can/will the nature of american political discourse change anytime soon?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i'm so exhausted, i can barely formulate the question. but it seems to be what tracer's advocating on a number of threads here (sometimes as a response to the some pretty naked classism that, on any other day, would itself entail heated arguments and 300 post threads). as most, or some, of you know, i'm not an american myself, so i hope you're not annoyed by my intense involvement in matters electoral. i've been watching lots of cnn and cnbc (where we get "meet the press" on weekends) and, as many have noted on numerous threads (like the jon stewart/crossfire one, obviously), the level of debate is.. somewhat crippled (and crippling). do you see any reason that this might be in any way altered in the future? does the intense polarization of every issue serve only bush ideology? has it become inescapable, regardless?

― m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

SHUT UP YOU SOCIALIST

― your television (natepatrin), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

If you mean change in the sense that it will get better for left-leaning folks the answer is, no. Those red states are getting bigger and the blue states are getting small. Very shortly Florida will have 30+ electoral votes and NY will have 25. Currently it's all heading in the wrong direction. On the other hand, if you are a fundamentalist or a conservative, well, then the political discourse is shifting right in the direction you want it to.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I think all sound-minded Americans should start speaking a private language. If you want to call your waiter, you'll need to know the language. If you want help from your doctor, lawyer, teacher etc. the same too. Closed shops. Really split the nation in half. Maybe the discourse will become so messed up a zen understanding will emerge over the US.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the Democrats have to figure out how to bridge the gap with "heartland" voters on cultural issues. Unless they do that, I think that the GOP will continue its winning streak.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:36 (twenty-one years ago)

In less cloddish terms, I think this is going to be an era where the right keeps hammering away at the same talking points over and over on news programs with a bristling, brittle life-or-death fervor and the only (or at least best)way the left will be able to counter on a major media basis is with humor and satire (Stewart, Franken, maybe stand-ups like David Cross and Patton Oswalt, etc). I'm reminded of the mid '90s (oh nostalgia) where the right had Rush Limbaugh and the left had Michael Moore back when he was a lot funnier (why do people forget how darkly brilliant TV Nation was when they go into 'Moore=Coulter' mode?)

― MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the Democrats have to figure out how to bridge the gap with "heartland" voters on cultural issues.

I'd rather shame them than try to suck up to them.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

but is there any kind of 'grassroots' possibility of actually changing the WAY we talk about politics, or is this generally incompatible with BOTH americas?

xpost w nate, who addressed what i was talking about

― m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I think everyone needs to just acknowledge America is fuct. The end.

― Satan's Onion (twowaydream), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:40 (twenty-one years ago)

"but is there any kind of 'grassroots' possibility of actually changing the WAY we talk about politics, or is this generally incompatible with BOTH americas?"

Hysterical b&w are what America is all about.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:43 (twenty-one years ago)

personally, this is actually one of the most profoundly depressing things about today - that the bush win can be read as a confirmation of the effectiveness of current american political mass media tactics. i was talking about israeli/palestinian conflict (which is arguably the most misunderstood and integral conflict wrt terrorism) with some friends this morning, and had a horrible feeling that the fragile future of the situation was decided by swift boats and flip flops.

― m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Well to be fair, I'm not sure how much Kerry was gonna do w/ regards to Israel/Palestine.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

and it's not even about whether the kerry would be doing any better there, its that the realities of the situation aren't part of the debate *at all*, while stories spun out of pretty much absolutely nothing get significant coverage.

xpost!

― m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:55 (twenty-one years ago)

('the kerry', oops)

― m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

But part of the reason there was no debate is that both of these guys basically had the same POV w/ regards to the conflict.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd rather shame them than try to suck up to them

C'mon, that's silly. Shaming voters doesn't accomplish anything. We need to throw them some symbolic bones. Unfortunately, Kerry, as a dyed-in-the-wool secularized liberal didn't have it in him to do that. Saying you "respect" conservative values, even though you disagree with them, doesn't cut any ice with voters. Bush talks a good game about right to life and gay marriage, but you and I know that the GOP is never going to overturn Roe v. Wade or ban gay marriage. Why? Because it's not in their interest to do so. The status quo is ideal for them. They pander to the cultural conservatives by talking as though they agree with them, and meanwhile they wink and nod to the moderates that they're really not going to do anything drastic. They know that if they ever managed to overturn Roe v. Wade, women voters would abandon the GOP in droves. The Dems need to figure out how to either call their bluff, or get an equally effective one going.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

(bah o. nate has ruined my incisive sarcasm)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Here's a good column from today's NY Times about this cultural divide issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?incamp=article_popular_1

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

do dems really desire 'expanded discourse', or would they rather just play the current game better?

xxxpost

― m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just waiting for the heartland to dry up when oil gets too pricy.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush talks a good game about right to life and gay marriage, but you and I know that the GOP is never going to overturn Roe v. Wade or ban gay marriage. Why? Because it's not in their interest to do so.
..
They know that if they ever managed to overturn Roe v. Wade, women voters would abandon the GOP in droves.

Is this really true? Aren't all the women that vote GOP pro-life? According to the exit poll stats I saw, that's the big issue for a lot of them. Certainly any woman who cares that much about the right to choose would never vote for Bush, right??

― Richard K (Richard K), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 23:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd rather shame them than try to suck up to them.

The entirety of the problem in one simple sentence.

― don weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 23:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd rather shame them than try to suck up to them.
The entirety of the problem in one simple sentence.

-- don weiner (migg...), November 3rd, 2004. (later)

OTM. Also, I just don't think you can "shame" a large segment of the population that self-righteously believes that the opposition supports SINNNNNNNING.

Did anyone else here see the special on CNN in the last week of the dramatic recent rise of the Evangelical movement - which is happening _nationally_ ?? It was quite terrifying, learning how "many" elementary schools now feature these concerned groups that show instructional videos on why celebrating Halloween is EVIL!! And by the time these kids hit their teens, they are then being shown videos of a pregnant girl who got an abortion somehow dying, and in her post-death state her spirit was dragged to "Hell" by demons. I doubt whether all this is as prevalent as the program made it sound, but I swear I'm not fabricating and the very existence of these hard-core Biblical curriculums are cause for alarm.

They are never going to believe they are wrong on these certain issues (abortion, homosex, Jesus); a few millennia seems sufficient to disprove that conjecture (recall how Adventism was at a record high in Europe in the 10th century?)..

What the left is gonna have to do is convince them that they are right on other issues that somehow are more fundamental - and fundamentally important - to the best interests of America as a whole.

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 23:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Compare and contrast: the UK in the 1980s.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 4 November 2004 09:08 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.