Ramblings on democracy and campaigns:
23/04/08 21:23
I had the pleasure of
researching the democratic nominees and their
campaign bids. For the last three to four days they
have aggressively debated what it would take for Mrs.
Clinton to keep a reasonable claim to the democratic
nomination. Mr. Obama’s backers claimed that she
should step down right away, or at least if she
didn’t win the Pennsylvania primaries with at least a
margin of ten percent.
Mrs. Clinton’s supporters denied this, and said that she would still hold a legitimate claim should she win by only five percent. No one thought Mr. Obama would win, it was merely a question of wether it would be considered a defeat.
Big drama.
Well, it would seem that she actually did win by ten percent. Now the same people who claim that the percentage didn’t or did matter have effectively switched arguments. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters claim that the ten percent margin was of vital importance and Mr. Obama’s claim that it was to be expected and that she actually should have won by 15 percent to claim a victory.
Admitted - I don’t use my days searching for info, but I do try to stay in touch with current events. The strange thing is, I’ve given up on following the democratic nomination race through the media. Every where I look there is political commentator ready to tell me what is going on, but this is never in regards to politics of the individual candidates.
They’re always trying to influence or flat out manipulate me with their analysis, or trying to establish an agenda for whatever camp they represent. I readily accept the fact that objective news is a near impossibility, but for crying out loud do we have to live without news?
Everything has become hearsay and it seems the candidates will send out the human equivalents of parrots to get their message across. Somebody should pound those guys with a reality stick before putting them on TV.
I think that politics of the modern day era is basically designed from the point of view that you need to control the agenda. This in itself really isn’t all that bad, but there are some huge problems with the way it seems to be working right now.
Historically we’ve had the premiss of freedom of speech, which is a very commendable principle. The freedom of speech - amongst others- secures a political candidate the right and possibility to express different views to an audience of peers. The expression of views include two major components:
A basic premiss that tells us how the candidate sees the world, i.e. what problems are out there, what are their causes and what will they entail. Traditionally we would agree on this, and then let the election be concerning the areas mentioned in part two:
How to fix the problems, i.e. once we’ve agreed on a certain definition of the world we discuss how to fix the problems. Politics were traditionally about how we should solve problems.
These are the two important components, and discussing these was the foundation of any discussion amongst peers, and hereafter an election. These days are over.
The politicians of the modern day era seem to have lost confidence in their peers, and are simply trying to avoid them making any decisions. We no longer get to decide what are to be considered problems - the politicians are basically trying to exclude the voters from taking a stand. They refuse to answer critical questions and instead try to redefine the agenda into a something noncritical.
They would rather spend their time criticizing opponents instead of explaining their own plans for the future. A candidate can actually win without plans, but just by discrediting the other guy.
Now I also admit that I am in no way a saint. But if we judge the politicians by the system to which they themselves swear, they would fail. Epicly bloody fail.
They are nothing but power hungry predators.
They make me sad and they make me sick.
Shame on them.
I’ll lay of the news for a while now. But I would like to serve a final message to all the commentators and spin doctors out there:
Mrs. Clinton’s supporters denied this, and said that she would still hold a legitimate claim should she win by only five percent. No one thought Mr. Obama would win, it was merely a question of wether it would be considered a defeat.
Big drama.
Well, it would seem that she actually did win by ten percent. Now the same people who claim that the percentage didn’t or did matter have effectively switched arguments. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters claim that the ten percent margin was of vital importance and Mr. Obama’s claim that it was to be expected and that she actually should have won by 15 percent to claim a victory.
Admitted - I don’t use my days searching for info, but I do try to stay in touch with current events. The strange thing is, I’ve given up on following the democratic nomination race through the media. Every where I look there is political commentator ready to tell me what is going on, but this is never in regards to politics of the individual candidates.
They’re always trying to influence or flat out manipulate me with their analysis, or trying to establish an agenda for whatever camp they represent. I readily accept the fact that objective news is a near impossibility, but for crying out loud do we have to live without news?
Everything has become hearsay and it seems the candidates will send out the human equivalents of parrots to get their message across. Somebody should pound those guys with a reality stick before putting them on TV.
I think that politics of the modern day era is basically designed from the point of view that you need to control the agenda. This in itself really isn’t all that bad, but there are some huge problems with the way it seems to be working right now.
Historically we’ve had the premiss of freedom of speech, which is a very commendable principle. The freedom of speech - amongst others- secures a political candidate the right and possibility to express different views to an audience of peers. The expression of views include two major components:
A basic premiss that tells us how the candidate sees the world, i.e. what problems are out there, what are their causes and what will they entail. Traditionally we would agree on this, and then let the election be concerning the areas mentioned in part two:
How to fix the problems, i.e. once we’ve agreed on a certain definition of the world we discuss how to fix the problems. Politics were traditionally about how we should solve problems.
These are the two important components, and discussing these was the foundation of any discussion amongst peers, and hereafter an election. These days are over.
The politicians of the modern day era seem to have lost confidence in their peers, and are simply trying to avoid them making any decisions. We no longer get to decide what are to be considered problems - the politicians are basically trying to exclude the voters from taking a stand. They refuse to answer critical questions and instead try to redefine the agenda into a something noncritical.
They would rather spend their time criticizing opponents instead of explaining their own plans for the future. A candidate can actually win without plans, but just by discrediting the other guy.
Now I also admit that I am in no way a saint. But if we judge the politicians by the system to which they themselves swear, they would fail. Epicly bloody fail.
They are nothing but power hungry predators.
They make me sad and they make me sick.
Shame on them.
I’ll lay of the news for a while now. But I would like to serve a final message to all the commentators and spin doctors out there:
|