[Peace-discuss] Not voting

Tue Jan 29 12:13:04 CST 2008

While on the subject of "not voting," I happened to be noticing all those
headlines about how the Kennedy's have passed the torch to Obama.  It made
me wonder why on earth anyone would want to give someone else a flashlight
that is burnt out and has no batteries.  Is that the new "kiss of death?"
In this election, it appears to be the equivalent of Bill Clinton passing
the Hillary Clinton the mantel of Monica L.

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:49 AM
To: Peace Discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Not voting

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
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8H
DtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20>  it now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080129/f770f54c/attachment.htm