craven said
Quote:I wish politics had less personality in it. I would love for the hostility to be exclusively directed at issues.
One of the things I most lament about politics is that he who does not demonize loses.
It's sound politics to play dirty and that's a damn pity.
a bit further on, Italgao said
Quote:sofia- The reaction to Dukakas among some of my friends was precisely this:
They felt that he was playing to the wine and cheese crowd, the liberal left wing professors, who say, there is never ever ever any need for violence or righteous anger. We must be for peace--even if our wives are raped.
That was how the mealy mouthed response was viewed by some of my friends.
It is a case of liberal Hubris.
They all want to be like Christ- they turn the other cheek,but none of them believe in Him.
How ironic.
The problem, as I observe it, is not so much a mis-focusing of attention from issue to personality - there are valid reasons to consider personality factors in judging candidates, if one can find some reliable means of gaining information about a candidate's personality.
But Craven is really talking more about the 'demonization' and 'playing dirty' habits and techniques of modern campaigns.
The curious element here seems not so much why strategists allow themselves this quiver of ugliness. They are, after all, getting paid the big bucks to win votes. And there are power and prestige perquisites, and access to cute little red, white, and blue cheerleader types. This seems all pretty predictable - the American Dream alive and crawling on it's slippery underside towards success.
The more curious element is how easily suckered the target audience has become, and then falls into the play and becomes a shill itself. Look, for example, at Italgato's post. There is nothing in that post which is 'true', in a logical or factual sense. Take this element..." left wing professors, who say, there is never ever ever any need for violence or righteous anger. We must be for peace--even if our wives are raped." Has Italgato actually heard even one professor say this? Of course, he hasn't. The claim is far closer to being absolutely false than it is to being correct.
Why he might speak such a claim seems just a matter of partisanship, which is not where the problem sits. But why he THINKS this is a worthy thought, even for himself, not to mention worthy of sharing with others in the community, is a problem.
How could someone fall prey to such sloppy thinking? Laziness, to some degree, certainly. A simplistic cartoon version of the world or some part of the world diminishes the necessity to actually look and read and think carefully - white hats and black hats cleanly defined and absolutely aligned in their respective categories.
Having company seems part of it too - "Me and my buddies, well gosh dang it, we ain't gonna let no commie fags run this fuckin world, nosiree." There's comfort in agreement, regardless whether what is agreed upon has any residence anywhere in the world of real things.
And a distaste for freedom - for the freedom of others, that is - sits squarely in such a noggin too. It is no coincidence that totalitarian states or totalitarian-leaning individuals almost universally pick out as a primary target the teachers and students in universities. Why? Ideas. The freedom learn, hold, and speak ideas which might, and often do, contradict the acceptable singular set of ideas upon which the totalitarian supposes the community ought to function under.
