 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Oct 03 - 01:34 PM When Saddam camne up with his election just pre-war and found he'd won it by a landslide, everyone (quite reasonably) sneered at it. I only wish he'd used an electronic voting system. That might have helped discredit this kind of absurdity. I just cannot conceive how anyone can be willing to trust any voting system that doesn't provide hard evidence that can be checked carefully and with safeguards. And it doesn't matter how long it takes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: NicoleC Date: 18 Oct 03 - 12:47 PM Nicole, So what do you think, hanging chads? Just coicidentally, the company that owns the electronic voting machines now used in California (and many other states), also happens to be own and run by some very right wing folks who also happen to be huge Republican donors. There have been several elections recently that have mysteriously had strange or unpredicted outcomes -- including one election where the OWNER of the company that sold the voting machines surprisingly won his election at the last minute, in defiance of the exit polls. I know how easy it is to tamper with computers. And yet, these machines have no paper trail and no independant oversight of their security programming. If someone hasn't tampered with an election yet, they will very soon... and we may not even know about it for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Mark Clark Date: 18 Oct 03 - 11:46 AM Good one McGrath. And so true. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Oct 03 - 10:10 AM Where are the people to the left of what in the USA is defined as centre? In most of the rest of the world, including, in England, people who are seen, and who see themselves, as fairly right wing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Mark Clark Date: 18 Oct 03 - 03:12 AM Nerd, Thanks for the link to Lakoff's American Prospect piece. It goes even farther to help explain why bright people might adopt a philosophy and voting habits that run contrary to their own self-interest and core beliefs. Toadfrog, Although leftists seem to have nearly disappeared in the U.S. I didn't mean to imply that we don't have any, just that they aren't found in the campaigns of Democratic candidates. There are leftists in San Francisco, maybe a couple in Austin, there are a few in Iowa City, Chicago, New York and Boston. There may even be a small number in Minneapolis. Sadly though, all the Democratic Party regulars I run across (I sit on our county's Democratic Central Committee) seem right of center. There really isn't much balance in U.S. politics. Nicole, So what do you think, hanging chads? <g> - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: NicoleC Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:40 PM toadfrog - Because the Democratic candidates presented are hardly ever what lefties want to vote for, but often do anyway for lack of a better choice. Even the candidates that get to the primaries are generally slick professional politicians, not necessarily the fodder for good leadership. I don't think Davis was a bad governor -- I think he was a mediocre governor when we needed a great one. I have a hunch he might be a really bad person though. I always thought he was pretty slimey. PDC - Yup. Am I the only one that noticed that ALL of the polls had Bustamonte and AS running neck and neck EXCEPT the AS campaign poll (of only 200 people), which predicited the outcome of the election EXACTLY? What a *shocking* *coincidence*, hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:16 PM According to accounts I have read, check your voting machines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: toadfrog Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:09 PM It's all too complicated for me, these "frames," families & so forth. It seems to me that several of those "frames" really do describe what happened, up to a point. One fact we shouldn't forget - although he did not cause all the problems he is blamed for, Davis was really, really a bad Governor. Basically only a fund raiser, like most of the politicians we get in California. A selfish man who cared for no cause or principle, but only his own ambitions. An arrogant man who hever listened to anyone and brought his problems on himself. And unfortunately, on us as well. So, Arnold has a mandate, to (a) cut taxes; and (b) balance the budget, (c) without cutting education; and (d) (impliedly) without undue harm to the folks who voted for him (e) with the help of all the money brother George is going to bestow on him (ha ha ha). Lots of luck, Arnold. Mr. Clark, one question. If the Democrats are to the right of center, where are all those people who are to the left of center? Where do they live, and why is it they never vote? Why do we never hear from them? Are they like the Dark Matter that makes up 50% of the universe? I live in San Francisco. In the state of California, that is considered an extremely left-wing place. San Francisco voted 80% against the recall. Almost everyone here is a Democrat. Go 100 miles south, or north, or east, they will tell you San Francisco is full of Left-wing kooks. they do not say we are too conservative. They won't tell you that, trust me. But we vote Democratic. Where are all those people you are talking about??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Oct 03 - 06:03 PM A useful corrective to linear thinking, and on-with-the-new - ""Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." - (George Santayana.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Nerd Date: 17 Oct 03 - 04:45 PM The article I referenced above is a fuller explication of the two models, and a more nuanced discussion of their role. One point he makes: "People are complicated. They are not all 100 percent conservative or progressive. Everyone in this society has both the strict and nurturant models, either actively or passively -- actively if they live by those values, passively if they can understand a story, movie or TV show based on those values. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Nerd Date: 17 Oct 03 - 04:33 PM Freightdawg, thanks for your response. The response to Clinton's shenanigans, I think, is not an example of dems marching in lockstep. People like Lieberman scolded Clinton openly. Granted, this was significantly later than Hillary's statement, too. My point was that there was indeed a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get Clinton, so Hillary was really just speaking truth, and if liberals all agreed with her that wasn't marching in lockstep but observing reality. I don't think any of the stuff she has said, then or since, qualifies as hate speech. On the linear metaphor: exactly, no metaphor is perfect, but many of them structure our thinking so that we cease to realize they are metaphors. So for example when you ask "could he himself run on 2004 issues, or would he himself be drawn back to Florida and 2000?" we process this without thinking of it as a metaphor, but of course it is: he could no more return to 2000 than fly to Jupiter. And our words themselves are metaphorical: "return," for example, comes from a root that means simply "turn around," because metaphorically the past is behind us. It has entered the language so that the only way we can speak clearly of going back to the past is in spatial metaphors of backward travel: "return," "go back to the past," etc. Lakoff is very smart about metaphors and frames and how they guide our thinking. He points out that the neoconservatives have think-tanks coming up with dicourse metaphors which they then release into the public. His best example is "tax relief," which carries with it a whole set of assumptions that do not reflect liberal views of taxation. This phrase was released to the public by the right, and now even democrats sometimes use it. For that article, go here DougR, McGrath's response is exactly correct. Lakoff never makes any claims about the actual families of people at any point on the spectrum. His point is that the two ends of the spectrum use different family metaphors to understand the role of government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Oct 03 - 03:00 PM I don't actually think that is what he is saying there, Doug. What I read him as saying is that there are two models of how a family should work within our heads. He labels one the "strict father model", and the other the "nurturant parent family". Both models are present within most of us, and real families tend to combine them, whatever their formal politics. However he says that "liberal" politics reflects the"nurturant parent family" model, and "conservative" politics reflects the "strict father" model. And, whether you agree with his analysis or not, I think it's a misreading of what he wrote to take him as saying that real life "conservatives" typically have families like the one summed up in the "strict father" model. (And the same for "liberal" families and the "nurturant parent family" model.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: DougR Date: 17 Oct 03 - 02:20 PM The writer's description of a "typical" (I assume he means typical) conservative family does not jibe with families I know that have conservative beliefs at all. Pretty "typical" liberal propaganda I think. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: freightdawg Date: 17 Oct 03 - 02:12 PM To my friend Nerd, I agree totally with your example of Texas. Like I said, I have serious problems with republicans as well as democrats. However, this issue did not exist when Ms. Clinton made her comment. My only point was that democrats, as well as republicans, march in lockstep with their leaders when it benefits their goals, and democrats as well as republicans will argue amongst themselves when they feel it is in their best interest. I disagree with your interpretation of the whole Gore-Bush and the Supreme court. If they had not stepped in and acted like adults we would still be counting hanging chads. Incidentally, that election is why I hate the electoral college with a passion. This whole idea of "one person, one vote" is a crock of baloney. The electoral college was a good and workable idea when it was first created, but should be done away with henceforth and forever more. Your thoughts on Gore running again are interesting. The question would be, could he himself run on 2004 issues, or would he himself be drawn back to Florida and 2000? We are all hopelessly children of our own generation. We speak the language not only that we are comfortable with, but also one that communicates to those we want to communicate with. In America that mean speaking linearally. It is not perfect, but then no metaphor is. freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Oct 03 - 02:10 PM The fact that people may be clever enough doesn't in any way mean they can't make themseleves stupid, when they really want to. It's as if we've got a little switch in our mind, and we can just turn it off, and large parts of our mind settle back and go to sleep. Every now and again large number of people do that, and it can have dire results - and the dire results can make them turn the switch back on. Of course, that only works if the dire results happen to the people with the switched off minds, rather than being exported to other parts of the world. But sooner or later it does seem to happen that the trouble comes home in a way that can turn that switch back on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Metchosin Date: 17 Oct 03 - 12:11 PM I knew there had to be some reason I prefer a clock with a face over a digital one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Nerd Date: 17 Oct 03 - 11:59 AM freightdawg, Anyone who doesn't now believe that there was (and is) a vast, right-wing conspiracy that was aginst the Clintons in the 1990s and machinating all over the US right now has his head in the sand. Let's see: We've been through a power grab for the presidency involving the republican-controlled Supreme Court stopping a count of votes. The Florida commissioner of elections changed the rules on excluding people from voting to get Bush into power and then used those new rules to get herself elected to congress; this involved, for example, excluding felons who had served their time, but also anyone who had the same name as a felon who had served his or her time. It was outrageous. Then in Texas, we have an extraordinary effort to redistrict the state off-schedule and pick up more congressional seats, simply because it's possible to ram it through the legislature based on the Republican majority. In California we have a Democratic governor recalled over an energy issue largely caused by the Federal government. The first thing the new Republican does--before he even takes office--is meet with the President to ask for more money. We are getting very close to a situation where the federal monies that go to a State will be based on the party of the state's governor, causing states with Dem governors to get disgruntled and vote republican. In my hometown of Philadelphia, we have Ashcroft's justice department suddenly begin an investigation of the democratic Mayor John Street three weeks before a tight election, making a huge media spectacle of raiding offices and seizing documents even though Street had agreed to turn them over quietly. If that doesn't have Karl Rove written all over it I don't know what does. We are witnessing an assault by the right wing. First they plan to take as many elections Republican as they can, by means fair and foul. Then they hope to consolidate and maintain their control of the Republican party. This is probably where they are most vulnerable. I hope some of the moderate republicans out there see these folks for what they are and oust them. Also, we shouldn't try to put Hillary Clinton's attacks on Rush Limbaugh into the hate speech category. I've heard Limbaugh say that people should burn in hell, that people were congenitally stupid, that they were retarded, "mongoloid," etc. I don't think Hillary Clinton has said anything on that level. Some background on Lakoff. He does not think people are stupid, but he DOES think that our thinking is often structured by metaphors that we ourselves create. This metaphorical thinking can be entirely unconscious. So he is arguing that we don't always behave the way unadulterated analysis of facts would lead us to. Lakoff is a great linguist with many books detailing this phenomenon in various (non-political) realms. But his thinking frequently explains political events. For example, when Gore said he would not run because that would take us backward rather than forward, he was using the metaphor that time is a line and that we move inexorably along that line. Embracing that movement becomes "progress" while fighting it becomes regressive. So to want to (metaphorically) revisit the 2000 election seems somehow counterproductive. Most voters in 2000 would rather have had Gore as president than Bush, but because of this metaphor of progress/regress along a linear time model, he fears not as many people would vote for him this time. In cultures where time is modelled more as a cycle, Gore running again might seem like a better idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: freightdawg Date: 16 Oct 03 - 09:04 PM The right marches in lockstep and the dems quibble over minutia? Puhleeese. Bill Clinton was elected twice because the repubs were at war with each other and Ross Perot. The dems are supposed to be the party of big unions and the evironmentalists. Can you think of two groups of people more likely to be at odds with each other? You can't have big union jobs without a lot of energy and waste byproducts. You can't have a clean environnment if you are generating a lot of energy and creating a lot of waste byproducts. The dems were for years the party of free speech and "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Has anyone checked the hatred spoken by Hillary Clinton concerning Rush Limbaugh and the "vast right wing conspiracy" lately? I am a member of no political party, organized or otherwise. I have my own chops against the repubs, but saying they are the only ones who walk in lockstep is just plain hooey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: NicoleC Date: 16 Oct 03 - 08:41 PM They may not vote their actual self-interest or their true preference based on platforms and positions, rather they (we) often vote based on an idealized but fictional projection of the candidates If you stopped there, I would agree with you. It still sounds like a "stupid voter" theory to me to say that voters think, live and believe one thing but then have an attack of forgetfulness when they go to pull the lever. The problem with mass psychoanalytic theories are that anyone who disagrees is told that it's all in their subconscious. Whups, can't measure the subconscious. Ergo, the analyzer says he's right and the analyzees just don't know it. Those being analyzed don't get to have an opinion. People lie on polls and tests because they are secretly afraid someone is keeping track, or they simply don't want to look bad or different. That's no surprise -- people lie about drugs, sex, religion and anything else sensitive. Why not politics? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Mark Clark Date: 16 Oct 03 - 02:53 PM Lakoff’s article isn’t saying we actually live in one of his two “models of idealized family structure,” only that most of us have internalized one or both of those models as a metaphor for the large, complex group. The models become a filter or paradigm for understanding because the real world is too complex for each of us to develop a private and complete understanding.
The Michelle Conlin piece from BusinessWeek is similar to a report I heard on NPR the other day, the traditional family in the U.S. is becoming much less popular as a lifestyle. The odd thing is that, while most of us are choosing other models for our own lives, we are still subconsiously fixated on the old ones, as Lakoff has discovered.
The fascenating thing, to me, about the B.A. Robinson piece for the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is that a large number of people polled seem to be lying. They respond based on their idealized notion of what their religious behavior should be rather than report what they actually do. This tendancy to report an idealized but fictional religious behavior seems very similar to Lakoff’s analysis of the way people vote. They may not vote their actual self-interest or their true preference based on platforms and positions, rather they (we) often vote based on an idealized but fictional projection of the candidates informed by their (our) own model of idealized family structure. Arnold Schwarzenegger won without mentioning any issues or platforms because he represented Lakoff’s strict father model to voters whose idealized (though fictional) model was in that mode at the time they voted. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Bev and Jerry Date: 16 Oct 03 - 02:31 PM We suppose that is because here in California we have a large number of problems all at the same time. Gray Davis has been unable to solve them but none of the 135 or so candidates had any real ideas about how to solve them either. But Arnold, the Terminator, has many times (at least on film) faced insurmountable problems and quickly solved them. We think that about half of California's voters felt, at least subconciously, that Arnold would immediately solve all of our problems even if he had to use automatic weapons and explosives to do it. Not only that, but the only harm would come to the bad guys and the rest of us good guys would suffer no collateral damage. Doesn't this fit the "strict father frame"? Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: GUEST Date: 16 Oct 03 - 01:14 PM Sorry, but neither Lakoff's or Little Hawk's analogies work for me, and both seem dangerously naive. Although I do agree with the Beyond the Fringe description of the US party system. I just don't view the US party system as responding to the reality of the citizenry's daily lived experience. Half of all people in the US now live in non-traditional (ie non-nuclear) families. Article: "Unmarried America" Yet neither party recognizes that half of the citizentry, period. Less than one quarter of the US citizenry regularly attends organized religion's weekly services. That leaves over 3/4 of the citizenry whose religious behavior is being wholly ignored by both parties. Religious Practices in the US: Poll Results Why do you suppose that is? Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't win by appealing to the religious left or right, or by appealing to the nuclear family values voters of the right, but to the non-nuclear family values voters of the center. Why do you suppose that is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: GUEST,uncle Bill Date: 16 Oct 03 - 01:08 PM I have always favored using the terms right and left rather than demo and republican since I don't see much difference anymore in either organized (sic) party. I know some demos that are pretty darned conservative and some gop'ers that really are sensitive to the populace. My government has betrayed me twice and each time a different jpary was in power. Go Green! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Mark Clark Date: 16 Oct 03 - 11:30 AM Little Hawk wrote “The political Left basically utilizes the great feminine archetype as its inner psychic engine while the Right embodies the masculine archetype.” This idea may be close to what George Lakoff meant in his article when he said “models of idealized family structure lie at the heart of our politics—less literally than metaphorically. … Our politics is organized around two opposite and idealized models of the family, the strict father and nurturant parent models.”I don’t think Lakoff believes most voters are stupid, he’s saying that, in the voting booth, our selection isn’t based on the campaign issues or the platforms of represented parties but, to a large extent, by our own personal idealized model of the family and the degree to which candidates succeeded in representing that model. “Framing” is merely one of the tools politicians and their supporters use to invoke our model-driven response at the polls. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Amos Date: 16 Oct 03 - 10:27 AM So it's D-I-V-O-R-C-E in archetype land, Little HAwk? Don't tell the kids, 'kay? School is hard enough!! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 16 Oct 03 - 10:19 AM I think it may be as simple as this: the Right is unified around one single idea: whatever benefits them. The left is a much more diverse party that is concerned with many issues about many different peoples. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Oct 03 - 09:52 AM Lady Jean - You're right that the Left quibbles about details while the Right marches in lockstep, and I'll tell you why. The political Left basically utilizes the great feminine archetype as its inner psychic engine while the Right embodies the masculine archetype. (I've always preferred the notion of matriarchy to that of patriarchy...when I think patriarch, I think "Republican"!) Meedless to say, most people are entirely unaware of this. What we've got here is a dysfunctional marriage on a vast basis! :-) Think about it... The actual "center" is a more harmonious combination of the two, where they combine their strengths and abilities and work together. Our political system does not encourage that in the least, as it is based upon prearranged division and conflict. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Bobert Date: 16 Oct 03 - 08:52 AM I agree with you, whole heartedly, Nicole... Tryin' to win Joe Sipcak is not an option and that's why I've stuck with the Green Party for so long... Yeah, I'd love for the Democratic Party to stand for something again and maybe they will this time around... With that said, I probably will vote, and perhaps work, for the Dems just to try to get Bush out, and then go back to needling the Dems... Also, the Republican Party is run much more like a corporation. They have lots of money and folks who meet weekly, much like a corporation, to discuss ways to discredit the Dems and to "frame" their guys... Throw in the fact that these folks also own the media, it's no wonder that the Republican Party seems so well disciplined and structured... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Mark Clark Date: 16 Oct 03 - 02:19 AM LadyJean, I agree with your observation about the left arguing over minutiae but I'd be pretty, no very, surprised if you ran into anyone from the left in the Howard Dean campaign. It's been years since I met any active Democrats who weren't significantly right of center. The Lakoff article talks about framing and one of the most egregious examples of framing by the radical right is the phrase “liberal left.” Liberals aren't leftists. They are more often the target of leftist contempt. In many countries, liberals are centrists, in the U.S. they are pulled right of center as the article suggests. Democrats range from slightly right of center (liberals) to far right of center. Some Democrats are right of some Republicans. I'm reminded of a line from one of the old Beyond the Fringe sketches where Brits are talking about the U.S. “And they have the two party system.”Most Democrats don't think the cause of freedom is well served by stifling discussion. When you think about it, a primary reason to elect Democrats is just so that everyone will have a chance to air his opinion. Democracy, well done, isn't tidy or even necessarily efficient. You don't really want that. You want to get the best ideas from each point of view so you can eventually move forward as a group united in spirit. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: NicoleC Date: 16 Oct 03 - 01:44 AM It's an interesting perspective, but I still think it fundamentally assumes that all voters are ignorant if not downright stupid. The Republicans may be good at inspirng ignorant people to vote for them, but such a one-sided approach by the Dems would quickly turn off their base set of liberal voters who DO care about the issues and aren't just voting for a fishing buddy. What works for the Republicans does not necessarily translate to working for another party; just because the Republican party has been successful lately does not mean the strategy makes sense for Democrats. The Democrats have not exactly been successful trying to copy the Repub strategy so far -- their downfall is that they don't have a strategy at ALL. For example, in the California recall election, Peter Camejo came in 4th. Mr. Camejo got ZERO publicity, ZERO press coverage, and the single instance I did hear him mentioned was *after* the election when he was erroneously reported as an "Independant" candidate -- which in CA means the American Independant party, an ultra, ultra-right wing group. Peter was the Green candidate. Yet Peter got 2.8% of the votes entirely on issues, ranking significantly above Arianna Huffington, Peter Uberroth, Larry Flynt, Bill Simon, Gary Coleman and the porn star, Mary Cook -- all of whom received a lot of media attention and coverage. 'Scuse me -- where DOES Gary Coleman stand on the issues? Peter got 5.3% of the vote in the last general election with similar (i.e. nonexistent) coverage and with a much smaller pack of candidates (6 vs. 135). I don't think another voting strategy to try and win the ignorant middle is very bright. They've tried it a bunch of ways -- instead, I think it's time to return to the Democratic ideals and motivation that served the political process so well pre-Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: LadyJean Date: 15 Oct 03 - 11:03 PM One of the problems with the left is that they squabble. I've been working with the Howard Dean campaign, and caught in the middle of some seriously petty bickering over seriously minor issues. They tend to focus on the minutiae, and ignore the big picture. The right are perfectly happy to march in lockstep, if they want something. The left will waste time arguing a minor question down to the last comma. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Mark Clark Date: 15 Oct 03 - 10:42 PM Well, yes, it's more than “just a ‘framing issue’”—although framing seems important in political PR—it's some insight into what motivates people to vote the way they do. It helps explain why rational thought never seems to appeal to right-wingers and starts to suggest what must be done to begin to get our country back. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Bobert Date: 15 Oct 03 - 10:17 PM Well, Mark, I think it is beyond just a "framing issue", which involves folks having to chose between two opposing views to what I would "frame" as a *winners circle view*. Success has been "framed" in terms of being on the *winning side* and more folks seem to just want to be on that side, irregardless of what it might mean to be on that side.... I firmly believe that if Hitler were alive and well and living in the US today that if the population percieved him as being "framed" as a winner, that the majority would gladly walk Jews into gas chambers and kill them.... I mean, like I look at my neighbors with their stupid fu*king American flags strapped all over their cars and trucks and know that they would kill me in a heartbeat if they thought that I was one of them pinko, commie, peacenics.... Welcome to George Bush and Johnnie Ashcroft's America..... Bobert |
|
Subject: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab' From: Mark Clark Date: 15 Oct 03 - 09:49 PM Once in a great while, if we are lucky, we happen across a bit of insight that suddenly puts a lot of things in perspective that were not fully understood before. For example, it has long puzzled me that seemingly bright people can look at the same situations and events that I see but draw completely opposing conclusions from them. I say I'm puzzled because, from my viewpoint they are reaching conclusions and espousing remedies that seem to go against their own self-interest or against the interests of the group (i.e., class, race, nation, species, etc.). Of course they have a perfect right to their views, it's just that their positions often seem enigmatic. Now, today, I've run across an article that I think provides real insight into this phenomenon. The article, “The Frame Around Arnold,” is on the Net at AlterNet.org and, on the surface, deals with the reasons behind Arnold Schwartzenegger's successful gubernatorial campaign. But beyond his analysis of the recent campaign, author George Lakoff gives us some real insight into people's fundamental view of politics, world events and the underlying motivations for our voting behavior. If you have a few minutes, study Mr. Lakoff's piece, give it some thought and let us know what you think. - Mark |
