Politicians, media contemptuous of silent majority

Hi Perception. Could I invite you to look at:

www.abuzz.com/interaction/s.305438/discussion

And a quote from Nikita Khruschev, made at Glen Vove, New York in l960:

"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river".

Sorry, that should read "Glen Cove"

Tommy

I'm having trouble with the relevance of your link----the author of the thread seemed to be asking the same question as I do but then completely lost me with their next question.

Regarding the quote by Khrushchev---I may have underestimated his capacity to understand politics but I was always under the impression that his political maneuvering was carried out at the end of a knife, a club or a gun.

You may have to draw me a picture..........

perception

There are a number of points here I think quite worthy of discussion: a 'disconnection' between both media and the political crowd with the general population; the 'apathy' in the general population; tougher economic times and causes/remedies for that; and who has been alerting the public to the tough economic realities of an aging boomer population.

So this is actually quite a substantial bit of stuff to deal with.

On the disconnection issue, I know of no better book which addresses this problem than Joan Didion's "Political Fictions". But it is a huge issue, and I can't do it any justice here, if anywhere.

Likewise, the 'apathy'. Clearly, is seems related to the disconnection issue. We do know, from so many different experiences, that the political structure and rather too many of the folks who populate it are often playing quite a different game than they state. We commonly think of them as deceitful and self-interested, and not as truthful, well-intentioned civic servants. No small task to analyse this or to turn it around.

Regarding the tougher economic times - causes and solutions - even among economists there is nothing like consensus (I'll add a link here to an incredibly good PBS series on economics which is available to watch and read transcripts of on-line http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/ )

Your last issue is one that perhaps I can address. Your claim, unless I have it wrong, is that it is or has been mainly the conservative element which has raised the alert on the increasing cost of social programs and of security, and thus, the need to raise taxes.

I don't think I can agree. My recollection is that various voices, but mainly from the economics crowd, have been warning for some time (20 years) about the aging boomer population and the economic consequences associated. The largest downward revision of social programs in the last three or five decades occured under Clinton. Also, we ought to recall that the deficit was considerably reduced at that time. Further, we ought to recall that the deficit burgeoned most acutely under Reagan, and it looks like it is going to happen again under Bush.

Hi perception, Sorry couldn't get back sooner - kept getting the "Error" page all day.

I think that the author has coincidentally echoed your question. I think there may be a little irony in the thread. He obviously thinks very little of politicians and is being a touch satirical in his view of their inclination to serve themselves first and think of their constituents later.

Blatham

I'm glad you thought there were some substantive issues here. Let me clarify the real meaning of my statement.
1. The Politicians have been guilty, for many years, of playing to the voiciferous MINORITIES and special interest groups and ignoring middle America. It is this "Middle America" that I consider to be the "Silent Majority" and I consider myself to be a member of this group thus my perceived qualifications to comment on it. We have for years had to listen to and read what they shove down our throats as their VISION for America----the trouble is their "Vision" only lasts 4 years and at the most 8----and usually that vision is reversed because they have had to make deals with the other party. But I have caught myself here referring to administrations but it is actually the POLITICIANS in the Senate and The House that really show contempt for the electorate. I truly believe the Presidents and their administrations have for the most part actually tried to keep the interests of the citizens upermost in the agenda. Reagan was obsessed with communism and supply side economics---Bush senior was forced into a war by Saddam but didn't care about the economy, even Clinton did his best but he had too many distractions---They all thought they were doing the "right thing" for the country. Different story with the "Other" elected representatives of the People. They pretended to listen to their constituents but as soon as the arrived in Washington immediately started pursuing their own agendas and fattening their pockets. They have their hearings, pontificate about right and wrong and then as soon as the cameras are gone they start filling their pockets again and immediately start their re-election campaigns because they are on to a really good thing.

We the silent majority have been watching year after year but are silent because we have faith in the constitution, common sense and the fact that it has generally been like this since the country was founded by some very smart guys.

We have listened to the biased new channels, Dan Rather, Tom Brokhaw, and Peter Jennings and kept getting sick to our stomachs at the slant on the news. WE kept silent.

Then along came 9/11, the airlines went belly up, the Stock market went south, all those greedy sobs that run the corporations, and get paid way too much anyway, decided millions weren't enough so they took Billions, that caused the stock market to go further south, and Bush is occupied fighting the al Queda.

The Pres has to bail out the airlines, spend fresh Billions on themilitary, Billions more to rebuild Afghanistan and Congress is paralized by Tom Daschel. Things are looking black. All of a sudden there is voice from somewhere other than the left. Fox news has a new slant along with some others that have the interests of the silent majority at heart instead of beating us over the head with stuff that makes me think that it's impossible to do. My wife and I are already maxed out and these guys telling me we must feed the world, stop all the pollution, save the spotted owl, save the whales, etc.----man I'm already working 22 hours a day. These are slight exaggerations of course but I think you get the idea. And these are noble thoughts---but many just not practical
at this time.

More later---got to run.

Meanwhile back in Washington----The congress is still paralyzed by
Daschle. The silent majority is starting to stir---they're starting to say maybe there is hope that we can do something about this. The voices of reason are getting louder---maybe we're not stupid like the left has been telling us all these years. So the Republicans were swept into office and the voices from the land of reason are getting louder. What happens, Al Gore and Daschle start wailing about how unfair it is that Fox news has turned the electorate against the Democrats. Paul Krugman the most obsessed BUSH BASHER to ever take up a pen starts wailing about how difficult it will now be to BASH BUSH.

All because the politicians and the media were contemptuous of the silent majority.

Blatham

I know you're going to accuse me of generalization and exaggeration and you're right but that's sort of editorialising that I've had to put with from the left for many many years and you can see how pleased I am that the shoe is now on the other foot.

We have a saying here:"the squeaky wheel always gets the grease". Well I equate the sqeaky wheel to the vociferous minority issues. We have another saying: "the tail is wagging the dog"------the squeaky wheel has been wagging the dog for too long and we the silent majority have not really made too many waves but I really believe Daschle pushed us over the edge. One man paralysed the entire legislative process. No homeland security bill, no prescription drug bill, blocked every federal judge
recommendation sent to him, no defense spending authorization.

Regarding your comments that Reagan and Bush have made very large expenditures on the military----this is true but the Berlin wall came down because of that large outlay(justified I believe) and Bush has been forced into huge expenditures because of 9/11 but there again it is justified. Clinton hated the military but yet sent more troops to more places that most anyone. I think he could see the contempt in the eyes of the Generals who had to say "yes sir" while he was with Monica ,because he was the commander in chief. You know---I would have laughed had he used a bedroom in the whitehouse-------but NO---he had to use the Oval office.

I know you don't agree with me about the silent majority but you were in Canada and I have been part of it here. You are correct in that apathy is more often thought of on a non-partisan basis but it may be that many many conservative Dems felt the same way as I.

Blatham
That link you provided( PBS Commanding Heights)- What a concise
synopsis of the past hundred years of geopolitical events and the economic consequences.

Without entering the discussion, I have to say that ". . .the squeaky wheel has been wagging the dog for too long. . ." has a certain charm. I just may use it myself, sometime.

Roger

Your comments would be most welcome-----the silence of the gallery is deafening.

perception

As you suspect, I do see things differently. For example, I don't see Dashle in the same light as you - as a simply partisan and contentious program stopper. Or we could say, I don't see democrats to be historically worse at this than republicans.

Also, I see Krugman rather differently. Krugman doesn't, for example, share the anti-globalization views which unions and others tend to voice. He's an economist and I find his disagreements with various administration policies well argued and valid. He is not, I think, arguing against the speaker, but against the policy. Clearly, he doesn't much like Bush, but I don't think that's the genesis of his complaints.

Re bias in the press...I'm afraid I don't share your view there either. But of course not. We perceive bias depending on where we sit on an issue.

I suppose the final point I might make is in regards to your system there (quite like ours, really, or like most European states) where contention is built into the system as a safeguard against tyranny. Checks and balances are inherently contentious - one force pit against another. This frustrates, but it's an unavoidable consequence of a democratic system. Let me forward a proposition to you...I'll make this suggestion and you can toss it in the scrap heap if it seems to have to no truth to it. Could your military training and history be an influence on your thinking here? What I mean by that is...a military unit operates in a distinct manner, with a chain of command and a high level of necessary compliance to a single vision and the commands which descend from those at the top. Contention is a problem here. Too many voices shouting too many different ideas and plans become counter-productive to achieving aims. But a democratic state is quite a different kettle of fish. Here, opposition, contention, warring viewpoints and plans and values are desireable, if frustrating.

To all

Please don't confuse my reference to SILENT majority, with MORAL majority-----I want to distance myself as far as possible from Pat Robertson and the religious right. I further believe,just for better understanding, the religious fundamentalist right has severely damaged the Republican party, especially their militant hateful stance on abortion.

My statement to start the thread was not designed to bait anyone even though I now can see that it might----it was intended to create some controversy----not hate filled insults. I'm still learning about the participants of this forum so please forgive me if my decision to use this wording has not had the desired consequence.

I have made many decisions that have not had the desired consequences----I'm still learning there also. I have had to adjust my thinking(and I'm still adjusting) since entering this forum but perhaps some others might consider an adjustment also.

I am only interested in learning------- not in forcing my opinion on others. Most of you have more education than I but I am making every effort to catch up. (This is especially evident in my shortage of debating skills)

Frank McMillen
[email protected]
ex-fighter pilot (USAF)

Blatham

Our posts have just passed in mid-flight so nothing in my last post had any direct reference to what you have ever said to me. Yes we do disagree on most everything in politics, but as long as there is some mutual respect , which we have established mostly in our PMs, we can disagree in a civil manner.

I think Daschle and his actions are a good example of the contempt for the public, by many our elected representatives. He and his advisors decided on a course of confrontation and stalemate. The public wanted action----not stalemate. It may just be that this is an example of a politician being in office too long(another thing I would like to see changed---two terms max for a Senator)and out of touch with the electorate. At any rate, his decision did not have the intended consequences----the difference between him and me is he gets paid a lot of money to make the right decisions.

You're absolutely right about our system being contentious but that is healthy as long as you don't step over the line of common sense interaction.

Regarding my background in the military having an impact on my thinking-----You are absolutely correct but if I may defend that by saying this:"the military teaches you that there is a BEST way to do anything and if you fail to do it the best way then you will probably not get a second chance because you will be dead. It also teaches that the military is NOT a democracy & for good reason.
It also teaches about honor and loyalty to your country. Last but not least it teaches everyone the difference between lawful orders and those that should be disobeyed. Contrary to what many don't realize or don't want to admit is we in the US military don't just follow orders blindly. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen --- just that OUR military teaches the difference and stresses honor and ethical behavior. It also clearly defines what is treasonous and traitorous and CLEARLY states the penalty to either/both.

If I have stated too many absolutes here which are not justified I apologize. When one has deep convictions it is very difficult not to state them as absolutes therefore perceived by others as confrontational.

Oh, one last thing that I didn't address is the bias in the media. A guy who spent a lifetime as one of the bias spreaders has just written a book about it----someone must help me here as I can't remember his name. He stated it as an established fact. This is Liberal bias which everyone seems to deny-----the right leaning bias is so obvious there is not need to even confirm it. Here even there is a difference----with the right we make bold statements----over the past many years that from the left has been a slow form of brainwashing similar to Pavlovs mind conditioning---if you tell someone enough times by intellectuals that our ideas and opinions are wrong and that if you don't think as we do then you're stupid.
This to me is insulting and dangerous or at the very least not healthy for our country.

Blatham
In my comments on Daschle above I omitted the most important point which is: Daschle and his advisors decided on the course of confrontation and stalemate strictly as a political strategy with absolute, and total disregard for the welfare of his constituents and the rest of the country. This is my basic argument for my accusation that the politicians have nothing but contempt for this countries citizens. Both parties are guilty of this-----in Daschle's case he really got burned and it was evident for all to see. Trent Lott has also been guilty of the same sort of tactic during Clintons term----as a matter of fact I was quite convinced that his(Lott's)intransigence was very damaging to the Republican cause on many occasions.

Regarding Krugman, I just don't understand how you can be so tolerant of his personal insults to the President which goes far beyond being critical of his policies. I think it ironic that a colleague of his while Krugman was a student at Harvard, is the chief Architect of Bush's economic policy. Here again I can't think of the name but this guy now has a prestigious position as the chair of some Economic Policy Development Group?---and it is through some of his students(who now work for the President) that the current economic policy was formed. I'm curious if Krugman is allowed to use his position as a professor of economics at an Ivy League school to bash the president.

Perception

Re your first post to all above...frankly, I am quite happily impressed with your resiliency and your willingness to play this debate game with humility and good cheer. I'll add more a bit later.

Blatham

More likely "bulldog determination" which equates to the fighter pilot mentality., i.e., the best defense is a great offense.

Perception

Sorry, have been tied up.

Let's take the one point regarding 'silent majority'. I'll try to argue that the term is not useful. Actually, I think it dangerous.

We don't know, obviously, just what it is that silent people are thinking or what it is they believe or hold dear. So we really have no way of gauging whether (if they all raised hands for yeah or nay) they will agree with us or not, or in what proportion they might agree with us. They are an unknown, like the algebraic 'x'.

Yet the term gets used in quite a different way than that. You do it yourself above. We will see sentences such as "The silent majority in America is tired of....", or "The silent majority doesn't want..."

Clearly, because we have to real way to measure what silent people might say, such claims as above are not statements of truth, but are simply guesses.

The dangerous aspect of such use is that pretends truth - it pretends that the non-voters have actually voted and they (surprise, surprise) agree with me. Therefore, my position has the democratic validity of an issue considered, a vote taken, with the results clearly in favor of my position - therefore, the policies I support ought to be put in place because the majority of people say so.

It's hard to say why people don't vote.
* Apathy?
* Too busy that day?
* Just wanted to abstain?
* Never bothered to register?
* No one appealed to them?
* Too inconvenient, to either register or vote?
* Sick or injured?
* Out of the country?
* Didn't think their vote mattered?

A lot of us here get riled up about most of these 'reasons' because we see them as indefensible excuses, e. g. if you were out of the country, why didn't you just get an absentee ballot? Well, there's a lot of folks out there who simply don't see that as a priority - if they're out of the country, they're worried about their job or their family or perhaps they're more concerned about the government of wherever they are. We don't know.

The 'silent majority' isn't a new term. I recall it from, I believe it was the Nixon years, and it was used to justify all manner of programs and policies. Well, the silent majority wants us to bomb Cambodia. The silent majority cares about Watergate. The silent majority doesn't care about Watergate. The silent majority doesn't want us to normalize relations with China and so on, ad infinitum.

I get the feeling that for most there's a feeling that midterm elections just aren't that important, and that only Presidential elections really matter. Rightly or wrongly, the fact is that voting #s for off-year elections are abysmal. They aren't great for Presidential election years, but they are better.

And don't underestimate convenience as a factor. We live in an age of drive-through banking and drive-through funerals. Shopping is done online or via catalog phone sales. Even groceries and dog grooming can come straight to your door. Millions of people work at home for at least part of the year.

Voting is different. It's effort. It entails, here in the Northeast, getting your coat and maybe a hat and a scarf, as November is a pretty chilly month. And then you get there (assuming you remember where to go). And you wait on line. And people try to pass you literature, in an area where it may or may not be violating campaign regulations. And you have to reveal your name to the polling people. And you try to do all this on your lunch hour, when you also want to grab a sandwich and visit the ATM. Or before work, when you're getting annoyed with traffic and wondering if you're going to be late. Or after work, when all you want to do is get home. Never mind that it's illegal to be fired for taking a few minutes to vote. Never mind that the traffic probably won't be much different if you vote, or don't.

So I think convenience or the lack thereof strikes quite a chord these days. While it probably doesn't explain the non-participation in the '70's, I think it explains a lot of the non-participation of today, particularly as Motor-Voter has made it easier to register. It used to be, you were registered to vote, you pretty much always voted. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.