[Prairiegreens-org] Re: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates

[John W.]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

The typical discussion in the midst of the 2004 election apparently went as
> follows:
>
>  POLLSTER: Have you heard anything about George Bush's position on the
> Kyoto Protocol?
>  BUSH VOTER: No.
>  POLLSTER: Do you think President Bush would support the Kyoto Protocol?
>  BUSH VOTER: What's the Kyoto Protocol?
>  POLLSTER: It's an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gasses that
> seem to cause climate change.
>  BUSH VOTER: Well, that sounds like a good idea, so I'm sure George Bush
> would support it.
>  POLLSTER: Why are you sure?
>  BUSH VOTER: Because Bush is a good man with good values, so he'd certainly
> do the right thing on a matter like that.
>  POLLSTER: So you're sure he'd support the Kyoto Protocol?
>  BUSH VOTER: Yes.
>
> A *majority* of people who voted for Bush in 2004 answered like that.
>  (Some of them of course had heard of the Kyoto Protocol.)  --CGE


This gets more hilarious by the minute.  I've been the pollee in a fair
number of polls, both on the phone and in person, and there is NEVER a
conversation like this.  The pollster reads the question from an approved
questionnaire, and you answer yes or no.  Not only does the pollster not ASK
clarifying questions, but you can't even DRAW said pollster into any sort of
discussion of the real issues by saying such things as, "Hmmm....the way
this is phrased, I don't agree with ANY of the choices."  So Carl, where
exactly did this "apparent" conversation take place?  In your febrile mind?

In an earlier post on this thread you refused as usual to admit that
Americans are stupid, but a sentence or two later you stated that they had
been "infantilized".  I'm afraid I don't understand the difference, or
rather feel that it's a distinction without much of a difference.  I prefer
Jenifer's term, "ignorant".  And the reason I (and apparently Jenifer) think
that most Americans are ignorant is because they're not INTERESTED in
politics or public affairs or history or even geography, failing most of the
time to understand what it has to do with their daily lives.  Why are
Americans so frightfully easy to infantilize, Carl?  Why is it so
frightfully easy for our government and media to "manufacture their
consent", essentially the SAME consent over and over and over again using
the SAME lies and propaganda?

I see it in the Xanga blogosphere.  I see it on my high school reunion
forum.   I see it everywhere I go with the exception of small groups of
"progressives" in C-U who already agree with one another:  The "average"
American wants to believe vapid cliches about the goodness and specialness
of the U.S. of A.   And the more cliched the sentiment the more inclined
s/he is to embrace it.



Jenifer Cartwright wrote:

 Right, no reason for those comfy/uncomfy, settled in or not, televiewing
> Americans to pay attention to world or national (or local) politics until
> something immediately affects THEM, and then they might take notice. Yes,
> Iraqis definitely have more to talk about in coffee houses (for those w/
> money enuff living in areas safe enuff to frequent them). Then again,
> FOOTBALL doesn't actually affect Americans...
>
>
> Again, I'd use the word ignorant, rather than stupid. Re the point y're
> trying to make, polls are a joke. Trust me, most non-voters -- and many
> voters as well -- haven't the faintest idea where Kyoto is located, let
> alone what the Kyoto agreement(s) involved.
>
>  --Jenifer
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 7/8/08, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
>
>    From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>    Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
>    To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
>    Cc: "Walter Pituc" <wpituc2 at gmail.com>, "Peace-discuss List"
>    <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, "Prairie Greens of East Central
>    Illinois" <prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net>
>    Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 10:39 PM
>
>    Why?  Because they're particularly stupid? Or because they're the object
>    of the    most expensive propaganda campaign in history?
>
>    There's little doubt that the sophistication of the political discussion
> in
>    any    coffee shop in Baghdad is conducted at a much more sophisticated
> level than    similar conversations in US coffee shops, bars, or faculty
> lounges.
>
>    Again, why?  Because Americans are dumber? Or because it's literally a
>    matter of    life and death elsewhere, altho' it's not for infantilized
> Americans?
>
>    In fact, however, in spire of all these ministrations, the US populace
> holds    political opinions substantially to the left of the official
> political parties.
>
>      If you doubt that, look at the answers that Americans give to
> pollsters on    issues -- e.g., healthcare, Iraq, the influence of big
> business, the    responsibility of the government to provide jobs, etc.
>
>    That's why national candidates have to run on personality, not issues --
>    because    American don't agree with either the Republicans or the
> Democrats on
>    issues.    (Example: a majority of those who voted for George Bush in
> 2004 thought that he
>
>    supported the Kyoto agreement -- because the Kyoto agreement was
> reasonable,
>    and    Bush was apparently a reasonable man...)  --CGE
>
>
>    Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>    > Carl,
>    >    > I grant you that many/most who are eligible to vote, do not vote
> in    > national elections (and even more skip the local elections). You
> believe    > these particular folks are staying home because there are no
> candidates    > that you and they can truly support, and that they'd be out
> there if    > there were. I believe they're staying home because they're
> just    > not interested in politics and haven't a clue what's going on in
>    their    > country or the world, nor are they interested in finding out.
> Pushed to    > hazard a guess or state an opinion, they'll say something
> positive
>    about    > the good old US of A.    >    >  --Jenifer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080709/dd7b9150/attachment.htm