Halx

How Influential are the People?
By Andrew Gonsalves www.tfproject.org www.andrewgonsalves.com

This is the new media; the user-run democracy based on the passion of the people. Every place you look on the internet lies an accusation of control of the main stream by the corporations who profit from war. Every night there is a new outrage that changes the face of a news article printed the next morning. Every voice you hear demands a change in the government and a change in the flow of information. But everything we see is still only a fraction of the whole.

In the 2004 elections, my website was abuzz with political opinions. The one thing I could clean from it all was that George W. Bush had worn out his welcome and was now the underdog in his re-election bid. The simple explanation for that observation in comparison to the reality was that my site - and most of the internet - is predominantly "liberal." We thought we were heading a revolution when we were really just the other side of a coin. The Republican side landed face-up and we looked to ourselves feeling cheated.

It must have been the voter turnout. The elections were rigged. We didn't have a strong enough candidate. A vote for the Libertarians is a vote for Bush. Boo hoo hoo. I don't think much of that really was the case. In my opinion, we were just staring at mirrors the whole time, chiding ourselves on, mentally masturbating to the ideals we saw everyone around us sharing. In truth, there is an equally large component of people who vote based on an entirely different set of standards.

The new media is definitely strong as we see it, but there are still many people who do things the old fashioned way. It's just the same way city life isn't for country folks. It's no different than following a different religion than your neighbor. People simply listen to different voices.

So as we create internet riots and pat ourselves on the back with every TV personality humiliated and every front page article about a revolt, are we really reaching anyone who isn't already on our side? Are we showing the right face to turn a sternly devout voter onto a new method of government? What if, to them, this all is nothing but a student riot at an Ivy League university; the socially elite complaining about inane - to them - policies that affect no others? How can we appeal to those whose only interest is their family, their country and God?

I'm a bit of an idealist myself. I love the idea of radical change. To me at this point in the cycle, moderate is not enough. I see myself voting for Mike Gravel or Ron Paul, as do many others within this social revolution, but much of the country is tentative about change. They may not see things based on right or wrong like we think we do. Many people - perhaps enough to win the election - are not interested in rocking the boat; they will vote for a smoother transition over someone who is going to turn their lives upside down. Bush's approval rating might be low, but that doesn't mean his replacement will be any better.

While we get back to congratulating ourselves over redecorating our own living room, let's turn our attention to our entire neighborhood. Let's make this less of a confrontation and more of an idea. Let's feed policies that make our lives better, not just those that are different than our opponents'. And let's seek to learn more about the other side of the coin; the side that isn't shouting back... the side that is fine with what they see and doesn't feel the need for change.

DIGG

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Willravel

Ah, mental masturbation. Essentially, we were living in a bubble; a horrible irony considering we were united against Bush.

What we need is to seek out the sources of misinformation and stop them with every last breath we have in us. When someone comes on and suggests there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, we need to be able to call them out instantly on their BS and we need to do it in front of the very people who just took the misinformation in. The funny thing is, this kind of thing used to be controlled and by something that's been discussed at length on TFP: the fairness doctrine.
Ladies and gents, Halx is absolutely right, and the solution to his challenge is the reintroduction and constitutionally backable fairness doctrine.

Before we try to take corporations out of news, before we try to lynch Bill Orly, wqe need the fairness doctrine. Then we can lynch Bill.

ubertuber

I think that part of the issue is clearly that not everyone makes their minds up in the same way. Here on TFP, lots of people sat around and told each other that, after examining the evidence, there was no way that voters would endorse G.W. Bush again. Obviously that was incorrect. Diebold scandals or no, a lot of people voted for Bush.

I agree that this is a good place to have unflinching facts easy at hand and for us to expose misinformation. However, I also think that if you want to change the world, you'll have to address some of these people on the level that they're making decisions, not on on the level that you are.

The political voice here is in agreement so often because it has run others off or excluded them, not because it has won them over. That's not helping anyone "win the fight".

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ourcrazymodern?

In spite of our voices the people made insufficient noise both times.
Fundamentalists didn't understand, and the rest of us weren't loud enough.
Thanks to the foresight of our forebears, he's gone pretty soon.
What I'm hoping is that our representatives do what they should.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

jbw97361

perhaps those who don't feel that Bush is the Antichrist don't feel the need to talk about him ceaselessly.

__________________
JBW

Seaver

This is a big reason in my opinion. How do you discuss politics with someone who immediately paints your life portrait of you by the way you voted? We voted for Bush and all of a sudden you paint us with the same wor used to describe terrorists (Fundamentalist). How do you claim that your opinion is not loud when you efectively have Hollywood, the majorit of the media, and outnumber us 10 to 1 on the internt?

How many pro vs. anti war protests were there? How many pro-war Sheehans are there?

The problem isn't of decible level, it's saying things that American voters want to hear. We don't want to be told our brothers and sisters in the twin towers were little Eichmans. We don't want to hear b.s. about how our government was willing to kill 3,000 of its own people to start a war (thanks Rosie, won't miss you... and fire does melt steel).

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Halx

I believe my point was misunderstood. My point was that no matter how much we scream and throw tantrums, and no matter how much journalism we can change after the fact, we're still not communicating to our opposition. Not only that, but the opposition isn't as ignorant as we think they are, they just listen to different talking points.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Willravel

When Dennis Miller, the famed comedian, endorsed Bush for the president in 2004, I found myself shocked. Here is a brilliant, Hollywood, big word using liberal endorsing the worst president of my lifetime. It took me a bit, but I slowly came to the realization that I expected Miller to be anti-Bush if for no other reason than it's easier for a comedian to be anti-Bush. Shame on me. Shame on comedians that are anti-Bush because it makes their job a little (okay, A LOT) easier. While I may not agree with Miller, I respect the shit out of him.

Seaver, you have conservative friends and family members, right? Tell them to get their asses online. I have a 40-78 hour work week and a daughter and I still find time to come into a political debate online and give 100%. Whether you're a conservative or a liberal, the internet is an amazing place that it's users create. The reason liberals seem to have conservatives 10-1 is that we're online. I mean it's also because we're right, of course, but I'd love to have more real conservatives around so that we can get even handed opinion presentation. I don't mean the conservatives that launch personal attacks and troll, mind you. I mean real conservatives.

Also, the liberals are still fighting to get control of the media back. We lost it completely on 9/11 and have been scraping and scrounging to get it back since.
Back before the war first started I was among the first to openly protest. I was one of those schmucks on the street corner with obviously too much time on my hands with a flag and a sign that read "Make Love, Not War" or something. The funny thing is, back in late 2002, right after we set up shop protesting against the war, people set up shop across the street with equally unoriginal signs protesting for the war. And this is the SF Bay area. This didn't just happen once, mind you. I saw it when I went down to visit family in Bakersfield (the most boring place in the world). There were pro war protests on street corners.

The thing is, that was before people really knew about the reasons we were invading. Shoot, I wasn't even 100% sure at the time. It's clear now, of course, but generally, people had no idea what was going on. They just knew we were attacked on 9/11 and we were going to go fight a war about it. That's not the case anymore. There are still strong anti-war protests, a majority of which are my doing, but the pro-war crowd hasn't just shut up, they've changed sides.

As for the Sheehan thing, do you really expect mothers of dead soldiers to support any war? Jeez.
Careful bringing the loss of structural strength in steel thing. Also, Rosie was the type of liberal I hate: a regurgitater. She had smart friends around her, and she tried to say what they say but it came out half retarded because a lot was lost in translation.

The funny thing is, EVERYONE wanted to know why 'they hate us' after 9/11, but no one wanted to hear the answer. Why is that? Because most people, and not just Americans mind you, are fucking stupid. When you start talking about how there is evidence that Grandpa Reagan armed the Mujahadeen and our idiot anti-communist policies are coming back to bite us in the ass, they tell you that 'these colors don't run' or some such bullshit. Most people would shit their pants if they knew why the al Qaeda hate us so much.

I'm so far beyond caring about what American voters want to hear it's ridiculous. Al they want to hear about is how black people are scary, but the police will save you or how gas prices are fluctuating. They don't want to hear about the skeletons in our closet, and that's just too bad.

roachboy

well, to respond to the op: we dont.
we are a management problem. we are managed. effective political management seems to presuppose the illusion of choice between positions. so in the states, you have the neo-fascist right embodied by the bush administration and the conventional right embodied in a fractured way by the mainstream democratic party, and a host of other groups on the margins of both which end up, one way or another, ceding ideological territory to the dominant Position simply in order to get themselves heard.

want proof?

it is self-evident at this point that the war in iraq was started on at the very best premises based on information so incompetently gathered, ordered and interpreted that everyone associated with the process should be out of a job, and at the worst premises that were based on information that was knowingly falsified. where are the political consequences of this? that's easy: there arent any. why is that?

what have we been told? that vietnam period political action is part of some hallucinated syndrome that "we" should "get over"....that there is no distinction between social-democracy and stalinism, political dissent and terrorism...we have been subjected to the crassest and most indefensable type of neofascist identity politics since 9/12/2001, the arguments for which were repeated willingly by the entire "spectrum" of the american press, television and print, until the problems with the infotainment they were being fed became so obvious that these corporate institutions began to shift--out of concern for their own legitimacy--but to shift into what? stating what was obvious since the case for this colossal fuck up in iraq began to be floated--that the infotainment was not worth the paper it was printed on--well fine, but does that mean that we are now supposed to see in the mainstream press a group of valiant journalist-heros? where the fuck were they in 2002-2003?

i think lots of people imagine that the entire american political and social order is a hopeless wreck, and they tell each other as much as they watch television at home or in a bar or anywhere else (you cant avoid it)..but they dont do ANYTHING beyond that. what is there to do? what are the options?
public protest seems a waste because it is largely invisible...public pressure seems to change almost nothing. why?

because in american democracy, "we" are held in contempt, considered cattle, seen as a problem.

so long as we continue to buy shit, everything is hunky dory.
politics has been collapsed into a variant of consumption.
the measure of political freedom in america is your credit limit.
and we submit to it.
we like it.
it suits us.
we dont have information. sure, you can get information, but that's work, and why work when there's buying shit to be done? besides, folk are tired--they have to run and run to make ends meet and at the end of the day want to be entertained--something fragmentary and not at all challenging if you assume that the way in which infotainment is programmed for us reflects anything about who we are or what we think or what we do.

[[ok so i just had to dig a chicken leg out of my couch where my husky had hidden it, presumably as punishment for my having had to go out for a bit earlier. kinda busts up the rant groove, that. geez.]]

but one more thing:
seaver: let's not be disengenuous, eh?
when it suits american political interests, collective guilt is assigned without hesitation--there are legion examples of american military actions that operationally pay only lip service to the distinction military/civilian--just as there are legion examples of other militaries paying only lip service to it. it is a basic assumption of total war, of modern war. and it is not pretty. but the question is not whether you like that it was turned on you, seaver: the question is the nature and quality of the arguments that resulted in that. i dont think anyone gives a shit whether you find the claim to be other than pretty. but when you endorse american military action, you accept not its modalities but the justifications that are floated for it--and the blurring of the civilian/military distinction (intended and "collateral" damage in "low intensity conflicts" dontcha know) is a consequence. to say "no-one wants to hear that bs" is just weak: what it show is that you personally cannot imagine the united states doing anything fundamentally wrong. and that, seaver, is naive.

[my husky's back. i guess there must be more chicken in my couch. this isnt working out as planned...]]

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

BBtB

I think everyone needs to read that and really sit and ponder what it means for a minute before posting anymore replys. I think the original post is about the very fact that just because all these internet people all agree that George W is an idiot doesnt mean the rest of the country and more importantly, people who don't think he is an idiot are not always idiots themselves. This is why I refuse to post in politics anymore. There is never any substance anymore. Just name calling and shouting.

In response to the OP.. Yes, the people still control this country.. the politicans and the media just don't want you to know that. Also to all you libs out there.. Better hope it stays that way because pound for pound conservitives out number liberals by a pretty good margin.

Sigh, had a nice long well thought reply to Willravels post and it disapeared on me. I will sumarize and say, Will you are the reason so few conservatives will debate online. Conservatives are not inherently stupid or even "stupider" but you sure talk like they are. For the record, George W is not an idiot. You may disagree with his politics, he may not be our most articulate president but as I fairly smart man thats been known to stumble over a word or two I will tell you that doesn't make him an idiot. I will not even speak with anyone who uses that cliche, it shows that one they are just a partisan nut and two their mind has allready shut down. I will listen to reason and with a good argument you could change my mind but I am not going to talk to someone where there is no chance to change their mind.. If we are both dead set on our ways and so sure we are right.. why debate?

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

Crack

I think the real question is who the shit is Andrew Gonsalves? Sounds like a real asshat to me.



















(yes, I know)

__________________
Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex.

~Halx

Halx

Go to your room.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Ourcrazymodern?

I'm gonna go hide in the woods.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT