[Peace-discuss] Not voting

[David Green]

A few mundane and debatable observations from someone who has followed the debates, analysis, and other coverage on CNN, for whatever combination of morbid curiosity and masochism. Perhaps this all is obvious even to those who don't indulge:
   
  The moderators and pundits have (or of course they wouldn't be allowed to do what they do) an impeccable sense of the wishes of the ruling class. They were scared by Huckabee (who is too authentic of a Christian fundamentalist, with just a hint of populism), and realize that the sleazy Giuliani puts a bad face on the ruling class. Romney is a stiff, uncharismatic Mormon who is actually a businessman, however unscrupulous. Have you noticed how our president is never an actual businessman? This would make the connection too obvious--you need a war hero, an actor, an Ivy-Leaguer, a fake cowboy, an Elvis impersonator, whatever. Thus, the pundits have thrown their weight to McCain (NYT), and he seems to be a lock. The methods of persuasion are none-to-subtle to the marginally trained eye.
   
  On the Democratic side, Edwards (in spite of being a hawk) was ruled out for his tepid populism. The media feasts on the petty identity politics between Clinton and Obama, with the word "firestorm" being used repeatedly. They prefer Clinton's "experience", but realize that liberals are in thrall to Obama, and since the latter is no threat to the ruling order, the media can tolerate and even prosper from the theater of a "contest" between a woman and an African-American. Moreover, the identity politics can be extended through the general election campaign, saving the effort of even the pretense of attention to the issues. Ultimately, again, the media prefer Clinton, because she will bring all the delicious drama of Billary and Clinton-hating to the campaign (with its benefits of reinforcing the fictional differences between liberals and conservatives), and provide McCain with a better chance of winning. They are slightly wary and patronizing of alleged "idealism." But the
 Kennedy-wave is alluring, easily-ridden, will be good for ratings, and will ensure another generation of cynical liberals who will regret lost opportunities rather than facing reality. You need to do this every 40 years or so.
   
  In an era of even less discernable differences between parties and candidates, the media have manufactured a scenario that pleases them and their masters no end. The campaign has been successfully reduced to a TV reality show, except that the consequences are all too real.
   
  DG

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  Actually, the opposite is probably the case. By getting you to 
participate in the highly conditioned system that produces a president, 
the USG claims that you've ratified it.

Example: everyone within the limits of allowable debate discusses the 
"Reagan landslide" produced by the "great communicator." In fact, three 
out of four eligible voters did *not* vote for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 
(Half didn't vote, and he took half of the votes of those who did.) But 
he was said to have a mandate.

In fact, outside to the "tertiary bourgeoisie" (roughly the 
college-educated third of the population), Americans know that the 
presidential election is a matter for the advertising industry (hence 
its expense), the media, and a peculiar group of celebrities -- "show 
business for ugly people."

As Chomsky says, you have to be highly educated to believe nonsense like 
this, and most Americans don't. They don't vote, not because they're 
content (they're not), but because they know that it won't make much 
difference.

Think of the presidential elections in your lifetime: can you say that 
things would have been substantially different if the principal opponent 
had won? (Kerry? Gore? Dole? Bush Sr.? Carter? etc.) The system has been 
designed by means of the greatest American invention -- the PR industry 
-- so that it's largely a matter of indifference to those who hold 
wealth and power in this country, who actually is elected.

But they do want you to ratify it. --CGE


Karen Medina wrote:
> Silence means consent.
> 
> If you are happy and content, then stay home. 
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080129/32f083ce/attachment.htm