libertarianism: The New Obama Ad - The American Promise:

zzzing (

zzzing) wrote in

libertarianism,
@ 2008-10-05 21:52:00

The New Obama Ad - The American Promise: The New Cult of Change in the Country of Fear

http://www.adsavvy.org/new-obama-ad-the-american-promise-the-new-cult-of-change-in-the-country-of-fear/

New Ideas?, New Politics?, Change?
These words mean everything, and therefore nothing. They’re vague and obscure and all-encompassing and they have no place in the political arena. It’s time people spoke up and stopped letting these pandering maniacs insult our intelligence with nonsense terms. We, as voters, need to demand clarity from politicians. We can’t sit back and mindlessly applaud every grunt and gesture and bit of gibberish as if it had real meaning. We can’t get hypnotized by whimsical jive, no matter how beautiful it sounds.

(Post a new comment)

	petronivs 2008-10-06 02:16 am UTC (link)
	Didn't political advertisements address issues at some point in the past? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Apocrypha montecristo 2008-10-06 08:18 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, probably around the time Thor and Zeus were walking the earth. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Apocrypha stufff 2008-10-07 12:29 am UTC (link)
	I hear Zeus got a blowjob in the Olympic Office from Alcmene (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ghoststrider 2008-10-06 02:37 am UTC (link)
	That's great, but you're forgetting that about 75% of the people who actually vote are mindless morons. Its not going to have much of an effect. Oh sure, they'll bite down on your words and agree, but four years later they'll end up doing what they did before. (Reply to this)

	deadpansev 2008-10-06 03:01 am UTC (link)
	Political ads are the worst things ever. I watch both of the major candidates ads and end up going huh? Obama runs an ad around here that portrays him as pro-gun rights and McCain runs an ad that makes him seem anti-war. (Reply to this)

	bertro 2008-10-06 05:48 am UTC (link)
	People get excited over a candidate and it's a cult. Bah. People are so sick of this current administration and after 8 god-awful years liberals have are fairly likely to not only win the presidency, but with a candidate who's not just a boring center-leaning electability-strategic lesser of two evils. Sorry we're a little ecstatic. (Reply to this) (Thread)

volkris
2008-10-06 11:03 am UTC (link)

But the "evil Bush" thing represents a cult as well. It's a bunch of people mindlessly believing a system of overstatements and lies starting with Clinton's goodness (and his surplus) and continuing on to Bush's pure evil and finally to a savior in the next president.

Depending on how you want to frame it, the Change thing could be seen not as a cult, but as a sacrament of the larger Bush Is Evil cult.

This isn't a cult because people are excited, it's a cult because they're devout believers in a large fiction such that they're inspired to act.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	bertro 2008-10-06 12:14 pm UTC (link)
	Uh, no. Being sick of Bush is thoroughly justified. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

volkris
2008-10-06 12:50 pm UTC (link)

Being sick of Bush, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the completely over the top, completely unrealistic, completely false picture that so many people have come to accept: the Bush who, with the rubber stamp congress, kicked everyone out of their houses, fired everyone from their jobs, and took away everyone's healthcare.

It's the Bush who colluded with "walstreet greed" to funnel money directly out of grandmothers' purses into the pockets of his friendly oilmen, going back to spit on them for good measure.

In short, it's the Bush that Pelosi and Reid preach day in and day out... a characture that all too many people have come to accept.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	petronivs 2008-10-06 01:54 pm UTC (link)
	Is that the same cult which is completely petrified of Sarah Palin? I mean, to not agree with her is one thing, but to be scared of her? WTF? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	terzy 2008-10-06 02:09 pm UTC (link)
	I can't talk to my mother about anything without her bringing up Sarah Palin and how EEEEVVVIIIL and TERRIFYING she is. I'm like, what? She's nothing! Show me a UN honcho selling children into sex slavery and then I'll see the evil. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	petronivs 2008-10-06 02:16 pm UTC (link)
	I think Palin is being Bushified. On the one hand, she's being caricatured as evil and everything that brings down the country, and, on the other hand, she's being caricatured as an idiot who shouldn't be let out in public. (Reply to this) (Parent)

volkris
2008-10-06 02:11 pm UTC (link)

Ha, I haven't heard much of people being completely petrified of Palin. It sounds like such people lack perspective on what a president is actually able to do, assuming the president to be a dictator with unchecked power.

It fits, though, with those who look to Obama as some game-changing figure who will cut through political considerations and institute his wonderous new world. Surely if the president actually had such amazing, almost supernatural power then we really would have to worry about Palin.

As far as I can tell the woman would be weak and get nothing done, good or bad. That's nothing to be terrified of.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	petronivs 2008-10-06 02:15 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, I know a good number of liberals, especially of the feminist persuasion and 'reproductive rights' enthusiasts, who are completely terrified of Palin. I suspect they're having trouble handling the fact that, yes, there are women out there who don't agree with what they think women should believe in. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	anne_keckler 2008-10-06 02:43 pm UTC (link)
	I fear fundies in positions of power. Period. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	petronivs 2008-10-06 04:46 pm UTC (link)
	Sometimes the ones who don't build their fundamentalism on overt religion are the worst. (Reply to this) (Parent)

volkris
2008-10-06 03:04 pm UTC (link)

Throughout this neverending election cycle it's been amaing to watch the complete and utter failure of the press, and thus many of the sheepish indivdiuals out there, to properly analyze the other side of the argument through a lack of understanding it.

For example, a lot of "journalists" could not comprehend why someone would not vote for Hillary, and therefore the reason Barak was selected must have been sexism.

The terror you describe sounds related: they're being thrown through a loop based on the cognitive dissonance of a woman professing the wrong values... understanding where she's coming from helps unravel that contradiction, but without bothering to connect with another's worldview they're just left twitching and angry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	volkris 2008-10-06 11:04 am UTC (link)
	We need a leader with intelligence and charisma who's able (and willing) to stand up and expose these frauds. We're severely lacking in such a person right now. (Reply to this) (Thread)

seanr
2008-10-06 04:01 pm UTC (link)

Charisma is the last thing we need right now. This is a big misconception that has gotten us into a lot of trouble historically, but I would expect it to be high on the list of a war sympathizer's desired attributes. The implication is 1) that "better action" will result from increased ability to rally the populace or representatives to a cause, and 2) action rather than inaction in general is the cure for our ails that are mostly caused by habitual poor action. Never mind the fact that these theses have no bases in logic; we need only look at the fact that they have failed empirically in the past.

Rather than a Bill Clinton or Adolf Hitler, we need Don Quixote's elusive governor who stays home with a broken leg. We need a Warren Harding, a do-nothing whose administration is embroiled in internal scandals and personal affairs. I would not vote for him but this is about the best we can hope for in a representative democracy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	volkris 2008-10-06 04:23 pm UTC (link)
	Intelligence and charisma. Not one or the other: both. I suppose I should add honesty or character to that list... We have a ton of really smart people, but they lack the charisma to bring their message to the people. Instead we get the empty-but-charismatic suit that is Obama. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

seanr
2008-10-06 05:50 pm UTC (link)

'Principles', and good ones, come to mind. I can't think of a point in American history, nor indeed even a good hypothetical situation, where charisma (or more charisma) would be necessary to effect a single desirable outcome or one superior to what actually happened. Charisma in politics fundamentally serves to persuade people to part with their lives or tax dollars, or accrue more debt, for a goal that is not immediately desirable. The goal may indeed be a good one, but it usually isn't, and when considering the often neglected opportunity cost of not letting people spend (or god forbid save) their money in the way they individually see fit, it's even less attractive. What little good you may accomplish is outweighed by all the bad.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

volkris
2008-10-06 06:42 pm UTC (link)

Just because there may not be a counterindication doesn't mean the connection is fundamental.

Charisma in politics fundamentally serves to persuade people to the speaker's point of view, and it just happens that the point of view will often involve parting with lives or tax dollars. It's certainly possible, though, for charisma to bring about more freedom and less taking of wealth. We should be able to come up with examples outside of politics where this has happened. I believe some agree that people like Milton Friedman was able to connect with the people to spread positive messages. Even John Stossel would fit into this category.

I'd even point to Reagan and Ron Paul as politicans who were almost there: Reagan had the charisma and some of the right ideas, though he wasn't quite up to par in terms of intelligence, and Ron Paul... well, without the dose of crazy he was up there too.

But just as Reagan came in and provided a leader that the conservatives were able to get behind, and through whom others found religion, so to speak, this time is begging for something similar. There's a void to fill, if only there was a man to fill it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	lawschoolblues 2008-10-06 12:06 pm UTC (link)
	I like how his ad on health care says he's going to "take on" health insurance companies. Just what in the hell is that supposed to mean? Is he going to sue them? Propose pork-laden legislation that won't go anywhere? Give them a mean look? In the words of Bart Simpson, "I can't promise to try, but I'll try to try." (Reply to this) (Thread)

volkris
2008-10-06 12:53 pm UTC (link)

Tax them?

That's how he was going to "take on" oil companies, encouraging them to lower prices by increasing their costs.

Lately congress has demonstrated the whole "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" addage. All they know is legislating, so they have come out insisting that legislation can fix every problem we have. Did you hear Obama's talk during the first debate? That's exactly what he proposed: federal laws to fix every problem we have.

That's the problem with promiting senators to president.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Doc, you're proposing that we elect new voters montecristo 2008-10-06 08:14 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think that's going to happen. "No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby." — Henry Louis Mencken (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs