-mob mentality. If they have grown to a support of 49%, my guess is that number will get higher. They convince their viewership with hyperbole, speculation, rumor, and in Beck’s case, uber-emotional delivery. The more Beck cries, and the more he scribbles non-facts on his black board, the more his followers love him. “I feel your pain, folks, *sniff, sniff* I really do. It’s bad out there, it really is.” …..Who would be duped into believing this clown’s rationale? The non-analytical thinker. Let’s just agree that Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness” makes those viewers believe that Fox is telling them the truth because it “feels” like the truth.
Those who read these pages are educated on more facts than the average citizen. And, we are not silent. However, if you want to influence change, and you are not lucky enough to possess quiet power (money or a position of power), then all you may have are a vote and a voice.
Yes, there are many reasons to be disgusted and disgruntled and to feel disenfranchised. I sympathize with all who feel like it makes no difference whom is in office. But, that’s the system we have currently. Changing it would be difficult. But I think I can make the case that voting does matter. If it feels like our representatives, no matter from which party, are the same, that does indeed say more about our system and the quality of the candidates we put forth than anything else. If one is so disillusioned that they think it doesn’t matter whom they vote for, and they have given up altogether, it is difficult to change that mindset. I’m a pretty skeptical person and I have all of my reasons for distrusting the process — not the least of which is the ability for votes to be switched. However, to me, NOT voting is not a better option.
However, to my mind, a more serious problem is that too many have no interest in politics, or have never been encouraged to become engaged in it. For sure, the details are complicated, the jargon makes no sense to many, and the topic is boring to a lot of people. Too many are not registered to vote for a slew of reasons. Many find the subject too complicated to understand because it’s well beyond their comprehension. Some have never participated because they have been influenced by family members who have jaded them. They don’t feel like politics affects them, or that a vote will change anything. And then, obviously, some have let their registration lapse because they haven’t voted in years, and some religions don’t advocate voting.
But voting is darn important, because the vote is difficult to rig and miscounts don’t matter much if the vote isn’t close. By the slimmest of margins, we got eight years of Bush. Granted, the election was stolen twice, but the first time, it was easy to steal because it was FL, arguably one of the most corrupt states in the nation. We know all the reasons: hanging chads, the lawyers’ unfortunate choice (or omission) to not ask that ALL the questionable districts ought to be recounted, and a Supreme Court that stalled their decision and made it impossible to have the votes recounted within the FL timeline. To combat the hanging chad problem, we got Diebold, whose owner told Bush he’d guaranty him re-election. So we got electronic voting machines that could be rigged because there was no paper trail. So, in 2004, since the election hinged on Ohio, and Mike Connell (Rove’s I.T. guru) was able to reroute votes electronically, they could easily return a win for Bush. Had the election not hinged on one state, the outcomes would not have been so easy to manipulate. So, votes do matter. There are some politicians who may be interchangeable, but I fail to believe that Gore’s agenda would have been the same as Bush’s. I will never forget how my heart sank when Bush won in 2000. And I was really bothered by how badly Howard Dean was slaughtered by the media right after the Iowa caucuses of 2004. But I was really angry that Bush beat Kerry and thoroughly drained by that. To know how that election was rigged, and that there was no way to prove it at the time, makes me forgive Kerry for not fighting the result. But that was REALLY a major disenfranchisement of this nation. This is why it is doubly important that people are encouraged to vote. Elections that are not close can’t be easily rigged.
If more people actually took an active interest in politics, and if there were better candidates, AND if there were term limits in Congress, I think we would get a different breed of candidate — one who might want to act on behalf of the people rather than for his own career interests.
A little more insight into MA, I would like to say their electorate are probably among the most well-informed voters. However, they also have a lot of colleges and universities, and many of those who registered in MA to vote for Obama were college students, and not permanent citizens of MA. Some may have been high school students who left the state to go to a school out of state. I don’t have any hardcore figures, but we can assume that many of those registered there could have graduated and left, or they didn’t have any interest in local politics could not be motivated by an election of a representative or senator. I also have read, and believe, that there were some residents who were so appauled that Coakley didn’t know who pitched for the Red Sox, that they scoffed at her ability to represent them. She was up in the polls by 30%, and lost that lead in a few short weeks. I also know that women, especially, thought Brown was very” hot.” On that point, there was actually a very interesting hypocrisy. Remember how Democratic women were disgusted that Republican men were fawning over Sarah Palin in 2008 when she was newly unveiled, when men claimed how great it was that Palin was so “hot looking?” And if you remember, Dem women were spitting bullets: “How dare they be attracted to Palin because she is pretty? She is unqualified, knows nothing, censors books from the library, has a voodoo preacher, and would be a heartbeat from the presidency!!” But, for Scott Brown, he and his stapled pelvis were all the rage, and women in both parties had no trouble with this. But I wonder: had Martha Coakley campaigned while proudly showing her centerfold, is there anyone who doesn’t think she would have been drummed out of the corps in two seconds flat? I’m not positive, but I think there could have been a huge double-standard at play here.
So we can debate whether all the MA voters were motivated by purely political views. At any rate, 80% said that the health care proposal didn’t go far enough. But again, they didn’t need a federal program because they have a state program. Local needs could very well have been the main motivator. Those who did vote may not have had common cause with Scott Brown, but they did want a common result. But the comment I heard most often about him? He was exceptionally “hot.” And Saturday Night Live’s sketch this past weekend drove that point home.
Maybe few bothered to vote, and maybe they thought that they wouldn’t have to live with this result for more than 2 years, so is didn’t really matter much. The short-term goal was to kill the bill. I’d rather have a smaller and informed electorate, than a large uninformed one. Those who are pulling a lever on a feeling, who are barely decided until they cast their ballot, or are literally just saying “eenie-meenie-minie-moe” when they enter the voting booth, do not make me feel confident that the outcomes of our elections are decided by knowledgeable people.
And to the point of how much volume is needed to get the attention of the American people: analytical people don’t need volume. But the average person is easily swayed by broad strokes and will be easily duped if it sounds good. That is why the attraction to Fox News is as disturbing as it is enlightening. Their viewers love the controversy and spin. They love hearing the constant tenor of anger because it reflect their own, whether it is aimed at the “enemy” and al Qaeda, or at the big, bad Democratic party. It’s mostly opinion, very little news. So those viewers are seriously misinformed. While comparisons are made to MSNBC, it’s not a totally fair comparison. MSNBC’s evening shows are certainly liberal in view, (save for the voice of Pat Buchanan), and Morning Joe is mostly opinion (and not mine, usually), but most of their broadcast day is filled with news stories. It must be remembered that while Fox News was developing their fan club, it is no secret they were the unofficial megaphone of the Bush Administration. Their talking points were the White House talking points. Karl Rove used them to his advantage, and surprise, he’s now a contributor. So, a foundation was laid at Fox that they would be a major mouthpiece of the Republican agenda. Now, with a Dem majority in the Executive and Legislative branches, most of the anchors and personalities on Fox appear to be repulsed by every idea the Dems are putting forth. Seeing how much they opposed the bailouts, you’d think they would all be jumping for joy at bank regulations that would attempt to prevent Wall St. meltdowns, and a tax on TARP money, and a financial penalty for farming jobs overseas. But they have real difficulty finding anything positive coming out of this administration, except for the addition of new troops to Afghanistan. But if you want to hear GOP lobbyists’ claim ad infinitum that that “Death Panels” will do in the elderly, or an over-magnification of non-issues that give voice to crazies who are sure Obama is not a citizen, Fox News is your source for ‘fair and balanced’ reporting.
It should be painfully obvious that theatrics and hyperbole make an impact on the American citizen. Most Americans (present company excluded) certainly do have the attention span of a fly. And they need A LOT of reminding. I will offer that unless an issue is in the current news cycle, it will be easily forgotten. This is why Fox repeats the same thing over and over again. Do you know that Bill O’Reilly was still talking about Obama’s supposed “relationship” with Bill Ayers just a few months ago? Even the commentator sitting at the desk next to O’Reilly told him, “Dude, you need some new material.” I would have to agree with that. The dude seriously does.
Lastly, I’m going to mention nutrition as it relates to mental capacity, because this is a very serious problem in this country. As stated yesterday on NPR, 1 out of 8 Americans eats at a soup kitchen at least once per year. That’s a lot! Too many are barely surviving. Those who can scrape some money together are living on Dollar Meals. The average American eats 150-170 pounds of sugar a year. To put this in perspective, 100 years ago, the average intake was four pounds per year. There is 1/4 pound of sugar in a 12 oz. can of soda. If you are eating less than 10 pounds of sugar a year, there is someone eating your other 140 pounds. When a brain is malnourished, it doesn’t develop properly. I.Q.’s will be low. When a pregnant woman is malnourished, the chances of having a child with a lower I.Q. increase. When poor health and diminished brain capacity is more likely, how does that bode for our future? Not well. The ramifications of this situation and a decreasing middle class will be with us for a lifetime.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
Yes Dennis, I am aware of the PA Election Code. My two years as chairman for the Berks Green Party exposed me to much of the ugliness of our state’s election system.
There are actually three categories for a political party. Major, Minor, and a political body. Right now, there aren’t any official Minor Parties in PA. The Greens, the Libertarians, the Constitutionalists, they are all only political bodies.
In 2003 and 2004, the two years I was chairman, the Green Party was a Minor Party, because of the results of the 2002 election. To become a Minor Party in PA, the party needs a statewide candidate to receive 2% of the vote total of the greatest number of votes for any statewide candidate. Mike Morrill achieved this in his run for PA Governor in 2002. Since the Green Party failed to achieve this in 2004, they lost their Minor Party status in 2005.
Besides bragging rights over the other political bodies, being a Minor Party allows for the inclusion in these special elections.
To become a Major Party in PA, the party needs a statewide candidate to receive 15% of the vote total of the greatest number of votes for any statewide candidate. The benefit for this designation is that the party will be included in the Primary election cycle.
Once again, these aren’t permanent designations, they only exist for the two year period following the General election (statewide elections) when they must be recertified.
DENNISBAYLOR comments:
Stefan, I don’t think you are getting my point that “special” elections are inimical to democracy, inherently corrupt, and unconstitutionally disenfranchise voters. Possibly your choice of “ugly” as a description of Pa.’s Election Code is intended to be that strong a condemnation, but to make the observation and then gloss over it into a logical seeming argument that given a proper showing in a prior election, the Green party also would have been allowed to disenfranchise its followers — is to miss the point.
Your also slightly off on your facts concerning the ease with which Minority Parties can access “special” election ballots, see eg BAYLOR v. CORTES, ET AL, 3 MAP 2009, from last years Pa. Supreme Court Session.
My point remains that in these instances where the party rank-and-file are unable to nominate candidates of their choice, and have them square off in a primary, before facing a similarly picked candidate from an opposing party(s) — they only have the illusion of a choice.
Perhaps current events are the best way to understand my point. Today in Daulphin County court, former Representative Mike Veon, is standing trial, with 3 staffers, (7 others have entered plea agreements) on a range of charges involving the use of taxpayer resources for campaign activity. Among the charges in the presentment is that he directed hundreds of taxpayer paid staffers to go through the 2004 nominating petitions of Ralph Nader and the 2006 nominating petitions of U. S. Senate candidate Carl Romanelli , with the ultimate result that both were removed from the ballot. So Pennsylvanian’s funded two rigged elections. In both cases the choice the ballots offered were pure illusion.
Dorian, I was thinking of LOUD, the same way you were when I responded. I think that if you abandon your belief that there is an abstract entity called the “news”, that the media sifts through and then reports on you can see my point. I believe that FOX news is the same as “NETWORK”, and that news is actually made today much the same as in the movie Network. For example, who would be a better Howard Biele than Glenn Beck. Another belief I have is that in our “Network” news world, the made-up news is not made up of deeds, but rather it is made-up of PR. Its not ideas and events that are news, it is how they are promoted. I am not saying any of this is as it should be, but it is what makes the Colbert Report, the excellent spoof of FOX that it is.
p.s. Polls that add up to more than 100% are meaningless.
Dorian Snow comments:
Dennis, “PR” sums up Fox well.
I agree that most networks are not beholden to reporting “news.” I’m sure you know I agree. As I said, it’s “Infotainment.” Good term, often used.
Sorry for the confusion about the poll. It’s not meaningless. (I am having difficulty opening the poll because my Adobe Reader is not compatible. Hope to rectify that in a minute)
Meanwhile, you can find the poll on their website. Perhaps your Adobe Reader is compatible with theirs.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/
TV News Poll, Jan. 26.
Basically, Public Opinion Polling was not asking the sample of viewers which was their favorite network. They asked them to list the ones they trust, and the ones they do not trust. It was not a sliding scale and they could vote for more than one network. I am presuming that having no bias was also allowed, which is why for/against votes didn’t add to 100% either. In as much as I don’t know the statistical term for this, I can only reference that this was like a Plurality-at-large vote, where they could vote for a bloc.
I will not abandon my belief that a “news” network does, in fact, exist, because it does exist on PBS and CNN International, and elsewhere.
Dorian Snow comments:
Dennis - Still can’t read the poll itself. From the homepage of Public Policy Polling:
“Fox News is the only major tv news operation that more Americans trust than distrust.”
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
I do understand your point of contention Dennis, and I agree, but how do we amend the election code with the current attitude in Harrisburg?
I guess I was making a tangental point, since the Green Party did nominate a candidate for a special election in 2003. The party has no “bosses” though, the Greens work through consensus, so a meeting was scheduled and every registered Green was allowed to participate in nominating this candidate to serve in that special election.
The Democratic Party could hold a caucus as well, but the leadership doesn’t have much “democracy” in mind when it comes to sharing power!