I was wondering if anyone has been pondering (any) philosophical implications on the result of the 2004 election.
Such as, does this event say something basic about Man, e.g. are we very susceptible for the fear tactics of our leaders?
Please note: I don’t want this to turn into a political discussion, so if you do not agree that Bush & Co has been using 9/11 and the general threat of terrorism for political goals (to stay in power), please assume that this was what really happened.
Back to the issue: What does it mean for the nature of Man if it really is a fact that scaring people can be an effective way to guide them wherever you’d like? I guess Machiavelli would have something to say about this.
if you’d like a counter argument to the long term effectiveness of fear tactics, you might want to consider Huxley’s Brave New World style dystopia as opposed to Orwell’s 1984. People get numb to fear tactics, but not to promises of greater happiness, thus you need strict control measures and there will always be the danger of rebellion.
However, fear is obviously easier to manipulate in the short term.
It is kinda intellectually disheartening that half the US has decided to isolate itself from the world (or rather, restict communication one way, ie we tell YOU what is best, and it is always best for us).
machiavelli does actually mention this. he says when a leader is one of those special good ones, he’ll make the populace happy by actually giving them the stuff they want that costs the govmt money. when a rich person is in charge and all he wants to do is make money for himself, by giving out no bid contracts to halliburton for example (vomit), then the people are going to hate the living shit out of his disgusting sorry ass.
the only way for the leader to avoid this logical hatred, and necesary violent revolution, is first hide the incriminating evidence (a member of the nixon white house has said that this presidency is much more secretive and will go down in history as a huge american embarassment, thats not exactly a quote but…) then secondly, he has to create that terror which then allows him to supply the proles with protection from that terror as opposed to actual peaceful benefits.
he has to make an image of himself as an emotional, strong, jam-packed-with-resolve. he has to make it clear that anything besides complete, unquestioning obedience and trust will result in a decrease in security.
if you vote for kerry, the terrorists will gang rape your children. that was probably a bumper sticker.
We gotta be careful. Dubya has earned himself a lot of “Political Capital” and he’s-a-ready to spend it.
Probably at Wall*Mart, on a new 10-gallon hat. Prick…
I think Dubya won because fear tactics. But not JUST fear regarding 9/11 and terrorist tactics. He campaigned towards the midwest WASP community with his strict “no gay marriage” tactics. I live in NYC. One of the most diverse cities in the world. We have a huge % of homosexuals, AND we were attacked by terrorists oin 9/11.
What i dont understand is why some 50yr old couple, who hates gays, yet has probably never met one before is all pro-Bush. Who are they to tell people in another state what is right and wrong. Maybe its because they have an outside opinion and by standing from a distance they can tell us NY’ers things that we are too close to see ourselves? Pricks…
the democRATS kept LYING about killing social security, people being drafted, starving children and failing them with school spending cuts, how no one had a job or if they had a job it didn’t pay anything, fear of bush imposing his religon on everyone, the fear and lies about no one getting health care…
if anyone was trying to use fear it was the party that lost…
Let me preface this with: I am a registered Democrat and I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I cannot stand GW Bush. I consider him to be a liar, an opportunist, and a man who never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Now, the reason Bush won is very simple. The democratic party is bankrupt. Socialism doesn’t really work, Big Labor has alienated verybody, the industrial modernism that the Democratic Party based its machine on has gone and died. The Democrats have no story to tell, so they grab partial pieces of story from all their little tribes - the unions, the homos, the angry black folk, the random hispanics, college students, Yankees, hippies, non-republican Catholics (obviously), teachers, environmentalists, and of course the Evil Chinese who Are Plotting to Take Over America One Fifty Dollar Donation At A Time. Well, this frankensteined ideology will never work. Democratic economics is largely crap. (Not to say that Republican economics is any better - fiscal policy is like trying to use today’s shotgun to shoot yesterday’s ducks).
In terms of morality and civil Rights, the democratic party stands proudly for the right of the individual against the power of the state. However, the small government (ahem…) Republicans and folks who vote republican, only care about gvmt power when it comes to money. When it comes to “moral” issues, the majority of americans want to oppress folks. The problem comes down to the fact that The Democratic Party is drifting in a sea of Bad Rhetoric and as long as they say shit like “I feel your pain” and nominate assholes from the Clinton Years (I refer to them as the “One night stand with a fat chick years” - fun while it lasted, but you HAVE to leave immediately the next morning) no one will vote FOR them.
Anyway what are the philosophical implications of this 2004 vote? The group that can propagate their memes the best, wins. ya’ gotta have a story
Please get back on topic. I gather none of use are close enough to the political system to actually form rational pursuasive arguments especially against the emotive self-righteousness party politics creates.
Please, just curb yourself or channel it into some more constructive political process. Go rant at your governer/congress/random other political establishment instead.
I mean really, is highlighting the word RAT in democrat or excessive use of the word “prick” designed to provide a rational insight into american politics? Is that gonna convince anyone or just make yourself feel more justified and vent some frustration?
Anyhow, I dont think there’s any strong reason to believe we are all doomed. It is true that the average person of any nation is utterly politically stupid and are thus easily won over by rhetoric and fear, but for every scaremongerer theres usually ten who dont buy it. You just have to make sure you get the reasonable people in power.
Consider the cold war where everyone thought things would end in mutually assured destruction. It looks kinda unlikely now since only a few countries are able to do it and they make too much money off of each other to warrant it. The fact remains that war is bad for more business then it is good for, and again, just make sure you arent ruled by business that profit from war.
Karl Rove will replace Socrates and Marx as experts on human nature and government.
I find it interesting that as our world gets bigger we withdraw into a smaller one. That’s the only explanation that I can come up with why soundbytes have replaced facts for most of us.
Or maybe consider the possibility that most of America is sick and freaking tired of the likes of P.Diddy, Eminem, Madonna, Alec Baldwin, and Michael Moore telling them how shitty this country is? I am not of the camp that America can do now wrong, but the fact is that most of america is not yet ready to be led by the Ivy League, East Coast, billionaire elitists. The Kerry camp insulted the intelligence of the american people, hollywood threw all it’s might at the Bush administration, and it backlashed. Does W have a mandate now? Hell no. I don’t buy that either. But to call people who base thier morals on religion stupid or unintelligent is exactly what the modern-day liberal democrats have done, and that will not get you into office. You take your leap of faith into knowledge and reason, and I’ll take my leap into propositional revelation.
As far as philosophical implications? I might speculate that the west maybe in a transition out of post-modernism or at least I think that is the polarization that we keep hearing about- war makes people re-evaluate thier worldviews. At least it should.[/u]
And to “scythekane”, the matter of fact is, that an alarming number of Bush voters were Christians (and this number is nearly triple that voted for him that were non-Christian).
I can’t believe this terrorist got appointed again.
I don’t know if Christianity can be used to justify the war in Iraq to be honest, and I frankly don’t think it matters. It appears to me that all the cynics(and that is what my generation is) don’t seem to understand that there is a tyrannical, theocratic, fundementalist climate in the middle east that supresses and opresses, and most of the people on this board would be killed for voicing thier opinions too loudly. Once again, we are one of few countries with the balls to go and spread freedom. That last sentence will sound particularily disenchanting for the folks’ whose thinking pattern is so wrapped up into the relativism of this age that you cannnot even acknowledge better political systems when you see them.
As for the philisohical implications again: anytime worldvieiws are sustained by classical logic (a is not non-a) we have established true communication again, thus a sense of moral antithesis.
[/quote]
you say freedom like it something fundamentally desirable. You must accept that that is merely what you’ve been raised to value. In a culture where submitting to authority is praised, do you not think you would value obedience more?
Freedom is a dogma, and one that should not be forced upon people with a gun (it seems odd that you can). Of course by freedom you actually mean democracy, which of course, can oppress upto 49% of the population (more in america) in the BEST case scenario.
If i am wrapped up in relativism, you are wrapped up in western ideals, and ‘they’ are wrapped up in a particular blend of submissive religious beliefs. Try not to act as if morality is plainly on your side in this regard.