OffTopic: US politics

[Ted O. Jackson]

> > >
> > As with most US politicians, the only answer they could concieve is run the
> > guy with the most money, and hope to use the media to discredit the other
> > guys. This is business as usual, and I don't think a leopard can change his
> > spots.
>
> I wondered if they do negative campaigning because they're naturally
> mean guys or if it's due to it having proven out that this is the most
> effective way of campaigning. If the latter then it's really the
> electorate who are to blame.
>
Probably a little of both.  It takes a certain kind of heavy
competitiveness to get into politics in the  first place.  But
really, I think negative campaigning is effective for a couple of
reasons.  First, when people are disaffected, they're more likely to
attack, so, in hopes of finding blame, they leap to the chance to say
something negative about anything!  Also, name calling and negative
press removes the need to show your own plans or attributes.  By
focusing on how bad the other guy is, you don't have to say how you
would make things different.  It also panders to the basic American
political apathy of late.  It's a lot easier for voters to dump on
someone's personal life than than become truly informed on
substantive issues.  This is the TV, nintendo, spectator-vs-
participator nature of the US.  To become informed of the issues
would require thought, creativity and study--all things that would
take Americans away from their blessed TV comedies and childish
fascination with sports.  Heaven forbid any American would be caught
dead watching a political program on TV when there's a basketball
game to be watched.  We always go for the junk food even when there's
gourmet cooking available that might actually challenge the mental
palate[sp?]

>
> > I don't have a problem with any person having strong ideals and
> > moral convictions, I respect a person who does,
>
> Indeed.
>
> > but I don't believe that
> > the US should have a president that would force the country to live by the
> > moral convictions of a small segment of society.
>
> That's basically why I'm a libertarian.
>
> > If the Republicans can do
> > no better than Buchannon, then it seems we are to have Clinton for another
> > 4 years.
>
> Like us, it looks like you don't really get the option of electing
> anyone a reasonable person would want to have any control over their
> lives.

But what's so frustrating is that the US could make sweeping changes.
 The very groups of people who are getting shafted have removed
themselves from the political process.  The sad fact is that all the
rich assholes vote, so they keep consolidating their power.  The
poor have given up.  They don't vote, so they are now contributing
to their own enslavement.  The power to change it exists, if only the
people would use it.  But again, that requires a great deal of
intellectual participation and self-education.  Sadly, most Americans
simply chose to give up.


> Anyway. Since this is so off topic and since there are politics junkies
> and folks who like to debate here, maybe I could fly a kite for setting
> up a separate mailing list to cover the US campaign in particular and
> politics in general? I can probably get access to software here to do
> that. It's in my interest since I'd probably get news I wouldn't
> otherwise get. I'm not sure what I could contribute though. Maybe an
> outside perspective?
>
This is an excellent idea, and I, for one relish the chance of
participating.  We really do have to take this politics talks off-
Line, before we start getting flamed or even kicked off BOC-L.
Really!  You'll have to set it up, 'cause I'm too computer illiterate
to handle the job.  Let me know how it works!
theo

> Anyway, let me know if interested and if there are enough, I'll set
> something up. I'd figure on folks from BOC-L plus any invited guests
> from elsewhere that they figure would make a contribution.
>
> Duane
>
> Cheers
>
> FoFP
>