Framing the Reference...

[helen99]

I 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...

Comments

[kiarrith.livejournal.com]

hugs
well thought out and well spoken.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

My answer to the puzzle of US politics is that around 1/3 of the population (and perhaps as little as 25%) have fairly liberal ideals, and equal number have fairly conservative ideals, and the rest have some combination of no interest in politics and no understanding of politics. Those people are solely swayed by slogans, appearance, and whoever the media is painting like a winner or a celebrity. From my PoV, in a better world, people would need to pass a short quiz or something in order to vote, so that such people would have far less influence on politics. Gaining an understanding that such people exist also caused me to revise my views on laws like those in Australia that fine people for not voting. I used to be for them, now I am exceedingly against them. My current view is that voting should be as easy as possible (Oregon's vote by mail is the best system for this that I've ever seen), but there should be nothing that forces people to vote or penalizes them from not doing so.

[helen99.livejournal.com]

I think that for the vast majority of people you're probably right. However, I've known some swing voters who are swayed by single, short-term issues. Examples of such issues include Palestine or Kosovo or the current financial debacle. My brother voted for Bush once and the Libertarian party the second time because he didn't want to vote for anyone who had any political ties to the Clinton administration. The reason he gave for this choice was Kosovo. I found it hard to believe that he would actually hand the likes of Bush a vote because of Kosovo, especially when he voted against Kerry, who had nothing to do with Kosovo.

This time, he voted for Obama because he finally realized that anyone at all was better than a continuation of the previous administration's antics and a vote for the Libertarians would throw his vote away. However, he is still angry about Kosovo. He said that unless a person became equally angry about Kosovo as they did about Iraq, then they were being hypocritical. The only reason he didn't vote Republican is because "Bush was an incompetent and McCain is a hothead".

I suspect that perhaps my brother is atypical, but who knows? Maybe those types are all over. (A scary thought).

[fendahleen.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty certain Bush was only elected once.

[helen99.livejournal.com]

Right. Al Gore won the popular vote, and there were reports of shenanigans in Florida and Ohio. Regardless, it was close enough for them to be able to cover themselves. It shouldn't have been...

[illuviel.livejournal.com]

Mucho, mucho shenanigans.

(And all of that my-local ilk have been slowly sinking into the swamp since then. Something which makes me verra, verra happy.)

Hopefully people won't continue to roll over and play nice when shenanigans occur in times future.

[helen99.livejournal.com]

The thing is, I think their headquarters is in the swamp, so sinking into the swamp won't necessarily put them out of business. Fixing the problems they caused might, though we will also have to avoid falling into the financial/scandal traps the authoritarian fringe will try to lay for President Obama. Such traps crippled Bill Clinton's administration for its last several years when he obliviously walked right into them. This permanently damaged the appeal of the Democratic party with certain swing voters like my mom.

In the immortal words of Gimli, "Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?"