|
muadlib:
i suppose one could say the same thing about conservatives who found cowboy george to be appealing because he was such a shitty speaker and so was "one of us" like they said in that fine 1930s film "freaks."
i suppose you could say it about anyone, really.
like i posted above somewhere, to the extent that politics are understood in this fine fine "democracy" as a type of consumer choice, what you complain of (or project? it's hard to know, isn't it?) about obama followers seems a symptom of a structural problem.
how detailed an understanding of the mode of being particular to peanut butter does one need to prefer skippy to jiff? do you really need to reduce peanut butter to a set of predicates that distinguish it absolutely from the riot of non-peanut butters in the world to make a consumer choice?
if it is a structural problem--something endemic to the way the american political system operates--that voters often make choices for superficial reasons (THE SHOCK OF THAT IDEA IS ENORMOUS) then what's specific about obama's constituency?
general question:
how can a thread like this possibly get beyond dueling anecdotes?
i know a set of people who do not fit the description the good comrade i.p. outlined in the op, and you know a set of people that fits it.
it is entirely possible that both of us know a larger set made up of some who do and some who dont.
it's likely even.
so there's nowhere to go with this, is there?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|