|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| caniff wrote: |
| Maybe becaue the elite don't see these people as a viable threat (and could actually see them as beneficial in that they promote the appearance of a more diverse political landscape). |
Or maybe they just aren't as all powerful as the caniff-mises theory would have us believe.
| caniff wrote: |
| The MSM for the most part refuses to give RP the time of day and when they do they always insinuate (or flat-out say) that a RP presidential candidacy is hopeless. |
A Ron Paul presidential candidacy is hopeless outside of tiny straw polls whose only participants are self-selected ultra conservatives. Ron Paul does not represent America. Not even close. Ron Paul's inability to get into the White House isn't some media elite created phenomenon. The guy represents his district well, but he'd represent Americans collectively very poorly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
If this were so, market research (to use your example) would be totally useless. It's not useless, though. Sure, there's some element of companies using advertisement (both through direct advertisement and through things like "reviews") to encourage consumer purchases, and it undoubtedly has an effect, but the reason it's as effective as it is is because these products were all ready created with the population in general in mind, and when they weren't, you end up with a failed product. Advertising might make Timmy buy something he might not have bought anyway, but it won't make him buy and keep something he hates.
This applies to politics as well. Sure by the end you've got, as you so eloquently put it, "Blue Harper and Red Harper," to choose from on the ballot. But you've got that because the political process all ready weeded out a large number of alternative, essentially unelectable candidates. Just as with the pants, election advertisement can move people's voting patterns within a narrow band, but it's not going to make them vote for someone they hate.
Sure there's some top down influence. I think you totally underestimate the bottom up influence though. Guys like Ron Paul (to use Kuros' example) are not the work of the elite. So why does a guy like that win in his district, a lesbian anti-war liberal win in mine, and a neo-con win in a third? Because of real bottom up differences that really do have an effect. |
It's an interesting question, and my immediate response would be the smaller the target audience, the less marketing matters. It's a bit like consumers liking products that are locally sourced; however, the further away you get from the source of those products, the less novelty value they hold. I guess that could explain local anomolies. Bascially, as you increase the scale, things become more complex. For example, it's pretty clear to me that Ron Paul won't have the big corporations lined up behind him if he commits himself to a presidential run and that undoubtedly matters, if previous elections are anything to go by.
Obama is no exception either. He is indebted to corporate America in pretty much the same way as his predecessors. Imagine something like an Oscar acceptance speech. Obama should have said, 'I thank Lockhead Martin for making this possible etc'. Sure, the fact that he was black was useful too, in that it secured him the backing of a huge constituency on the basis of race alone, but he ran a very effective marketing campaign as well. It was always predictable; his foreign policy was bought by corporate America but the black vote meant he could be more daring domestically.
I once went through numerous slides which charted the history of presidential campaigns, and the influence of corporate money is undeniable in determining electoral outcomes. I hate to admit it, but I can't think of many ways of breaking this cycle. The moment an honest candidate comes forward and commits himself to an agenda free of corporate influence, the corporate backed campaign will do everything to smear their reputation. Fortunately for them, there are enough dumb people who will buy it. Just think, a die hard follower of Glenn Beck matters as much as people like me and you. It's frightening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| The MSM for the most part refuses to give RP the time of day and when they do they always insinuate (or flat-out say) that a RP presidential candidacy is hopeless. |
A Ron Paul presidential candidacy is hopeless outside of tiny straw polls whose only participants are self-selected ultra conservatives. Ron Paul does not represent America. Not even close. Ron Paul's inability to get into the White House isn't some media elite created phenomenon. The guy represents his district well, but he'd represent Americans collectively very poorly. |
I'm not saying RP would win were it not for the MSM, just that they seem to reserve an extra little "the guy's crazy for even trying" commentary when he's in the news (like winning that CPAC poll or whatever it was).
Chris Christie is a hopeful, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| The moment an honest candidate comes forward and commits himself to an agenda free of corporate influence, the corporate backed campaign will do everything to smear their reputation. |
Yes, they will, but they won't need to. A genuinely honest candidate (and by that I mean one that actively displays his motives and genuine plans to the people, rather than one who simply avoids technical falsehoods) will never win the Presidency, because the American people themselves are dishonest. A candidate that lacks avarice will never get near the Presidency, because the American people are avaricious. A President who is willing to stand up and bravely end the War on Drugs will struggle, because the average American is very much a hypocritical moralizer who wants people punished for failings which very closely mirror their own. And a candidate who genuinely and vigorously opposes corporate corruption will never be elected as President, because in their heart of hearts, the corrupt corporatist -- who triumphs over his private sector opposition through any means necessary and profits in the process -- is the real American culture hero.
I'm being a little melodramatic here, perhaps, but only a little. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| The moment an honest candidate comes forward and commits himself to an agenda free of corporate influence, the corporate backed campaign will do everything to smear their reputation. |
Yes, they will, but they won't need to. A genuinely honest candidate (and by that I mean one that actively displays his motives and genuine plans to the people, rather than one who simply avoids technical falsehoods) will never win the Presidency, because the American people themselves are dishonest. A candidate that lacks avarice will never get near the Presidency, because the American people are avaricious. A President who is willing to stand up and bravely end the War on Drugs will struggle, because the average American is very much a hypocritical moralizer who wants people punished for failings which very closely mirror their own. And a candidate who genuinely and vigorously opposes corporate corruption will never be elected as President, because in their heart of hearts, the corrupt corporatist -- who triumphs over his private sector opposition through any means necessary and profits in the process -- is the real American culture hero.
I'm being a little melodramatic here, perhaps, but only a little. |
Well I don't agree with that analysis completely but it's a pretty fair generalisation I guess. Americans for the most part are not rational people; just like most others. It makes me long for a place where rational people can get away from it all and let the rest of the moralisers get stuck into each other; all the while the perfect economy can be built elsewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
*edit*
On second thought, I should really wait until I have time to write more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
What happens is very simple: elected officials side with their constituency's pet issues (farming and industry primarily), then have free reign to vote on a boatload of other crap (defense, taxes for the rich, etc...) that they either a) have their own pet interest in or b) vote based on campaign "prospects".
The A Number One problem is that the House of Representatives wasn't meant to function as a de facto Senate.
By definition, the House was meant to have 1 rep per 30,000 people. But, you ask, why is it set at 435? The answer is because it was frozen in 1911, a time that far outdates our current population. One rep now has 500,000 to 700,000 constituents. That's a severe problem when you're talking about something like "democracy" and representative government.
Comparatively, Britain has 650 Members of Parliament.
Corruption is empowered by consolidation.
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
The "freeze" was not an amendment. It can be overturned with a minor amount of political will.
All of the discussion and analysis that fails to address this very simple point seems to miss how pivotal it could be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
If this were so, market research (to use your example) would be totally useless. |
Market research is generally focused on how to sell products (or more of the same product). It looks for "consumer pressure points" that can be pushed to inspire spending. It is - again, generally - not used to discover what consumers want but rather what advertising, store layouts, product combinations they will respond to. This is very similar to how politicians sell themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/29/barack-obama-cannes-lions
The ideas are secondary. If they matter at all. It is feel, style, themes etc that win elections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The ideas are secondary. If they matter at all. It is feel, style, themes etc that win elections. |
The Obama campaign was masterful in that way. Create the wave and ride the tide and then go back to business-as-usual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Market research is generally focused on how to sell products (or more of the same product). It looks for "consumer pressure points" that can be pushed to inspire spending. It is - again, generally - not used to discover what consumers want but rather what advertising, store layouts, product combinations they will respond to. |
So you think "new product development" practices totally ignore the target market's preferences and needs, and that concept testing is a myth? Yes, some market research focuses on how to sell products that are all ready in production. Other research focuses on whether or not to even bother making the product in the first place, and other research focuses on how to optimize the product to best fit the market in question. It's a lot easier to take advantage of preexisting demand than to try to manufacture it via ad campaigns, why wouldn't businesses do it whenever possible?
| caniff wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| The ideas are secondary. If they matter at all. It is feel, style, themes etc that win elections. |
The Obama campaign was masterful in that way. Create the wave and ride the tide and then go back to business-as-usual. |
The thing about the Obama campaign is for all that people talk about it being all style and no substance, it had a lot of substance; Obama laid out a fairly clear way that he'd govern the nation, and he's largely done what he said he'd do. Substance was not lacking, meaning that if style dominated, it dominated because of the character of the electorate. To the extent that "ideas are secondary," they're secondary because the people don't especially care about them. If a people are going to go around worshipping style over substance, they're directly empowering an elite that doesn't serve their interests by removing a major check on their potential power. This is more suggestive of a "cycle of reinforcement" as opposed to a "top down forcible take over." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Livewire
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Location: BI-WINNING!
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox, surely you're not that pessimistic about the American people?
I mean at best any countries general poluation are only disshonest in a naive, unwitting sense.
That surely makes them less culpable than the cynic money men and power broker manipulators?
Of course we could discuss whether or not this makes them deserving of what they end up with for goverrnment.
Or perhaps even government is noble because they know the public need to be shepherded like the dishonest untrustworthy sheep they are (I wonder if you feel that?)
Anyhow, ce la vie. Life continues to turn as it has for millenia... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Livewire wrote: |
| Fox, surely you're not that pessimistic about the American people? |
On an individual level, Americans have or lack merit to varying degrees. On a collective level, cultural level, I very much am that pessimistic.
| Livewire wrote: |
I mean at best any countries general poluation are only disshonest in a naive, unwitting sense.
That surely makes them less culpable than the cynic money men and power broker manipulators? |
On an individual level, a single common American is obviously less culpable than a single member of the elite. When taken collectively, though, the common culture is the tainted seed from which our society's problems bloom.
| Livewire wrote: |
| Of course we could discuss whether or not this makes them deserving of what they end up with for goverrnment. |
I don't think desert has to enter into the discussion. Whether or not they deserve it (which is a complex and nuanced issue), the people of a representative democracy will get a government that reflects them (I also feel the people of an authoritarian society ultimately get a government that reflects them, but that's a harder case to make, and I don't think we need to go into it given we seem to be mostly talking about Western states). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Livewire wrote: |
| Fox, surely you're not that pessimistic about the American people? |
On an individual level, Americans have or lack merit to varying degrees. On a collective level, cultural level, I very much am that pessimistic.
| Livewire wrote: |
I mean at best any countries general poluation are only disshonest in a naive, unwitting sense.
That surely makes them less culpable than the cynic money men and power broker manipulators? |
On an individual level, a single common American is obviously less culpable than a single member of the elite. When taken collectively, though, the common culture is the tainted seed from which our society's problems bloom.
| Livewire wrote: |
| Of course we could discuss whether or not this makes them deserving of what they end up with for goverrnment. |
I don't think desert has to enter into the discussion. Whether or not they deserve it (which is a complex and nuanced issue), the people of a representative democracy will get a government that reflects them (I also feel the people of an authoritarian society ultimately get a government that reflects them, but that's a harder case to make, and I don't think we need to go into it given we seem to be mostly talking about Western states). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Livewire
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Location: BI-WINNING!
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On an individual level, a single common American is obviously less culpable than a single member of the elite. When taken collectively, though, the common culture is the tainted seed from which our society's problems bloom.
I don't think desert has to enter into the discussion. Whether or not they deserve it (which is a complex and nuanced issue), the people of a representative democracy will get a government that reflects them |
Spot on Fox. That's the nub of it, and very well put.
Life is what it is. The governments we have reflect what people are, life reflects life.
The winnebego man has the right idea; hole up in a shack away from it all and write blistering critiques that will never be published. Futile, yet satisfying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really see the original three groupings as mutually exclusive, so I guess I agree with caniff when he said something similar.
I see government as a natural outgrowth of humans' social nature. After all, we are more akin to a pride of lions than solitary tigers. Within that constraint, the powerful find ways to run things to their benefit. Smart elites are sensitive to changes occuring among the masses and make adjustments.
The most dramatic example of failure is of course what's happening in the Middle East. Who could have predicted that a fruit vendor getting slapped would have such far-reaching consequences? The general public is not normally politically very active. Getting food on the table and watching sports are much more important most of the time. But educating people without creating an economy that provides entry into adequate jobs while the percentage of young people in the population is exploding is an explosive situation.
Representative government, while an anomoly in world history, is just the current method of organizing (controlling) the mass of the population which is always busy living. The real question in any country is who has their hands on the levers of control and what they plan to do with that power. The Middle East will go through its convulsions and end up with either what they had to start with or a modified version of it that reflects their culture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
