BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

America: seriously, guys, what's up?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
22:14 / 17.05.06
Hey American 'lithers,

I used to think of America as my ol' Uncle Sam. Kind of a blowhard, a bit of a loudmouth, but somebody who'd help you out if you had a flat on the side of the road. A meat-and-potatoes kind of guy, slapping you on the back a bit too hard but laughing infectiously while doing it. The kind of guy that makes you wince a bit in public, but that you still always invite to the big summer barbecue, and who always brings a few extra steaks to the party.

These days, though, I don't know if I'd invite ol' Uncle Sam to the barbecue. I worry, frankly, that he'd start pounding on some of the other neighbours, then collapse in a fit of self-loathing, then crawl to the barbecue and grab the tongs to stab somebody in the leg, then stab himself in a fit of abject remorse.

At least, this is the impression I get. Maybe I'm still young, but I've never seen such a fever pitch of "right" vs. "left" rhetoric being thrown around before. My natural tendencies are towards the socialist side of the spectrum, but I'd love to think that everyone has something to contribute... if they'd just stop screaming long enough to listen to each other.

Is this an external opinion? Maybe, through an external filter (I'm in Canada), the vastness of things gets filtered and all I'm left with is the publicity-friendly anger. But the U.S. has never seemed so savagely torn before. I can't imagine another point in history where somebody like Ann Coulter would be taken seriously, much less syndicated.

Is there really such a "right"/"left" divide? Is it really Jesusland vs. the United States of Canada down there? Or is this just some meta-level of hype that I've bought into, and things are no more extreme than they were at any other point in American history?

And do other international 'lithers share my perspective that the rhetoric has really been ramped up since around the turn of the millennium? I'm more than willing to accept that it's just me. Honestly, I'd be happier that way.
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
22:22 / 17.05.06
Well, look at it this way:

The most sensational and far right/left wingers are the ones who make themselves heard the most, and the moronic hordes happily file in behind them for the Great Political War.

Plus, the sudden influx of religious legislation has greatly divided the political battlefield.

America may have once seemed to be nice and wholesome, with a cavalier, cowboy attitude toward things and a penchant for firearms, but now people have found causes, and with them conflicts.

Now, we're divided between enthusiatic liberals with a herd mentality and the backwoods conservative Jesus freak hordes. The middle ground, the voice of sanity, has been drowned out by the howling of the apes.

I'm honestly surprised there aren't more countries like this. Politics have been moving closer to the edge of sanity for years, and I always figured the rest of the world would lose their minds around the same time we did.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
22:36 / 17.05.06
I really hate American politics these days. I hate that the media makes it a team vs team sport. I imagine most Americans can be labeled conservative or liberal on an issue vs issue basis, instead of just swearing allegience to a team. The moment you hear someone using conservative or liberal as an insult you know you're just about to hear a bunch of rhetoric about whichever party line and no independant thinking.

Extremists don't help, especially when they serve 2 terms as American president. I can't believe Republicans who have long held onto the idea of smaller govt just kind of sit by while illegal wiretapping goes on, and that Democrats seem too meek or scared for their own political carreers to challenge the current administration.

The only thing I can think is that both parties are just waiting for Bush2 to leave, and then things might get a little more back to sane.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
00:03 / 18.05.06
It's really bad, and it's all because of Bush. We've never had a president with such an extreme agenda before, and certainly not one who basicaly says "fuck you" to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

I'm as guilty as the next guy, though. I get so angry at people who support Bush. I actually hate them in a deep and disturbing way. I feel like these people want to drag us into an era of ignorance ruled by a fucked-up brand of Christian fascism and I really loathe them for it. My worldview seems so simple to me, and theirs is so alien that it turns my stomach. I just find it so hard to believe that a huge amount of people find abusing the environment, bombing the shit out of people and imposing their values on others to be good things.
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
00:18 / 18.05.06
I've found that assuming that the majority of the world are idiots makes my mornings much more pleasant.
 
 
ibis the being
00:38 / 18.05.06
The most sensational and far right/left wingers are the ones who make themselves heard the most, and the moronic hordes happily file in behind them for the Great Political War.

I object to your characterization of Americans as "moronic hordes" (or herds as you later called them/us). Othering your fellow citizens (if you are American, but if not then 'fellow human beings' would be apropos) is unhelpful, counterproductive, and a little bit absurd. You are one of the hordes, I am one of the hordes, your mother and best friend and neighbor and favorite American author are one of the hordes. There are some morons out there to be sure, but this fall-back method of dehumanizing the people who live beside you is more than a little worrisome, as has been discussed elsewhere on the board.

Plus, the sudden influx of religious legislation has greatly divided the political battlefield.

I'm not sure about a sudden influx of religious legislation... religious rhetoric and policy, yes, but I'm unaware of an influx of legislation. The only example I can think of is Bush's boost to funding faith-based charities, and it's worth noting that was an executive order because Congress wouldn't put it through. I don't mean this to sound rude at all - hopefully more like helpful - but Phallicus, there is a certain amount of conversation that goes on in Switchboard, but generally people like it if you back up facts or fact-based assertions with some links or references. It makes for a more in-depth discussion.

I think that right now America is on one level more divided than ever (or maybe since the Civil War) and on another it's not. According to poll registers, we split pretty evenly down the middle as far as party lines go, which is about as it should be in a two-party system (of course it would be better to have more but with what we've got I'd rather not see an overwhelming majority of one or the other). Nevertheless, we tend to cross or blur party lines on big issues and come out with a consensus.

Polling Report is a handy dandy online reference of updated public opinion polls on a number of topics. Right now it shows that about two thirds of Americans disapprove of the President's performance, two thirds are against the war in Iraq, two thirds blame oil companies for rising gas prices, two thirds think rich Americans aren't paying their fair share in taxes, two thirds think the govt is not doing enough to protect the environment, two thirds favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, two thirds think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That is not a portrait of a "sharply divided nation."

On the other hand, you do see more of a 50/50 division or disparate poll results when the question gets more specific, asks about solutions, references party lines, and questions perceptions ('is ______ getting better or worse,' that sort of thing). What this tells me is that most Americans agree on general principles but there is more disagreement on particulars (which seems normal & healthy given that there are more than 2 solutions to any problem) and that there is some influence of political party loyalties and media coverage of news topics once you move beyond the general principles.

The level on which I feel Americans are more divided than ever is on the rhetorical one. President Bush is an opportunist and a demagogue, as are some of his cabinet members, most notably Rumsfeld, as we saw in his recent exchange with Ray McGovern. From "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" on forward, Bush has consistently inflamed political discussion by framing everything in black and white, either-or terminology. He and his administration tend to take extreme positions rather than merely conservative ones - preemptive striking, gay marriage amendment, teaching intelligent design - and these positions inform discussion in a negative fashion. In a way you can hardly blame the media for fueling or causing division, when just covering the President's speeches is an exercise in political extremism.

I guess what I'm saying is that Americans perceive themselves and each other as more divided than we truly are. Anecdotally speaking, almost everyone I talk to has that perception. In the course of discussion, when passions are ignited by the demagogy of our leaders, we wind up backing into the far corners of our political orientations... but the rhetoric is belied by the polls. America still has a huge politically moderate population, we just don't seem to know it anymore.

For a bit of point counter point reading, Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson buys the idea that America is More Divided Than Ever, while these three fellows from Newtopia Magazine disagree with that notion.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
00:38 / 18.05.06
Another us vs them thing I don't like is the media. I hate the "fair and balanced" reporting thing. Just report the facts as they are, don't look at it from a left wing point and then balance it with a right wing point, just report the fucking facts.
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
00:59 / 18.05.06
Ibis-

My casual usage of misanthropy notwithstanding (for the love of your god of choice, people, it's humor! HUMOR!), my reference to religious legislation was not about any outright funding, but in his support of anti-abortion laws, his attempted hijacking of NASA's data to be more bible-friendly, and his assertions that his decisions are frequently guided by faith.

I'm speaking of overall tones to his work, not specific and outright pledges to causes.

The herd mentality I speak of is the entire concept of showing up to the polls year after year only to vote straight down the ticket. This is a sports mentality, our team versus theirs, and its the cause of the Great American Divide.

That topic you linked to had little to do with casual misanthropic exaggerations. It seemed to concern itself more with a very solipsitic view, seemingly brought about by a bit too much Matrix, which has little to do with what I said.
Anyhow, these philosophical bits are becomeing threadrot.

I agree that there is a moderate population who rarely are heard, yes. My point is that the media bombards us with images of "US vs. THEM", both sides being violently polarized, which often leads the less inquisitive to uninformed voting and shouting.
And there are undeniably a lot of "less inquisitive" citizens out there.
 
 
matthew.
01:32 / 18.05.06
(Psst, Phallicus, as a friendly heads-up from the poster who just Barbe-quoted you, I'd advise against the "it was a joke!1!" defense. It is notoriously mocked. Even if it was a joke, don't try to defend it as a joke. This is a polite piece of advice, no ill will. In fact, you seem smart and eloquent, so this piece of advice will help you garner respect from the more respected posters like Ganesh, Flyboy, etc and of course Ibis, who has just been rocking Switchboard as of late!)
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
01:39 / 18.05.06
Ah. Uh, righto then. No joking here.
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
01:41 / 18.05.06
Also, with apologies for the double post, I vow to quit making up names for concepts that start with the word "Great".
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:15 / 18.05.06
Lots of problems here, I think, essentially because the set-up of "left" and "right" as two equal opposing forces in US culture/politics - and then subsiding "liberals" into the "left" camp and using the two terms synonymously - is incredibly misleading. So let's try and unpack this...

The most sensational and far right/left wingers are the ones who make themselves heard the most, and the moronic hordes happily file in behind them for the Great Political War.

Could you give me some examples of "far left wingers" who are currently making themselves heard in the US? What are they saying, and why is it extreme (and "moronic" to concur with)?

America may have once seemed to be nice and wholesome, with a cavalier, cowboy attitude toward things and a penchant for firearms, but now people have found causes, and with them conflicts.

Is this straight sarcasm? Because I don't think you're being serious here, yet at the same time, harking back to a simpler, less politicised time in US history seems to be a key component of your opening post. Surely a "cavalier, cowboy attitude toward things and a penchant for firearms" is in itself a very politicised way of being, and far from occupying the middle ground... I suspect you know this, but again, it needs clarifying.

Now, we're divided between enthusiatic liberals with a herd mentality and the backwoods conservative Jesus freak hordes. The middle ground, the voice of sanity, has been drowned out by the howling of the apes.

Again, what would the "middle ground" stand for? What kinds of issue separate the "enthusiastic liberals with a herd mentality" and the "middle ground... voice of sanity", and why is the former take on these issues insane and the latter sane?
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
11:07 / 18.05.06
Flyboy-

Yes, of course that bit about cavalier cowboys was in jest. I think our stereotypes are a bit funny is all.

As far as the "herd mentality left", I'm referring to people who dive onto the moveon.org bandwagon with little to no personal research into the matter. I'm not saying that moveon.org is in the wrong or anything, but a lot of people I know (late teens, so its a bit of a limited demographic) simply dive right into the bush-bashing/ leftist activism without being sure why, only knowing that it certainly seems to be a popular route to go. Sheehan is a good example of this. Her cause is in the right, yes, but her interviews are painful to listen to as she recycles protest slogans over and over and stumbles over questions.

The "middle ground" I speak of are those who don't identify solely with a party or cause, but with things that they have investigated themselves and approved of. These people are too busy drawing their own conclusions to be bothered with joining the Coulter/O'Reilly shouting brigade, and as such are seldom heard.

Aside, this place is fantastic! I love the idea of getting maimed by cattle prods every time I make a sweeping generalization.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:34 / 18.05.06
For starters:

Cindy Sheehan is motivated by a desire to follow the "popular route"? Are you quite sure she's not motivated by, say, the death of her son?

With which party to the "far left" identify solely?
 
 
ibis the being
12:08 / 18.05.06
The herd mentality I speak of is the entire concept of showing up to the polls year after year only to vote straight down the ticket. This is a sports mentality, our team versus theirs, and its the cause of the Great American Divide.

I see this not as a problem of herd mentality or of some weakness/stupidity on the part of voters, but as a problem with a system that all but forces people to vote down party lines in larger elections - specifically, a two-party system.

We don't hold elections on every issue or potential law in nationwide elections - it would be insanely inefficient, as some 5,000 bills are introduced to Congress every year. What we do is of course elect representatives to, well, represent our interests in the legislative body. Of course when you're given the choice of Democrat or Republican, chances are neither candidate is going to represent each and every one of your positions on the issues. People are compelled to choose the candidate that comes closest to their views, even when "closest" is in many cases not very close at all. The candidates themselves tend to stick to the usual party positions, and so the voter winds up voting the same party over and over. It follows from there that if you don't know where a candidate stands, but you know the standard Republican platform and that most candidates conform to party lines, you may just vote straight down the ticket as you said.

I'm registered Independent but I tend to vote straight Democrat because 1) I live in a heavily Democratic state (3 to 1 to Republicans) that often has uncontested Democrats on the ballot, 2) Given the choice of Democrat or Republican I assume the Democrat's positions are probably closer to mine - something I tend to do on all the little minor races, commissioners of whatever. That's not always correct and so it behooves me to educate myself about the candidates... in 1990 we had two candidates for governor who were almost reversed in their party platforms. Republican William Weld had a lot of typically Democratic positions and Democrat John Silber had a lot of typically Republican ones. Weld won with huge margins in heavily Democratic cities, and he later would very narrowly lose a Senate seat to John Kerry.

If we had a real multi-party system, where candidates from other parties were as well funded and supported and covered by the media as the Dem & Repubs are, people would be able to vote for representatives who were more representative of their views, and we wouldn't have to split down party lines.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:10 / 18.05.06
The problem with the middle ground is that it provides no clear opposition to policies that consistently infringe on people's rights. What is the middle ground doing to oppose the huge human rights violations that the US government is perpetrating other than making up their own minds? People are on hunger strike and being force fed at the moment in an internment camp that is populated by American citizens and there is little impetus by the middle ground to help those people because they're disinclined to extreme action.

The US has an administration in government that may or may not have been elected twice, without community, without sole identification with a cause these kind of issues cannot be tackled effectively because alone you simply can't affect change.
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
12:22 / 18.05.06
Flyboy-

Of course Sheehan had a good reason to start off on the campaign (I won't get into much detail on her cause, as it will inevitably trigger threadrot), but she isn't bringing much new to the table now, only spouting recycled protest slogans and appearing on the news.

Ibis-

I agree, actually. The problem here is the two party system, to be honest. It's a shame that we are sometimes reduced to choosing the lesser evil, but it is the best we can do under the circumstances. I, like you, tend to vote heavily Democrat, simply because they often seem to reflect my views and are by far the least ominous choice.

Anna-

Another good point. I think that the left/right "war" that is going on right now is just the inevitable result of the current administration. Independents like Nader only impede progress, and the only way of affecting any real change is to join up with a larger "cause" (read: party) in order to remove the cancer growing in the white house.



I think we can all agree that ideally America would do away with its two monolithic parties and embrace a more diverse range of political factions, but a scenario like that is probably a long ways away.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
12:38 / 18.05.06
she isn't bringing much new to the table now, only spouting recycled protest slogans and appearing on the news.


Er...Phallicus? Does this analysis of the Cindy Sheehan's recent actions not suggest that all your knowledge of said actions actually comes from, y'know, her being interviewed on the news? And that you don't really know about anything else she's up to, perhaps? Moreover, I'd be very interested to hear what these "recycled protest slogans" that keep turning up actually look (or rather, sound) like. Because, apart from anything else, if they're something along the lines of "We really don't want to stand for a non-elected fascist zealot who seems to enjoy sending our children to die in foreign countries for dubious reasons!", then I'd suggest the reason they are "recycled", or are voiced with such frequency is because, you know, the Bush Administration are a load of fascist warmongers who lie about their reasons for sending people to war, and then when they do, don't give them any body armour, and have been for the last six years...
Also, how does your assertion that the only way of affecting any real change is to join up with a larger "cause" mesh with your desire for novelty in anti-governmental causes?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:39 / 18.05.06
So Phallicus, to be clear, you admit when you said:

a lot of people... simply dive right into the bush-bashing/ leftist activism without being sure why, only knowing that it certainly seems to be a popular route to go. Sheehan is a good example of this.

...You were wrong. Do you have any good examples of this, then, if Sheehan is not one?

You haven't answered my other question, but maybe that was because of the typo, so let me correct that: With which party do the "far left" identify solely?

Actually, you haven't answered these questions either, so let me rephrase them to be more specific:

What are the "far left" saying - i.e. give me an example of some specific claims they make or positions they espouse - and why is it extreme (and "moronic" to concur with)?

What do the "middle ground" stand for, specifically, other than making up their own mind and speaking softly? What kinds of issue - just pick one or two - separate the "enthusiastic liberals with a herd mentality" and the "middle ground... voice of sanity", and why is the former take on these issues insane and the latter sane?
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
12:50 / 18.05.06
"Far left" was a poor choice of words, and I take that back now.
The leftist causes are not necessarily extreme, and are often very justified. I'm talking about the people who have joined up (again, as we're talking about the sociopolitical climate in America, I can only speak through personal experience and observation) with leftist causes without actually investigating, the people who get into a rabid anti-republican furor simply because they saw a few Michael Moore films.

The "middle ground" was also a poor choice of words. I'm just pouring forth the lovely words today, aren't I?
The "middles" I referred to weren't meant to reflect the moderates on the political spectrum, but rather those who voted on their own well-founded beliefs rather than party agendas.

As for Sheehan, I'll post an interview later tonight once I find it. My dislike for her is, after thinking about it, not really relevant to this discussion. She's just been in the limelight too long is all.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:29 / 18.05.06
I'm talking about the people who have joined up (again, as we're talking about the sociopolitical climate in America, I can only speak through personal experience and observation) with leftist causes without actually investigating, the people who get into a rabid anti-republican furor simply because they saw a few Michael Moore films.

I'm sure you're not actually saying that people have no right to adopt a position based on information (from either side, really) which they at least believe to be true and which moves them to action? Or that there should be some sort of minimum standard of reading up and/or experience without which people shouldn't attempt to make themselves heard? Cos depending where you set the bar that'll be a Chomsky/Bush cage match, with the rest of us baying like wolves on crystal? (Thought that would be quite fun...)

I'm pretty sure you're not. What are you saying?

I mean, "pretending" to actually care just so you can look cool, yeah, there could be an argument against that, but how many people actually end up entering activism this way, staying there and caring? More than you'd think, I'm guessing.

(There was more but I've forgotten it for the moment).
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
14:12 / 18.05.06
Chomsky/Bush cage match, with the rest of us baying like wolves on crystal

Thank you for that. I will be thinking of that all day today.

Of course there's nothing wrong with picking a side due to information that you found. I'm talking about just what you mentioned, those who align with a cause simply for the social status it carries, left or right.

Flyboy, I can't give an "example" because I can't very well round up a crows of hipsters wearing anti-W pins and have them give you a call. All I can do is speak from limited experience, which is all you can really do in this topic when discussing the political climate.

This is a really difficult topic to give opinions about while maintaining some semblance of credibility. I can't very well speak for every American citizen, I can only talk about what I've observed personally in New England.



Hey, on a side note, are there any Republican posters here? I'd be interested to know if there are any anti-Bush republicans, since the popular conception here is that George W has almost complete support from the right and complete opposition from the left. The media really is trying to make Stoat's dream come true, a Chomsky/Bush cage match.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
14:42 / 18.05.06
If we had a real multi-party system, where candidates from other parties were as well funded and supported and covered by the media as the Dem & Repubs are, people would be able to vote for representatives who were more representative of their views, and we wouldn't have to split down party lines.

A large part of my interest in starting this thread is to see where this level of acrimony has stemmed from so that I, as a Canadian, can do my own little bit in helping prevent it up here.

One major difference (among many, I know) between the U.S. and Canadian systems is that we have effectively a three-party system: the NDP, traditionally identified as "left," the Liberals, who are firmly in the "middle," and the Conservatives, who are an amalgam of the former Progressive Conservatives ("mid-right") and Canadian Alliance ("far right").

There is a fourth party, the Bloc Québecois, but they sort of occupy their own space as Québec separatists. On a Venn diagram, they'd overlap the NDP in policy, but sort of balloon out into a "Quebec First" sphere. One of the reasons for the Progressive Conservative / Canadian Alliance merge was that the Alliance was seen by a lot of people as a West First party and also had the stench of a lot of objectionable people that had been around when the party was founded.

Said merge is one of the things that's worrying me. I don't want Canada to have a two-party (some might even argue one-party-with-two-faces) system like the U.S. does. At the same time, I don't think the interests of nations as geographically vast as North American countries are served by the several-dozen-party systems that crop up in some European democracies, either.

At core, though, I want to understand what started this tooth-and-nail acrimony in the USA. Even more interesting would be ideas from American 'lithers about, if they could turn back the clock, how they'd set about trying to help prevent it.
 
 
Spaniel
14:49 / 18.05.06
What are the "far left" saying - i.e. give me an example of some specific claims they make or positions they espouse - and why is it extreme (and "moronic" to concur with)?

I think this points in an interesting direction, as it seems to me that the right wing slant in the US media has created the impression that there is some kind of enormous, organised socialist bogey man out there (often located in Hollywood, or not located at all) and that the Right are standing firmly against it. And, you know, I reckon that's complete bollocks.
From my admittedly reasonably uninformed point of view, it seems like the left doesn't actually have a popular media platform in the states and that left wing voices barely get a look in.

Am I wrong?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:52 / 18.05.06
Phallicus, the problem is that I don't actually know what you're talking about when you talk about the "left" or "liberals". Do you just mean anyone who would like to see a different president than Bush and/or opposes the war in Iraq? Because I think that's a broader definition than is useful.

I also think that maybe it needs reiterating that the Democrat party is not considered to be on the "left" by many people who can provide a definition of the term, either within or without the US.

And... look, I'm honestly trying to ask this as politely as possible, but how can you not be able to give me an example of what kind of positions these supposedly conformist lefty hipsters hold, when you know enough about them and have listened to enough of what they've said to come to the decision that they are only stating these opinions because it may bring them social status?
 
 
Spaniel
14:53 / 18.05.06
And if I'm right, isn't it a shame that there are 'lithers who have actually bought into the propogandist bullshit that infects the US airwaves? That there are probably many many people out there who are tired of all the left vs right mudslinging when the battle has, in actual fact, been mainly one-sided
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:59 / 18.05.06
Yes - it is depressing - even Jon Stewart's famous and celebrated appearance on Crossfire bought into this fully (that's the point of Crossfire) and sadly helped perpetuate it.
 
 
Spaniel
15:06 / 18.05.06
How bloody awful.
 
 
electric monk
15:15 / 18.05.06
From my admittedly reasonably uninformed point of view, it seems like the left doesn't actually have a popular media platform in the states and that left wing voices barely get a look in.

Am I wrong?

Slightly. We do have Air America, which is a "lefty" radio network meant to counter the dearth of "right-wing" pundits on the airwaves (specifically Rush Limbaugh, but there are others). It's been a fairly successful enterprise, in that they've managed to build a listener base and Arbitron ratings suggest that gabbers like Randi Rhodes are beating the pants off Limbaugh and his ilk in the head-to-head time slots. There was talk a while ago of Al Gore starting his own TV network (to counter FOX, I imagine), but that seems to have been just talk. In the main, tho, a right-wing talking head does get more broadcast exposure via TV and radio than a lefty one. The leftys have a toehold, but that's about it.
 
 
Spaniel
15:21 / 18.05.06
I was thinking more about teh forces behind the media, for example I'd imagine I'm not wrong to think that there are no left-wing powers behind any of the US media thrones.
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
15:27 / 18.05.06
Flyboy-


Left: Taxation and welfare for all, gun control, anti-smoking laws, affirmative action, environmental activism.

This is, of course, just the stereotype that I see a lot of people adopt. These views aren't exclusive to the radiohead-loving, PETA-joining, herb-smoking Phish fans.

Keep in mind, again, that this is just what I see among the people that I'm around, who are generally in their late teens.
The actual democratic party generally doesn't even swing that far left, anyhow.
 
 
grant
16:19 / 18.05.06
I was thinking more about teh forces behind the media, for example I'd imagine I'm not wrong to think that there are no left-wing powers behind any of the US media thrones.



Well, there's Ted Turner (Jane Fonda's ex), who sold CNN to AOL/Time-Warner. I seem to remember AOL's board swinging pretty Democratic as far as campaign contributions (can't recall the site to look that up, but it's some fact-checking thread I started on here) -- and founder Steve Case grew up with his cousin Ed, who's now a Democratic congressman. And there's a whole passel of actors.

I think there's a confusion here between extreme left (or right) and extremely loud left (or right). Often, the views aren't as far off center as the statements surrounding them. I also think (and have talked about it on here before) the ascendancy of the right in American politics has to do with their mastery of the art of generating outrage. The left is catching up, but isn't there yet.
 
 
Korso Jerusalem
16:21 / 18.05.06
An interesting point. Perhaps we wrongfully associate the vocal extremists with some of the more reasonable folk.
 
 
Spaniel
16:43 / 18.05.06
Grant, what do you think of my (badly informed) analysis upthread?
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
16:52 / 18.05.06
I suppose I would characterize myself, or rather others would characterize me, as "extreme left," and I find that my views aren't represented well at all in the mass media, especially on television. The "extreme right," on the other hand, has no shortage of outlets. You can turn on FOX News and find really disgusting hatespeech constantly, and even on the more neutral CNN and MSNBC, the Ann Coulters of the world get a heck of a lot more play than, say, the Al Frankens. The radio is more balanced. Amy Goodman's show Democracy Now! is one of my favorites, but she isn't a pundit like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. Living in the extreme Eastern tip of Maine I have no Air America, but I listen to it when I'm down in Portland, Boston or Providence. It's pretty good stuff and I'm glad it exists, but it has nothing on the monolith of right-wing talk radio.

So I would say TV is virtually devoid of any "extreme" left-wing views and plays host to a legion of "extreme" right-wing voices, whereas radio is a bit more balanced, but still weighs in more heavily conservative.

As for voting, I vote Democratic 99% of the time because there is no viable alternative. The Green Party shot themselves in the foot immediately, when they named themselves, and the libertarians are even more marginalised, as well as mostly batshit insane. We haven't had a viable Independent since Ross Perot and that lunatic Admiral he was running with, and I certainly don't want to see more like him.

It's my opinion that the entire American political spectrum has drifted right since fucking Reagan got in. The fact that he's lionized as some sort of Great American Hero makes me want to spew black bile all over, but that may be a topic for a new thread. As I've mentioned elsewhere in the Switchboard, Nixon's social policies would put him squarely to the left of the mainstream Democratic party. That tells you a lot about the direction the country's been headed.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply