Political Lipservice

[Captain Cardio]

It seems to me that even though some of the presidential candidates can make very good speeches, and by and large can come across as very formidable minds, they do seem to sell themselves short when talking about some lesser issues.

Maybe that isn't so clear, but my point:

Is it possible that politicians cannot fully represent every one of their personal views, if the are to have a reasonable chance of being elected to office?

In other words, they must pretend to agree with the populous on most issues, except provide a contrast on one or two issues they decide are most important.

For example, a candidate might hide the fact they are an atheist, or a vegetarian, or pretend to be one or the other of pro-life or pro-choice, to get elected and allow themselves access to the decision making process of things like tackling climate change, or dealing properly with the Iraq war.

If a candidate presented themself being an iconoclast, regardless of how well justified, tested, and thought-through all their arguments are, they might, in essence sabotage their own campaign by trying to confront too many issues at once, and alienating most of the public.

In this sense, could it be understandable that the mainstream politicians only really pronounce their opinion on select issues, and largely conform to the shallow beliefs of the general populous on other issues?

Clearly most politicians need to play the politics game to get elected, so in many areas they do need to be dishonest. But can we forgive them of lies we suspect, acknowledging that they may just be trying to take the necessary actions to be able to influence the issues that matter most.

Thoughts?

[Nono]

Quote by: Cap Is it possible that politicians cannot fully represent every one of their personal views, if the are to have a reasonable chance of being elected to office?

Possible? It's pure scientific fact. God help you if you leave them one micron of pretext to portray you as "unpatriotic" or (ineffable horror!) "liberal".

No. Every syllable has to be carefully packaged after thorough examination by the image wizards.

Anyway, forget the issues. When do they ever talk about the real issues in an US presidential campaign? Check the so-called debates between Hillary and Obama -- all about who's more electable. Iraq, climate change, national debt, etc. -- all taboo.

[Technosoul]

We want the airwaves and we want them now,
It's our media and we want it now.
Stand aside if you know how
All you sanitized talking heads, take a bow.

Forget the politics that left them sedated
the goobly goo that is over rated.

The speeches and the pundants
The polls and the White House rodents

We want our voice, and this you can qoute
We want to rock this nation, that that is our vote.

We darn well know how to get along
Peace will enter when fear and hate is gone.
So don't preach to us about right an wrong
Just turn us on, hear the damn song.

We are the people, they are just a show
They came down to hear us, as if we are below.
they say they now hear us, but why did they not already know?

It is all for show, they are the show.
Did we ask for a tow truck, I do not think so.
We want a car that is not borken, ready to go.
Who broke the car, those who made it just for show.

Yes we want change, a new kind of show
We will change the station, turning the media dial nice and slow.

Where we stop only we will know.
Be it rap or rock and roll.
For it is our media and we will gain control.
So play our tunes and we will watch your show.

To all else we will close the door.
We are the drum beat of the poor.
We are the songs of the whore.
We are the middle class garage band in a roar.

Hey, whats that sound, what's goin' down...

[Gods_Mercenary]

Check the so-called debates between Hillary and Obama -- all about who's more electable.

That's because it's a primary, a party's decision on both who will represent their ideas best and, perhaps more importantly, certainly to the dems right now, who will actually get into the white hous so their ideals actually matter.

Politics everywhere is about being electable, you have to try to represent the middle of the voting populace while also keeping your base, usually further to the left or right, convinced you're not betraying them.

[Nono]

Sorry, Gawd, politics is about the issues. Period.

But somehow in the US people seem to vote on the basis of how many flags the candidate manages to wrap himself in and how many coloured balloons there are floating around. Beats me.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not a party primary, that's mainly about power and who will deliver it. Anyway, politics in general is about power. American voting practices aside, of course a party will be concerned about who will deliver the office to them, otherwise the entire process has been a waste of money.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Captain Cardio Is it possible that politicians cannot fully represent every one of their personal views, if the are to have a reasonable chance of being elected to office?

As Nono said, it's not just "possible", it's the over-arching fact that governs all politics.

Perfect example: a year ago Hillary made a perfectly reasonable assessment that the nomination was hers to lose, because at the time no one saw Obama coming. With that in mind, she ignored the conventional wisdom of all Presidential electioneering -- campaign in the primaries to your party's base, (to the left for Democrats) and then campaign to the center in the general election. Hillary mistakenly thought she could ignore that conventional wisdom and instead ran true to her values, appealing to moderates and swing voters on "experience and competence". Along comes Obama out of nowhere and sweeps the party base right out from under her. Clinton has since swung to the populist left, with some success, but very likely far too late.

Quote by: Technosoul We want the airwaves and we want them now, It's our media and we want it now. Stand aside if you know how All you sanitized talking heads, take a bow.

Some lovely 60's sentiments by Buffalo Springfield, Techno, but naive at best.

Fact is, we now have the airways, in the form of the blogosphere, and I submit it's done as much or more harm than good.

Folks here have flattered me that I'm one of Volconvo's more reasoned and informed debaters. In return I've tried to point out that it's because my biggest, most reliable source of information has always been my daily newspaper -- regardless of being the conservative San Diego Union/Tribune -- along with other general audience mainstream news sources like TIME, Newsweek and NPR.

Yet all those general audience sources are rapidly losing audience to a brave new world of partisan Cable and Internet news boutiques and pundit showcases, specifically tailored to tell their viewers all the news they want to hear, with little or no more concern over their factual reliability or responsible informing than your average supermarket tabloid.

People keep saying they want truth from their politicians, yet they keep joyfully gobbling up the New Media lies like so much candy. People keep saying they want civil campaigns based on informed issues, yet they keep stampeding in tune with the latest sound bites, the latest gratuitous and meaningless gotcha, and every hate mongering talk show host with a bloody red meat opinion.

So do politicians pander? Hell yeah... what choice do they have?

.

[Nono]

Here's a good example from that admirable American journalist William Pfaff:

Tribune Media Services International

(...) The overall cause of self-suppression of public discussion of certain issues, self-censorship by politicians, officials, "public intellectuals" and press, is a consensus that now exists among officials, politicians, publishers, media corporations and journalists that it is impolitic to recognize certain realities. This is true even when national security, as such, is not involved. The nation has a certain image of itself. It is unprofitable to raise the possibility that this is not a true image. Take a subject that everyone concerned with American foreign affairs knows about: the construction in Iraq of several huge, fortified, self-sufficient but vulnerable United States bases, which the Pentagon prefers to describe as "enduring camps" but are meant to be permanent, serving a Pentagon strategy of regional military control that antedates the Bush administration. Hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women know about these bases, have served on them, and see perfectly well what they are for. Journalists infrequently visit them because they know that what they write is unlikely to be published, will make waves, and will identify them in a manner unlikely to help their careers. (...) The Pentagon is at the disposal of the civilian government. The latter has only to ask, and the military will do it. It turns out that they sometimes cannot do the task successfully, as in the Iraq occupation shambles, the attempt to protect a permanent American client regime in Afghanistan, the emerging program to "go into" Waziristan to get the "bad guys" despite what the Pakistan government and people think, the new disaster in Somalia, and the failure to eliminate drug production in Colombia and Afghanistan. They give it all the good old West Point and Annapolis try. But this is not enough to be serious. In the presidential campaign, responsible people are reluctant to talk about this. Imagine the moderators of the disgraceful ABC Democratic primary debate last week asking the candidates how many permanent bases there are in Iraq, why they are there, and what they imply concerning the withdrawal promises made by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Imagine them asking about another reality known to everyone concerned with the matter, the fact that the policy of both Labor and Likud governments of Israel since 1967 has been to dominate Palestine and maintain and expand Israel's settlements there, despite ineffectual American objections. This, for Israel, has been a ruthless but reasonable policy, serving its perceived interests, but irreconcilable with U.S. Middle Eastern interests. What is to be done about this? It would have been foolhardy for ABC's commentators even to have mentioned the matter. Jimmy Carter, who dared to pose the question, is being treated as a pariah by virtually all "responsible" people. Yet this could prove the biggest issue of war or peace that will face a new president. In the circles that claim the right to shape the American future, there is guilty silence; but it is necessary that the silence on such matters be broken. (...)