John McCain and Sarah Palin Think Americans Are Stupid

by: Daniel De Groot

Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:00


So the McCain campaign has been lying with near impunity.  Josh wonders:


The McCain campaign's ability to frame their message around a series of demonstrable lies is only possible because most of the press takes an agnostic position on whether his messages and ads are true or not. But if the press won't, don't we need to stop relying on the mainstream press to make that point?

Obama has started to address this, but he needs to go a step further.
Daniel De Groot :: John McCain and Sarah Palin Think Americans Are Stupid

"You can't just make stuff up," Obama says, perhaps optimistically. "The American people aren't stupid."

Atrios nails it:


the Obama campaign really has to make it a little stronger and make it clear that McCain and Palin are acting as if they think people are stupid.

I should have thought of this myself.  A couple years ago I saw Jon Stewart do stand up in Toronto, and one line in particular really stuck with me (from a great performance), quoting from memory:


When I see President Bush get out there and stand in front of the media and they ask him something like "Mr President, how do you account for the lack of WMDs in Iraq?" and he responds (Bush voice) "See, people love freedom.  Freedom tastes like ice cream."

(audience laughter)

When I see him say things like that, I don't think he's stupid, I think he thinks we're stupid.

(Hence the title of this post)  I argued before that John McCain doesn't care would be a great line of attack.  The blasé disregard for the truth McCain and Palin are demonstrating certainly shows that they don't care, but it also reveals the utter contempt with which they hold the voters.  And that is actually an even better attack.

One of the problems in playing counter-punch (and please no "rope-a-dope" theories, that is terrible strategy in a political campaign) is that your opponent has chosen a line of attack on you which they believe is most effective.  When you counter attack, if you stick to this ground, it is unlikely the opponent has selected something they are particularly vulnerable on (unless you're lucky enough to have someone throwing rocks at you from seven glass houses).  So when you counter, it is on your weakness and their not-weakness (or even strength).  You can try to change the subject to your opponent's weakness, but that is usually awkward and actually may hurt you more if the media senses blood in the water, that you are evading an uncomfortable subject.

This is why McCain chooses, say, taxes.  He only wants to lower them.  Everyone "wins" in this formulation (forget about his health care tax, that's not billed as such so it rarely gets discussed in that way).

Here though is a good way of pivoting to counter attack McCain/Palin on grounds that are weak for them. Polling already shows that by double digits voters already believe Obama "cares about people like them" more than McCain (53-36).  So hit the lying aristocrat on being disdainful of the common person.  After all, he is lying repeatedly about Obama's tax plan, Palin's record,  Obama's position on Iran, etc.  

You don't lie to people you care about, and you certainly don't respect people much if you lie to them.  As I argued before in the "McCain doesn't care" theme, it becomes a character attack that allows you to discuss the issues too.  Rebutting the lies then becomes more than merely setting the record straight, it becomes grounds to portray McCain himself as another lying politician/Republican/conservative, willing to say anything to get power.

The media is actually starting to notice all the lies and Obama's ads are accusing them of lying so I think this could be fruitful.  Just connect the dots Obama.  People who tell lies have contempt for those they tell the lies to.  McCain is lying to the American people.  What must that imply about his opinion of them?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
John McCain and Sarah Palin Think Americans Are Stupid | 52 comments
Made the right points in his speech (0.00 / 0)
Even though his performance wasn't so great in the first two thirds of that video clip. He really has some difficulties when speaking freely. And let's not forget that such a speech in recession struck Flint, MI, Michael Moore's home town (!), is largely praying to the choir. However, the right points alright. Now, this has to get into TV channels, too, either in form of reports or as ads. Too few people read newspapers anymore, and there's two few editors caring about reporting the truth as it is. But these points have to be brought to the attention of the US public.  
I hate to break it to you, but 15% of voters ARE stupid: (0.00 / 0)
15% of voters polled think Obama is Muslim AND has a crazy Christian pastor.

When asked if the media were biased for a candidate, 15% said they didn't know what "bias" meant.

65% of voters want more offshore drilling.  50% of voters think offshore drilling will lower gas prices (that 50% is just wrong).  So, 15% of voters want to drill EVEN though it won't lower prices.

Dems need their share of that stupid vote! (0.00 / 0)
30% of diehard rethuglicans plus those 15% stupids make 45% percent. McCain only needs some swing voters to win!

So, the Dems should read out to those incapable of logical thinking and feed them some stuff about McCain. They don't even have to make things up, the truth is awful enough. For instance, every stupid voter should know that straight talkin' John called his wife a c***. In public. Let's spread the word and make it happen.

(I'm not entirely serious here, but still, a vote is a vote is a vote. And it better be for Obama.)

[ Parent ]
Overlap (4.00 / 3)
Don't you think that there is a huge amount of overlap between that 15% stupid and that 30% Republican?

Not snark at all even as people who are willing to delude themselves to this point on those issues are likely to vote Republican anyway.

[ Parent ]
I know, I know (0.00 / 0)
that my calculation is silly. That's what I meant when I wrote I'm not entirely serious.  
[ Parent ]
Ah, But Are You Joking Now??? (0.00 / 0)
What I'm saying now is not what I mean.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Do you see me laughing??? (0.00 / 0)
And I thought you know that I never can be serious. Seriously.
:D
(^! Yeah, I know, that's soo late 90s...)
[ Parent ]
Bad math (0.00 / 0)
30% of diehard rethuglicans plus those 15% stupids make 45% percent.

These groups are clearly not mutually exclusive ;-) I would assume that 2/3 of that 15% is already part of that 30%.

So, no, we don't have to spend resources on the stupids.

[ Parent ]
Not spending resources, but... (0.00 / 0)
reaching out to them. Personally. If you have an old aunt, for instance, who isn't really paying attention to politics, feed her the c*** story and how McCain left his poor wifey after her accident in order to marry the rich blonde heiress. Every vote counts (uh, theoretically, hopefully, I mean).
[ Parent ]
you're telling people to manipulate their aunts? (0.00 / 0)
i mean, sure it's one approach and when worst comes to worst....  the other one is to talk to people who will be receptive to what you actually believe if you express it the right way :)
[ Parent ]
Another time Obama is doing what people say he should be doing (0.00 / 0)
This is starting to be my pet peeve: pointing out that Obama is doing essentially what people want him to do, even if he's not using the exact recommended language.

I don't know how many times I've heard Obama use the "they think you're stupid" line, but it's definitely a standard approach for him.  And I do think he's "connecting the dots" as well.

Problem is, he isn't reaching the swing voters (0.00 / 0)
Holding speeches in front of already seriously concerned auto workers is fine, but how much additional votes does it bring? Dems need a higher multiplicator effect to counter McCain. Condense this speech into several short TV ads that run every single day until the lection or something. Repitition is everything. 'McCain, more of the same' has to become the first thing that comes into people's minds when thinking about the "Maverick".  
[ Parent ]
Flint Auto Workers (0.00 / 0)
Are swing voters, the classic "Reagan Democrats," with whom his message of retooling Detroit for clean car manufacture should resonate.  

[ Parent ]
Hmm, "Roger and me"... (0.00 / 0)
left a different impression with me, not that those folks would likely would for a rethuglican again after eight years of Bush, but maybe I'm to far away from the place to get the right picture...
[ Parent ]
I found "Roger and Me" (0.00 / 0)
to be only so much patronizing, data-free drivel.  Funny for sure, but nearly always at the expense of those for whom it purportedly sought to advocate.
[ Parent ]
Don't think Moore really tried to "advocate"... (0.00 / 0)
GM CEO Roger Smith! And the guy most certainly isn't a possible Obama voter. But your mileage may vary.
(even though we Yurpeans generally get a better mileage...)
[ Parent ]
You do understand (0.00 / 0)
I meant the people Roger Smith laid off.
[ Parent ]
How About This For An Ad: (4.00 / 6)
Voiceover:

"They think you're stupid. They think they can just lie with impunity."

Screen shows shots of McCain & Palin overlayed with series of headlines and quotes about McCain/Palen lies from "mainstream" media.

"Just like the last team their party gave us."

Switch to shots of Bush/Cheney with lies--WMDs, Katrina (shots of flooding/devastation), "strong economy" (back to Bush/Cheney).

"They ran as reformers, too."

Headlines/guotes from Bush's "reformer with results" phase.

"They may be nice people to the people they like."

Back to McCain/Palin with puff piece headlines/quotes.

"Or the people like them."

More McCain/Palin pics, headlines/quotes all about McCain's "how many houses?" and his wife's $300,000 outfit.

"But the people they like aren't you."

Switch to pictures of ordinary Americans, headlines/quotes--maybe even a chart about how McCain's tax cuts benefit him, while Obama's benefit the vast majority.



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

What's "impunity", pls? (0.00 / 0)
OK, of course I can look it up, but my point is, can't this be said in simpler, more direct words?
[ Parent ]
How about... (4.00 / 1)
'they think they can lie straight into your face' instead?
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I Hesitated Over That (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure there's research to say how many native speakers know what it means.  If it's 90% or better, I'd say use it, because it implies such utter contempt.

That's why I went with it, because it's the strongest version I could write.  You can always water something down as needed.

"First thought.  Best thought." as they say in the trade.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
IMPUNITY (0.00 / 0)
"They think you're stupid. They think they can just lie with impunity."
Sadly, I'm afraid that the word "impunity" means little to many Americans.  

I would use:
"They think they can just lie and get away with it."
OR
"They think they can just lie and lie and lie."
OR
"They think they can just lie because they figure you aren't smart enough to know the truth."

[ Parent ]
John McCain and Sarah Palin Think Americans Are Stupid (0.00 / 0)
who doesn't?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Folks Like Me Who Aren't So Damn Contemptuous of People We Don't Know (4.00 / 2)
Most people reaize they can't have much control over politics, so they don't pay much attention to it.  This is, in one sense, a very rational decision on their part.

Lies may work on them, simply because they've made a rational decision about time allocation.  If we don't realize this, and adjust accordingly, we're the ones who are stupid.

Misrepresenting this as "stupidity" on their part may make you feel good about yourself, but in the end the only one it really hurts is you, because this sort of mistaken analysis virtually ensures your political ineffectiveness.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
The media disagrees with you. (0.00 / 0)
All you have to do is quit forwarding through the tv advertising to see what America's most powerful "communicators" think of their compatriots. A casual count suggests that somewhere between 90-95 percent of advertising is targeted at the level of extremely stupid. And it works.

Whatever the reality, though, arguing about whether Americans are smart or stupid is politically irrelevant. If the case can be made that McCain's lies prove that he thinks Americans are stupid, he'll lose. That's all that matters.

[ Parent ]
Stupid? (0.00 / 0)
Considering that a person can make a decision on whom to vote for with at most a little concentrated study a week before the election, it isn't stupid to tune out the specifics of the daily charges and countercharges flung about.  It is rational.

That isn't really what is happening.  The reality is that voters don't behave rationally.  Some voters make their decisions based on how they feel about a candidate's integrity, some make their decisions based on biased pundits in an echo chamber they select to the exclusion of objective information, some make their decisions based on prejudice, some make their decisions based on single issues that might have very little to do with an objective analysis their general welfare (eg, anti-immigrant, ignoring healthcare), some make their decisions based on self image (eg, I'm Republican because I'm strong; I'm a Democrat because I'm compassionate).  The last element seems to be strongest for many people, especially the most partisan voters - they want to remake society to reflect their values, and because elections are a symbolic battles over their own core beliefs, they become extremely entrenched, bitter, and nasty.

McCain has every reason to treat voters as if they are stupid.  Palin has every reason to lie.  Because, regardless of the actual IQs of individual voters, millions of them behave as if they are stupid.

It isn't an issue of time allocation.  It really didn't take much to determine, in 2000, that Bush was not equal to the job of President.  It was apparent watching the debates.  It is certainly true that many in the media spun the debates to create an impression that Gore "lost" because he sighed too much or whatever and that some of Bush's factual errors (eg, mistating his own drug plan) were underreported.  But the information was there, on television, for everyone to see.

I realize that politicians can't be too open about their justified contempt for voters.  But contempt for the entire process, including the behavior of the voters, is well-earned.

I don't have an answer, other than a little zen is in order.  I was told recently that this is the most important election of my lifetime.  Of course, that isn't true: the 2000 election was an important election, and the 1980 election was important.  This one pales in comparison.  Democrats keep coming up with theories: the Republicans win because of framing or Nixonian resentment or whatever.  But the fact may be that we simply live in a Republican era, due to a cultural backlash against social progress in the sixties and seventies, or because the United States has passed its zenith and is now a declining empire engaging in militarism to compensate for its defeat in Vietnam, or because global economic trends are distinctly against labor regardless of the political system in place, or for some other reason I haven't considered.

Elections are ultimately a random process.  Part of the reason is that voters act as if they are stupid, and no amount of media reform or education will ultimately change that fact.  I suppose there is a moral question for the politicians - how far are they, personally, willing to stretch the truth.  But for the rest of us, we are ultimately at the mercy of the "independents" - a grand word for voters who, if anything, are probably somewhat less informed than average.  

[ Parent ]
dispiriting, overgeneralized, and inaccurate (4.00 / 2)
Elections are ultimately a random process.  Part of the reason is that voters act as if they are stupid, and no amount of media reform or education will ultimately change that fact.

If this is true, why did union  and union household voters in Ohio support Kerry and non-union voters support Bush?   What you're saying points to the importance of effective tactics - within electoral politics - and effective strategy to build a social movement.

I simply refuse to believe that ordinary people don't understand their own issues - I think the problem is that the social institutions, the information, the ideas around them, and the way that all these have been controlled, have made them receptive to being lied to.  And the fact that the U.S. political system is geared to not allow any political party to implement its agenda until it organizes for like 30 years doesn't help matters in terms of people's confidence in Washington, doesn't allow real choices (i mean, what would be the harm in fusion voting?  what would be anti-democratic about instant run-off voting?).

Don't blame the people - it's the people subtly or overtly manipulating them that are the problem.

[ Parent ]
"Refuse to believe" is a telling phrase. (0.00 / 0)
But why would you believe that "the people" are somehow blameless?

It seems a blind prejudice to me.  All around the world, and all throughout history, people have supported the elites in senseless wars and oppressive social structures.  Were "the people" of America blameless for slavery?  Were they blameless for supporting the Iraq invasion at 70-80%?  Certainly there is a feedback loop between the populace and the opinion makers, but the populace aren't blameless.

Can you point to a time, in the history of this country or any other, when a large part of the populace didn't hold some irrational prejudice, and gleefully devour the most vile and dishonest propaganda to defeat the lowest in their society or to promote the interests of the elite?

I can't think of a time when that happened.  I can't think of a time with most people clearly voted the interests of the country, or even their own interests.  

In fact, such a Rousseauian vision of the common man corrupted by social institutions is contrary to what psychology, sociology, and anthropology teaches us.

Leave aside philosophy, and consider what's being discussed today.  Can you conceive of a person rationally voting for McCain because he picked some hockey mom from Alaska as his running mate?  Can you imagine someone actually rationally voting for McCain because Obama is a snotty elitist?  Can you imagine someone voting against McCain because his wife is rich and he can't keep track of her houses?  I would think that a functioning democracy would have people voting on Iraq, healthcare, taxes, etc.  And, once a person made that fundamental decision on policy, I'm not sure why they would care if the other side were old, elitists, or ran more dishonest ads, etc, unless there were something truly disqualifying, like embezzlement, etc.

There is some coherence to strategy, as there is with any contest.  The candidates can make pitches and develop themes as a marketing strategy, like any other marketing strategy.  But it is, essentially, random - not in some absolute cosmic sense, but in that it will bear only a tangential relationship to the qualifications and policies of the people running.  

[ Parent ]
i don't think they're blameless (4.00 / 2)
nor do I think I am.  But I don't think it's a productive response to the udnerstanding that the American working class is complicit in global imperialism, that tens of millions of people vote for an extremely right wing party, that ideological pluralism is not valued in the United States, etc., that lots and lots of people (including me at times) do all kinds of things that are vehemently objectionable to me.  People are FAR from perfect.  My point was that they are not stupid and understand their day-to-day interests quite well - if they are acting irrationally (from an outside vantage point in this particular context) perhaps it is because the question is framed wrong or the choices seem so bad that the only option is despair ;)  Or perhaps it is because they are racist, or Christian fundamentalists.  Or perhaps it is because they are classist.  Or perhaps it is because they really believe int he ideology of what the guy is preaching.  

What I am saying is simply the serenity prayer - control what you can, don't control what you can't, and know the difference.  And I think arguing that the election is a random walk is a mistake and dismisses the importance of agency and power and going BEYOND the election to social movement strategies that include but are not limited to the election.  

There are social and economic structures at play-class, gender, race, sexuality, citizenship, etc.--and different people respond to them differently - and THAT is where you can judge them, not for the existence of the systems into which we are all born and forced to live.

But below is a more fun way to say some of that, from a slightly different vantage point :)

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine -- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration - whereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death, or the end of some awful bloody struggle - are celebrated with a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way.
Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth - and the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now High Chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.

So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot!


[ Parent ]
Recapping (0.00 / 0)
First, it does seem that we are a little off the track of discussing whether voters are stupid, or whether it is justiable to treat them as stupid.

And, it is my view that treating large sections of the electorate as stupid is a good winning strategy.  And, it's also my view that people - many people, maybe all of us - willfully hold onto prejudices that we have good reason to discard.

So the result will be irrational, often, and the path to victory will be irrational

I'm not sure we are in vast disagreement about that.  Maybe we are.

Where we are probably in vast disagreement is institutional structural change, or social movement strategies and their likely effect.

But that's a long discussion, probably best carried on elsewhere.

[ Parent ]
but they're intricately connected (4.00 / 1)
Where we are probably in vast disagreement is institutional structural change, or social movement strategies and their likely effect.

But that's a long discussion, probably best carried on elsewhere.

What you are talking about is a coolheaded, analytical assessment of empirical realities.  And whereas I might agree with you about the first, I think your assessment of the empirical realities and potentialities of people and social movements is misdirected.

But, as you wish :)

[ Parent ]
Misdirected, how? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
dispiriting (0.00 / 0)
and therein diminishing of the potential.  It's the basic question of what purpose social analysis serves, and what "human nature" is and how malleable it  might be.

Additionally, I think that certainties are to be avoided and am frequently surprised by actual accomplishments (like Clinton's and Obama's nomination for example, though that may have to do with my overly pessimistic / skewed analysis), so although I think it's highly likely that things won't change drastically anytime soon, I don't think that the vast majority of Americans are any more "essentially" conservative or, well, crazy, than anyone else - just that the current global, national, local, economic, social, and other factors make them so.  So I strategize as such and look at the short and long term and how to best advance what I see as the possible agenda.

Or short version: trying not to make the perfect the enemy of the good (in my terms, not someone else's who believes that a Democrat, any Democrat, a progressive, even in a skewed discourse, is good enough).

Anyway, I was probably reading too much into what you were saying, so if so, I'm sincerely apologetic.

[ Parent ]
No apologies necessary (0.00 / 0)
I know some people around here consider me a bit of a troll.  I actually reject much of the agenda promoted on this site, and my view of the essential futility of radical change in the absence of radical crisis is a major reason why.

I do think that Americans are more conservative that most other modern cultures, in part because of our puritanical religious roots, in part because of the mythology of the settling of the west, in part because of the way the myths of capitalism were spread, in part just because we are in a position of empire.  I don't take credit for depth or originality in naming these factors.  I do see these factors as cultural, not institutional, and the only institutions that triumph in the short run are those that are supported by the cultural tenor of the society.  Just as Bush is foolish for claiming to believe that the Iraqis hunger for freedom will lead to peace, members of the left are foolish when they claim that Obama can be persuaded to lead a successful progressive revolution, absent some more serious crisis than we have.  Culture is a blind, irrational, reactionary beast, and it isn't defeated or changed in major ways unless the society's viability is threatened.  Our culture isn't crazier than others, but all cultures are crazy.

Paul says I don't grasp the essential brilliance of liberal institutions.  I don't know what institutions he is talking about.  I see that we can build institutions, but they become corrupt and outdated (for example, unions suffered from this, as well as from conservative assaults).  I see we can implement procedures, but they are in the long run co-opted by the powerful (eg, the Constitution itself is devoid of true liberalism now, and mechanisms like state initiatives, once avenues for citizen activism, are tools of monied special interests).  So, I ask you and Paul - what have I missed?  I see successful programs.  I don't see successful mainstream institutions (other than activist groups at least halfway outside the system) that consistently promote liberal values.

[ Parent ]
thanks for the interesting conversation (0.00 / 0)
In your framework, you juxtapose institutional and cultural.  I usually don't pay too much attention to culture, and I think institutions are useful only insofar as they facilitate dialogue and organization.  I would add to these, social and structural.  Structural is my view is what we have virtually no control over (what Wallerstein describes), social is what operates constantly and which we can potentially shape, if even a little.

If unions or the Democratic Party or the RCP (or any other institution or social formation) are useful at social change, it's because they serve a function in a social workers movement, not because they institutionally represent workers.  Structure, though, is a pain in the ass.  I can only say that we try to understand it and then seek points of weakness to exploit and have some faith in our own capacity as agents.  

Nothing new here either, but I think it's worth pointing out, because it's where my optimism (or hope) comes from.  In my life, the most useful (for me) forms of social collectivities have been the informal.  And they have been the most inspiring.  

All this is to say, if it takes the industrialization of Africa and the rest of Asia and Latin America and then the continuing formation of a global regime of governance to eventually get to the point where we can actually talk about democracy, well, I'm willing to invest in it.  Gives me something to do :)

And in the meantime, I try to advance things that are in tune with what other people are doing and will simultaneously forward that agenda.  On one plus, since the U.S. is at or near (in long term senses) relinquishing global supremacy, one benefit might FINALLY be a peace dividend - not just in terms of programmes, but in terms of ideology, loosening of hegemony, and eventual sanity.

Sorry this is a bit all over the place - I'm  days away from finishing a masters dissertation and minutes away from needing to go to sleep and my brain no longer organizes things into coherent thoughts :)  um, structures i mean :)

[ Parent ]
That was pretty cogent. (0.00 / 0)
Good luck on your dissertation.  My school days are long past, and I realize that what I refer to casually as "culture" and "institution" is not a neat or accepted sociological framework.

I agree (if I understand what you are saying) that the decline of the unipolar world order is relatively imminent, and that shedding the mantle of empire may liberalize the United States.  I don't hold out much hope for that happening before American dominance is truly over, and I expect conservativism to be especially powerful in decline.  

But eventually it will change, on all levels.  Studies show that social mobility in the United States is lower than in virtually all industrialized countries, yet the American dream is still used as a moral justification for all sorts of regressive policies.  One day the light will go on for more people, and they will start looking to maintain what they have, rather than dream of an unrealistic future for their children - but that could be two generations from now, or even more.

As to whether industrialization of Africa and Asia will bring democracy, I don't know why it would there if it isn't here.  

[ Parent ]
This Is Most Illuminating (0.00 / 0)
Since you and Will and perhaps my harshest, most persistent critics from a purportedly "progressive" position.

I think it helps explain why, as I am very much an insitutionalist ala dr anonymous below, and have a good deal more trust and respect for the average American than either of you seem to.

Given these vast differences in perspective, it's not really surprising that we should disagree so vehemently so often.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
And, not surprisingly, I consider the progressive movement naive.  That's why I consider myself a liberal.  I don't really identify with the movement.

What I see, here and elsewhere, is that culture is persistent - even more than institutions.  For example, people are killing one another in the middle east not because the religious leaders are corrupt (they usually are), but because people themselves make sense of their lives tribally, and the church or political structure succeeds only so long as it can feed off the larger cultural prejudice.

And culture changes very slowly.  In my life, I have expected several things to happen politically, that did not.  For example, I figured we would never get into another Vietnam.  I thought that, once the cold war was over, we'd have a "peace dividend."  I also thought that the end of the cold war would be the last gasp of the surveillance state.  I thought that racial and sexual equality was an unstoppable movement, that would proceed to increase in a linear fashion after about 1975.

But none of that was true.  It isn't that people were being lied to and didn't know any better.  It is that people want to believe certain things, and behave in certain comfortable ways, and that the opinion makers will feed these desires.  (And there are good things in culture as well - I'm just focusing on the bad).

I can't explain the election of Bush in 2004 any other way.  I understood when Reagan got in office (my first vote cast was for Carter).  He had folksy charm, and I understood how standing tough during the cold war had appeal.  Bush, however, is an entirely different creature.  There is simply no way, in my mind, that corrupt institutions can explain how the American people can accept torture, especially when the threat of terrorism is so much less than the threat of nuclear annilation in the cold war.  It seems to me that many Americans like the military state, and even like torture, for reasons of group identification and projecting an image of powerfulness that compensates for deficiencies in their lives.  Bush isn't a product just of institutions, but of culture, and of base human tendencies.

I don't see this as hopeless and dispiriting.  What I would find hopeless and dispiriting is expecting some sensible result - like, for example, a peace dividend - and being surprised and outraged every time some simple, logical proposal was defeated.  I think that accepting that social change is much more incremental than we want it to be is far less dispiriting.  Given that institutional change has been promised all my life, but never come, within or without the system, I'm not too excited by agitating for it, especially because I certainly have no guarantee that the new boss with be different than the old boss.

But God no, I don't have trust in the idea that if we just open up the channels of democracy, everything will be fine because the common people are good at heart.  I live out here in the world.  I wouldn't trust the people on my block to make good decisions for my block, or the country.  It may be true that democracy is better than all alternatives, but it isn't because of my faith in people: rather the opposite.

[ Parent ]
i largely agree wtih you (0.00 / 0)
i just see it, if it can happen, as a long term process.  LONG term.  Like  30 years later new constitution long term  (and i have no illusions that even that will "solve" all the "problems").  You see, I love social analysis, but the conclusions we draw from it are based on our own positions as well, and never preclude us from surveying the options in front of us - even if it means something as terrible as going to war in Spain against Franco...or what Thoreau did in not paying his taxes to not support the Mexican American War...or innumerable other people.

What I'm essentially asking for is faith.  Not in elections, not in democrats, but in what rings true to you.  And if what rings true to you isn't ringing true anymore - well either a vacation is in order or something that will help you discover what dies ring true.  Otherwise, what is the point of bothering with it all?

[ Parent ]
Well, Of COURSE Progressives Are Naive (4.00 / 1)
Who else would think that you could end slavery, or get women the right to vote?

You have to be naive to think such things are possible.

But God no, I don't have trust in the idea that if we just open up the channels of democracy, everything will be fine because the common people are good at heart.

I didn't say "good", I said "rational."

For a self-professed "liberal" you have a poor grasp of liberalism's essential genius, which has been the crafting of institutions, values and practices so as to maximize the coincindence of self-interest and the public good.

If liberals only did a better job of that, then radicals like me would have a much easier time with our job, which is to fundamentally expand and transform the horizons of both self-interest and the public good.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
cmon now paul (0.00 / 0)
you can't talk about yourself as a radical and at the same time talk about "liberalism's essential genius" :)  Why not reclaim "liberal" or even "progressive" :)
[ Parent ]
well (4.00 / 1)
In addition to Paul's answer, I'd add that whether or not the voters are stupid is not necessarily the issue.  John McCain acting as if he believes they're morons will still be damaging as a narrative.

No one likes the idea that people think they're stupid, not even stupid people.

[ Parent ]
I don't (4.00 / 4)
People aren't stupid -- they're just trying to do the best they can with the time and resources they have. It's a lot of work trying to raise a family and work and balance a budget and make time for the neighborhood and what have you. And they know things are bad, but really they only have maybe a half hour a day to read or catch up on the news, and the only resource they know is the establishment TV press, or maybe a local newspaper.

And they are being lied to, constantly. And they don't know who to believe, because journalism no longer exists in any real fashion in the corporate establishment media and because Republican shills and strategists have no problem lying through their teeth just as much as the Republican politicians do.

It takes a lot of work to try and see what's really going on and to stay informed and educated. Yes, in a perfect world and society, more people would do so.

Until we figure out how to reach people and build trust and show them that the truth is not what they think it is, we're going to lose elections we should win or have them be much closer than they 'ought' to be.

ALL the major institutions in this country are broken. It will not be easy to repair them.  

[ Parent ]
Not to mention the irony (4.00 / 1)
that lay in Palin's conspicuous religiosity and the equally conspicuous absence of any discussion of end times pentecostalism by the McCain campaign.  

But the fundies know what she's about and support her.  Kinda makes me wonder about whether Democrats making conspicuously religious appeals to voters has any positive effects as Michael Kazin suggests in his book on Bryan.

I for one think someone down the team Obama food chain should begin systematically pointing out the radical views espoused by her sect and its emissaries.  

Say what..... (0.00 / 0)
Kettle and pot........

Both sides twist reality. I understand you guys want to win but aren't you talking to each other? Why all the fervor with the posts? Americans ARE stupid. Simple. Both camps understand this fact and use it to their advantage. The one difference that you simply cannot spin is the fact the McCain has a history of pissing off republicans with his "reaching across the aisle" and Obama does not.

So Many Lies, So Little Time (0.00 / 0)
Oh goody!  A new troll to play with!  Can I pull his ears?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
That's ok, I guess. (4.00 / 2)
Dunno anything about how they handle this in Newport, Maine, but pulling ears sure sounds like a traditional practice, in accordance with small town values, to me.
:D
[ Parent ]
Indubitably (0.00 / 0)
My dear Watson!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
Obama does not have a history of pissing off Republicans.

Ask Democrats what they thought of his FISA stance.  Or his support of Joe Lieberman.  Base really loved it I hear.

[ Parent ]
"Stupid" is such a low class word (4.00 / 1)
Best to stick with "low-information" or ""sequential thinker", that way the nit-wits don't realize your condescension right off the bat.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
"Just connect the dots Obama." (4.00 / 2)
How about this for the kicker line of the NEXT "Lying about the Bridge" ad.

"Thanks, but no thanks, Senator McCain".

Twist the knife.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Not a good tactic (0.00 / 0)
I'm not saying that McCain/Palin are not playing a good portion of the electorate as dupes, that is pretty much to be expected.

I do wonder, however, whether the potential "back-lash" that might just come from Obama/Biden ticket going around telling folks that they just might be too ignorant to notice that BushMcCain/Palin is unloading a pile of BS. They KNOW politicians LIE, else they wouldn't be politicians. The point is that SOME use the proper words when they lie, that they think those voters are WORTH lying to, otherwise they are talked down to, or ignored.

No doubt this line plays well with folks already leaning toward Obama and the Democratic Party in general, but when you start talking to folks on the other side of the fence, messages can get twisted. Its always touchy to make an argument that somehow involves the ignorance of your audience.

There are less dangerous ways to get at McCain, I think.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

John McCain and Sarah Palin Think Americans Are Stupid | 52 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox