![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Framing the Reference...
Jan. 22nd, 2009 12:18 pmI was thinking about how the same "we the people" who were collectively willing to vote Bush into office (twice) also voted in a landslide for President Obama.
Where were these voters when Al Gore and John Kerry were running? Those two may not have been saints, but I think they held themselves to higher principles than Bush did. My question was, "What does it take to get people interested?" followed closely by, "What does it take to *keep* them interested?"
I noticed that when Bush was speaking, his speech was loaded with neocon slogans and language that spoke directly to his constituent base - much warrior-speak: (proud; defend; protect; homeland; The American people; terrorists; attack; God bless America; prayers; security). Likewise, Obama's speech used progressive language that spoke directly to his constituents (trust; humble; generosity; cooperation; We the People; health care; God bless the United States of America; hope; liberty; new age; move forward). It seems that people are looking for someone who can tell a good story that speaks their language, even if the content doesn't altogether agree with them or serve them.
I think there were more factors that contributed in the present case, though. One was the fact that a large portion of the African-American population was mobilized to vote for Obama, even those who may have been indifferent to another person. Another was the internet. I think Obama is the first president who has his own Facebook and Youtube videos (all of which are blocked from my workplace, ironically). Another factor is, he's 47, so anyone young or young at heart probably identified with him more than McCain. Another factor is the financial crash. The last Democrat was good at money, so people hope this one will be also. All of these factors together were just the right mix to throw out the neocons. I'm hoping that the hope-based factors outweighed the fear-based ones.
Although the neocons have been dislodged from the presidency, they're still alive and well in the form of state legislators, school boards, city planning commissions, governors, etc., where they can do a lot of damage to quality of life. They are working to regain the presidency when they can once again convince the public that "the liberals" are to blame for everything that goes wrong. Which brings up something interesting:
Before the election I asked myself what it would take to throw out the previous administration, and the answer was to accept responsibility for the mess. I realized then that the reason I wasn't totally involved in the Kerry election even though I voted for him, was that I wanted the neocons to fix their own mess. It became evident that they would not do that in my own lifetime, however, and that the only way out of the mess was through it. Once we accepted the responsibility, barbs and invectives lost their sting and we could see straight enough to complete the task at hand.
Besides, I have no in-depth knowledge of which laws each president signed into law. This would be an interesting area of study. Until I do know this information, I can't be sure which president is to blame for certain things or if a previous president laid the foundation for the next one's mistake. So maybe the way to keep the office of the presidency is not to fight it when accusations are flung, but to accept it and fix it. Nobody can argue with that...
Where were these voters when Al Gore and John Kerry were running? Those two may not have been saints, but I think they held themselves to higher principles than Bush did. My question was, "What does it take to get people interested?" followed closely by, "What does it take to *keep* them interested?"
I noticed that when Bush was speaking, his speech was loaded with neocon slogans and language that spoke directly to his constituent base - much warrior-speak: (proud; defend; protect; homeland; The American people; terrorists; attack; God bless America; prayers; security). Likewise, Obama's speech used progressive language that spoke directly to his constituents (trust; humble; generosity; cooperation; We the People; health care; God bless the United States of America; hope; liberty; new age; move forward). It seems that people are looking for someone who can tell a good story that speaks their language, even if the content doesn't altogether agree with them or serve them.
I think there were more factors that contributed in the present case, though. One was the fact that a large portion of the African-American population was mobilized to vote for Obama, even those who may have been indifferent to another person. Another was the internet. I think Obama is the first president who has his own Facebook and Youtube videos (all of which are blocked from my workplace, ironically). Another factor is, he's 47, so anyone young or young at heart probably identified with him more than McCain. Another factor is the financial crash. The last Democrat was good at money, so people hope this one will be also. All of these factors together were just the right mix to throw out the neocons. I'm hoping that the hope-based factors outweighed the fear-based ones.
Although the neocons have been dislodged from the presidency, they're still alive and well in the form of state legislators, school boards, city planning commissions, governors, etc., where they can do a lot of damage to quality of life. They are working to regain the presidency when they can once again convince the public that "the liberals" are to blame for everything that goes wrong. Which brings up something interesting:
Before the election I asked myself what it would take to throw out the previous administration, and the answer was to accept responsibility for the mess. I realized then that the reason I wasn't totally involved in the Kerry election even though I voted for him, was that I wanted the neocons to fix their own mess. It became evident that they would not do that in my own lifetime, however, and that the only way out of the mess was through it. Once we accepted the responsibility, barbs and invectives lost their sting and we could see straight enough to complete the task at hand.
Besides, I have no in-depth knowledge of which laws each president signed into law. This would be an interesting area of study. Until I do know this information, I can't be sure which president is to blame for certain things or if a previous president laid the foundation for the next one's mistake. So maybe the way to keep the office of the presidency is not to fight it when accusations are flung, but to accept it and fix it. Nobody can argue with that...
