Decius wrote:

Jello wrote:
Not because it makes sense, or because it has a chance of improving his life or anyone else's, but simply because it appeals to the low-humming narcissism that substitutes for his personality, because the image on TV reminds him of the mean, brainless slob he sees in the mirror every morning.

Its to be expected that delegates to the RNC would love their candidate no matter what. An advertisement appears attached to this article which offers precisely the sort of brain washing propaganda that is the foundation of this country's bitter partisanship. Its not just that people are incapable of objective consideration of their political choices, its that they have been taught from a very young age thats it wrong to do that. If you pick a side at least there are some people who can stomach talking to you about politics, but if you refuse to you are everyone's enemy. That means being constantly subject to personal attacks on your thinking from every quarter, strafed with the best oversimplified talking points and logic defying straw men that our nation's pundit class can come up with. It takes serious intellectual strength to remain independent and engaged and very few people have the spine for it.

The most important difference between America and the rest of the world is the bill of rights and the system of checks and balances that usually enforces it. I don't understand why some governments in Asia refuse to allow democratic elections or go out of their way to suppress the development of multi-party politics. Its not as if different people would be in power if they did. Its simply a more refined sort of manipulation... presenting people with false choices... tricking them into voting against their self interest instead of forcing them to.

As for Palin, the post convention boost in the Republican's fortunes appears to be waning. The narrative is that the economic chaos of the past few weeks is costing them. Clearly, a lot of Americans paid attention to the VP debate. Thats Palin's most important moment, and I suspect her impact on people's thinking to be built into the polls over the next few days. All signs are pointing down. America didn't react as negatively to her as I originally expected, but there is only a very tiny segment of the population that is open to the idea that it might make sense to consider their choice in this election, and if they sway it only shows up as a few percentage points in the polls. Thats why Rove didn't bother with the traditional play to the center. There are way more bitterly partisan people out there who don't bother to show up for the polls than objective swing voters who are persuaded by campaigning.

A political system can have three states: Apathy, Partisanship, or Totalitarianism. Having seen all three I continue to insist that the first is the best.

I haven't read the article yet, but your reply is definitely resonating with me. I often wonder why other nations don't go for the "democratic" sham myself. It gives people at least the illusion that they're participating in something that is ideal, even if in the end, it's just more blue pull. I still think that there's more folly left to be explored before November, but in the end, it won't matter who takes office. The problems will worsen. The divide will deepen. And the rest of the world will be emboldened to seize the opportunity.

I have a theory that I'm still formulating, but basically it rests most of this condition on the baby boomer generation. From 1964 on, there started to become two Americas. One was staunchly patriotic and rooted in "traditional" values, the other wanted to create an ultra liberal society striving for peace and personal liberty. Since then, the US has lost its momentum as a leading cultural and idealistic icon (don't mix that up with the financial benefits and hegemony from US culture). We've been polarized since, with little getting done unless it was in the "best" interest of both sides to do so. There were last gasps at greatness (Civil Rights movement, mission to the moon, rock n roll, etc), but for the most part, we've done nothing to improve.

One side wants us to protect the traditions that were established in the early 20th century as tenants in modern society. Work hard, keep your family foremost in mind, and be suspicious of change. The other, wanted to live on the back of the most affluent society ever created, and use that to create new art, science, experience, and culture, as a way to bridge gaps across all humanity. Both are right, and both are wrong. But when I listen to people from that generation, especially when talking about politics, all I hear is black and white. Squares versus hippies. Haves versus have-nots. They have become a caricature of themselves, and that thinking and institutionalization, has influenced EVERY FUCKING THING since.

Until that generation and its ideas passes, I don't think we're even in the slightest bit in a position to make the marked changes we need to as a society. What I fear is that by then, it will be too late, and there will be nothing left to work with.

We used to be a "mixing pot" but now we are purely binary. I don't know if that's the computer age influencing us, or us having already moved in that direction that birthed the digital age. But unlike the power of bits, when it comes to society, analog is necessary.

RE: The scariest thing about Sarah Palin isn't how unqualified she is - it's what her candidacy says about America | The Smirking Chimp