some election day thoughts
i am very interested to see the distribution in age and internet access among people who continue to believe lies about barack obama's citizenship, religion, ethnicity, affiliations, etc. i think that the existence of this group is not only a reflection of the multitude of derisive viewpoints presented online, but, more so, that some of those who end up believing lies about obama do not have the presence of mind, or perhaps the basic ability, to critically evaluate what they take in via internet media. (it reminds me of david st. hubbins in 'spinal tap' when he says, "i believe virtually everything i read.") too many people simply believe what they read online at face value, and i think this is correlated with age and internet access, to some degree. for others, the lies are just a convenient way to repackage racist sentiment or other prejudices, so those beliefs would arise regardless of being exposed to some sort of online attack.
it's remarkable what the two-party system has led to... to be a "stereotypical", or perhaps "ideal", democrat or republican a person has to have such an incredibly narrow viewpoint on myriad topics. (in my mind and in the minds of innumerable republicans, sarah palin is an "ideal" republican as far as her espoused ideology.) considering the impact of social entropy, we're only going to have more issues, more policies to consider, more problems to address, resulting in a larger variety of distinct opinions over time. how can we expect one of two parties' ideologies or its representatives to satisfy the ever-diversifying viewpoints of the electorate? it's not necessarily as if a voter would agree with republicans on 30% of the issues, and democrats on the other 70%; rather, it's more likely that some percentage of their opinion set will not be reflected by any candidate. right now, we have one more mainstream political party than a communist country -- how can we expect to have our viewpoints fully expressed in a political election process that stifles diversity of opinion?
7 comments:
Here's Jean-Francois Lyotard, from The Postmodern Condition," Ch. 14, Legitimation by Paralogy. The excerpt is not specifically about our two parties, it is about the system of knowledge generally but it certainly applies. Lyotard would probably say that the two parties are operating at peak performance:
"On one hand, the system can only function by reducing complexity, and on the other, it must induce the adaptation of individual aspirations to its own ends. The reduction in complexity is required to maintain the system's power capability. If all messages could circulate freely among all individuals, the quantity of the information that would have to be taken into account before making the correct choice would delay decisions considerably, thereby lowering performativity. Speed, in effect, is a power component of the system. [Read closely here] The objection will be made that these molecular opinions must indeed be taken into account if the risk of serious disturbances is to be avoided, . . . [but] it is possible to guide these individual aspirations through a process of 'quasi-apprenticeship,' 'free of all disturbance,' in order to make them compatible with the system's decisions. The decisions do not have to respect individuals' aspirations: the aspirations have to aspire to the decisions, or at least to their effects. [And this next line is key] Administrative procedures should make individuals 'want' what the system needs in order to perform well."
You can see how the threats to the system from within can be easily mitigated.
You're right that the perfect, ideal Democrat or Republican would have a narrow viewpoint. Better for the system. But isn't he or she ultimately equivalent to the person of wide viewpoint who becomes enveloped by the Party (by voting for it) because those concerns will be mitigated by the Party?
Media is key. Internet media is key. Depopularization of the two parties. They need to be seen as uncool, like being uninformed is uncool. More voices minus corporate interests. More debates. More voices at the debates. More threats to the system from the outside, blah, blah.
follow-up on voter demographic break-down >> here.
Ha! Is that for real?
i'm not sure if it's been authenticated, but it seems legit!
i like this answer to the question of why AOL users are so overwhelmingly republican >>
"AOL users are by and large people who fear and resist change -- would rather cling onto crappy unimaginative experiences that are familiar to them (even if that means being ignored, insulted, disdained, or disrespected) than venture into something new, even if it would be worlds better."
See Naomi Klein today on DN! regarding the bailout and "what the [financial] system needs." Basically she predicts the Obama admin will decide that we need what the system needs--more of the same, money injections.
Also, some of the bailout actions seem to be illegal.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/naomi_klein_on_the_bailout_profiteers
it seems like the democrats are going to try to push through some form of american auto-maker relief to the tune of about $25 billion from the already allotted $700 billion. i am so sick of this. there are fewer groups less deserving of this kind of government (life-) support than the Big Three. they have consistently lied to, misled, and betrayed the american people with regard to fuel efficiency standards, alternative energy designs, etc. the auto industry has completely turned a blind eye to the consequences of their willful contribution to so many of the problems facing the US today, and here is congress, ready to give them more money to continue their ways. they've dug themselves this hole by not responding to their customer base and by sternly opposing reasonable, common-sense government regulations, so why in the world should we continue to help them? a recent quote i heard about the potential auto industry bailout >> you can keep giving a bad restaurant your money, but that won't make their food any better.
Yeah, why the fuck are they doing that? Sorry, but I think the future for corporations will have to be something like: if the business can't be environmentally harmless, and if it can't provide living wages among other things, then it has no right to exist.
These bailouts have also got me thinking about the disturbing popularity of anti-government, anti-regulatory Libertarian ideology among young people--the Libertarian Party I think is the third largest and third oldest political party round here. These freaks (blatantly, their only platform is "free market" capitalism) and Republicans don't seem to understand that the financial problem is hugely due to rampant "free market" ideology.
Some things just have to be regulated not by consumer choice/consumers' dollars (often consumers have no choice), but by government. The auto industry is one. Pollution industry another. Financial markets another.
But even gov'ts at the G-20 can't seem to kick the idea of deregulation. . . . Why? What's the incentive?
Post a Comment