Flashback to the morning of November 8, 2006. My boss, Senator Bill Nelson, has just been reelected beating Katherine Harris by a huge margin. It's a beautiful morning and we're all quite happy down in the Sunshine State. I receive a call from a dear friend working in the office of a prominent republican committee chair (who shall remain unnamed). His end of the conversation in question goes something like this:
'We're so excited. With a Dem majority that won't be able to do much in two years, come 2008 everyone will claim you guys [Democrats] had your shot and blew it. Our team [Republicans] will be set up perfectly to take over.'
Good, bad, or otherwise, the message I got loud and clear is as the voting American public, we could all do well to pay a little more attention in social studies class. Elections should not be won and lost over party affiliations, media strategies, campaign contributions, or - most often I suspect - a generally poor understanding of the way Capitol Hill works. Issues of global and national priorities are hanging in the balance and if we're too quick to attack parties without arming ourselves with information... if we continue to be swayed more often by mass media spin, propaganda, and mud slinging... if we don't wake up and become engaged in the political process... Well, we deserve what we get.
But fortuntately, I suspect we're far smarter on an individual basis than we're given credit for, don't you?
- Log in to post comments
Dear Miss Sheril,
As you well know, I'm no big fan of modern politicians. Few, if any of them qualify as LEADERS - which is what this country really needs. Sure, they can get elected, but they can't pass a federal budget, much less balance one. So looking to them is not going to work as a way to turn the tide.
Regardless of one's political strip - and mine is definitely teal - I think Americans are more savvy and smart then we are given credit for. The problem is the candidates are less smart then they used to be, less leaders then they used to be, and less willing to admit they work for the citizens then they used to be. So they campaign, and work, in ways to pull us down to their level, instead of rising to the call of public service that we have given them.
Then we voters get turned off by endless attack ads and debates, and we relinquish control of our political futures before the primaries (are you listening in Iowa and New Hampshire?). We throw up our hands in disgust, and we stop voting like some petulant toddler. More cycles reinforce this, and pretty soon you have the staunch leftists and rightists voting against each other. It's a vicious circle, and I remain pessimistic that any of the current candidates will pull us out of the cycle.
So Miss Sheril, I hope you are right about us voters, and I hope we pull it together this year. Red or Blue, we all want leaders, but we won't get them if we keep running away from the process.
I think most people vote for candidates rather than party, but I suspect that there is a significant fraction of centrist voters who are so fed up with the results of neo-con ideology that they will vote for the Democratic "brand" in '08.
Republican incumbents will have a hard time escaping that, except for independent thinking ones like Senator Lugar, and he is giving up his seat.
I know "Congress" has a very low approval rating, but I think voters recognize that the biggest obstacle to doing anything is that the majority in the Senate is too small to avoid filibusters, let alone override a Presidential veto.
Besides, when people are asked to rate their own senators or representatives rather than Congress as a whole, the approval ratings are much higher.
As for me, I'm fed up with my current Republican representative and hoping the Democrats give me a decent alternative. (No senate race in PA in '08.)
Exactly. I've noticed this cycle as well. Perhaps as we wake up and recognize these easy media and propaganda traps leading us astray in the first place, we may yet learn from past mistakes. And in doing so, I'm hopeful we'll bring back our collective focus to the real issues that matter.
There is still a Republican organization that knows what being environmental is truly about. It is called Republicans for Environmental Protection http://www.repamerica.org/ Margaret Marks and Jim DiPeso are the real thing.
Unfortunately, that organization has little sway when it comes time for the primaries.
For myself, my color is more deep green than teal, even though we don't win elections, at least on the local level we keep the right focus.
I slightly disagree with you here, Sheril. The general public isn't smart enough. Or... okay, I'll backpeddle here a little and just say the public is "ignorant", and on some level, willfully so. People are too easily distracted by TV, the internet, and shiny cars. I mean, if the voting public were as smart as you say, would we have the problems communicating science to them that you Science Bloggers constantly write about?
I will say that at this moment, Americans are probably still smart enough to see past all the partisan cow flop if presented will all of the information. Unfortunately, it takes a little bit too much work for the average American to get to all of the information. But if it were easily available, he/she probably could process it.
Maybe.
Exactly. I've noticed this cycle as well. Perhaps as we wake up and recognize these easy media and propaganda traps leading us astray in the first place, we may yet learn from past mistakes. And in doing so, I'm hopeful we'll bring back our collective focus to the real issues that matter.
**************************
Of course your support of Nisbet's version of framing isn't exactly going to help things:
"That's the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual's social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It's definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it's how things work in society."