At Home and Aboard: The New Attitudes of American Politics (Part 1 of 2)
Walter Rhett
June 22, 2009
Throw the old script away! It is boring and predictable to watch talk shows or listen to politicians. All we hear are one sided messages, delivered by attractive people whose verbal fluency and point-scoring aphorisms substitute for trust, truth and expertise.
As we watch and listen we would do well to remember what Ben Franklin wisely rendered: "Time lost is never found again."
The political will is easily summarized at length.
Too expensive, too weak, wrong, and outraged underlines one side's response, whether it be health care, gay marriage, date night, the Iranian civil disobedience, economic growth.
Too slow, too weak, too yoked, and disappointed describes the other side, whether it be health care, gay marriage, Darfur genocide, Somalia's collapse, or banking reform.
Does anybody in the country besides Barack feel good?
Feelings, preferences, and mind set—the way we evaluate an action or event, our feelings toward it, and our personal choices—guide the cacophonic national response.
The technical or ideological positions framed by the left or the right and supported by facts and examples, and reviewed for their consequences are seldom seen.
Attitudes are the force driving the present debate about the future, and about Barack's success.
It could be a change in the stars, the formulas of the spin meisters and their imitators, but we have gotten lazy. Attitude now substitutes for analysis. And attitude is applied to every political action.
So--let's analyze the attitudes! This 2 part blog begins with the first 3 types of attitude groups.
By reading widely in forums and comments across the USA, Southern Perlo identified the six types of attitudes described below.
1. The Bell ringers as a group with an attitude are increasing. Their gains are being made among Democrats and independents. Their central mantra is routed in the perception: "I see no change." They see re-cycled Clintonites in high posts, unethical officials who bend or break rules, They see, after five months of Barack's presidency, a war being expanded, gay issues being delayed, former high crimes being ignored, reservations about oversight being implemented, and details being overlooked on a whole range of their vested issues.
The bell ringers are so named for their emotional response to their perception, their loud wailing, their constant peals that politics is just a vast gray sameness, no matter who is in or wins. Instead of national continuity, or recognizing the importance of nominal disruption, ignoring the need for skilled leadership in the cabinet and among high official, ignoring the need for skilled nuance in nurturing social trends, bell ringers obviously expect and accept only radical change.
They want it done the instant, without regard to other domestic or international considerations. Anything less than the full agenda of their hopes and they conclude sulkily nothing matters. Many bell ringers are disappointed and disillusioned Obama supporters, not ready to abandon ship, but becrying the differences in steerage from what was promised by the advance notices. Their attitude sees power as a force of collusion; they believe public questions are scripted, deals are brokered, the American people are bonked. Their bell ringing is the sound of desolate, inconsolable ennui. Chuck comment in a 6/22 internet post is typical: "Really? I mean, really? I keep hearing people from this administration say how deeply everyone feels about these issues, I keep seeing a lot of hand wringing, I keep hearing about how things are (slowly) moving in the right direction. Again, I ask, really?"
Chuck goes on: "The Justice Department - OBAMA'S Justice Department - couldn't have made the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) brief any more disgusting and off-the-mark if they had argued that gay men waste sperm cells so in essence they are committing murder to half-a-human life or something equally ridiculous. Compare the DOMA brief to the only positive thing to come out of this administration in terms of gay equality (not rights, folks, equality...if you believe he are asking for any more than anyone else has got, you must be a retarded Senator from Pennsylvania...) which was pot-shotting a few rights for government same sex employees. . . it's inconsequential and only done to throw us off the scent of our own blood being poured out by lack of leadership from a man who happily took our money and made lots of promises. Telling me you "look forward to working with Congress" on the repel of DOMA and DADT is akin to saying, "Not my problem, be mad at them." Is [Obama] the President or a clerk at the DMV? I'm angry about your tip-toeing. . . Try being a leader, not a politician."
And, lastly, from a blog on foreign affairs: "Who would have thought ten years ago that a Democratic President of the US would refuse to condemn an Iranian Government´s attempt to rig an election and to clamp down on the subsequent protest marches calling for more western style freedom?"
2. Camp followers, members of the political refugee train are from all sides of the political spectrum. What they share in common is the the attitude of capitulation; they are simply will to let someone else do the thinking for them—especially if it sounds good and makes them feel good. They generally avoid critical reflection, dwell in cliches, place individual rights above the general welfare, but serve stale, entrenched speech when its comes to the perceptions of political acts. Often, this acts are seen through a partisan lens.
For example, Rmarc, at the nyt.com, posted about Iran's civil disorders: "The Iranians must be taking technical advice from the Republican party from Florida in 2000!"
Buddy, from the other side, posted: "How is Democratic amoral realpolitik any less reprehensible than Republican amoral realpolitik? Time for Obama to lead, not just jump in front of the parade after the fact."
No fresh thinking or original or pertinent analysis here. Even those in Iran calling for new elections or a vote recount have twitted and requested that American officials, including the President not speak out or comment about the situation. The consensus is it would only make matters worse! Inside Iran, the Supreme Leader and other officials would use such comments as clear examples of American provocation and direct evidence of an American conspiracy to overthrow the current leadership and meddle in Iranian internal affairs.
Such a leap of thought is easy in Iran, where the US did depose an elected government in 1953 to install the former Shah. The US speaking now out would have the wrong results, and quickly turn the tide against those who support free, honest elections.
Yet here in American the consequences of American actions are not debated in the context of their impact within Iran, or around the world. Instead, camp followers jump on yesterday's train, quipping from old favorites. From a nyt.com post: "Florida 2000 election experts were sent to Iran as part of a secret deal between Rushed Limbaugh, self-proclaimed leader of Western morality, ethics, and drug dealing and the Ayatollahs."
3. Scripts, an attitude group, act by proxy. Scripts--the name taken from those who served for others during the Civil War--are those emotionally motivated to adapt a perception because it is socially or historical shared. It's the way grandparents, parents, neighbors, co-workers, the local community, the folks at the club think. The attitudes of scripts are a proxy for the prevailing community view.
Emotionally, scripts are detached from politics, but are emotionally engaged by political actions. Scripts mostly agree that all politicians are the same, liars, deceivers, wimpy. Similar but different than camp followers and bell ringers, they combine the disappointment in politicians with the clichéd mantras of camp followers, with an important difference: Scripts are usually hawks on foreign affairs. Stern, war-like, forceful, tough word and minds are what they expect from American leadership. This desire often seems to be made tougher when it is expressed as irony: from Salt Lake City, "just love them, no they are not part of the axis of evil, I'm sure negotiations will work."
Another: So my liberal progressive friends...what do you do now? Just ignore him? More unproductive talk? Remember: No teleprompters in negotiations!"
Two more post excerpts: "Let's see if Obama will teleprompt the North Koreans to dis-arm. Oh, my bad, Obama's plan was to destroy US nukes to show the North Koreans that the US don't need them. In response, Kim Jong II will give up his nukes. What a smart idea."
"Like I said a while ago, Seoul is about to be vaporized by North Korea as a show of Force! Obama will back down from this guy, China will continue to feed and give energy to North Korea, supplying it's 90% of it's energy for North Korea and feeding it! Obama has put us even more at the mercy of China."
But the script's view of the world is selective. Keenly focused on Korea and Iran, they overlook the issues of Peru, Somalia, Tibet, and Darfur, to name several.
As we watch and listen we would do well to remember what Ben Franklin wisely rendered: "Time lost is never found again."
The political will is easily summarized at length.
Too expensive, too weak, wrong, and outraged underlines one side's response, whether it be health care, gay marriage, date night, the Iranian civil disobedience, economic growth.
Too slow, too weak, too yoked, and disappointed describes the other side, whether it be health care, gay marriage, Darfur genocide, Somalia's collapse, or banking reform.
Does anybody in the country besides Barack feel good?
Feelings, preferences, and mind set—the way we evaluate an action or event, our feelings toward it, and our personal choices—guide the cacophonic national response.
The technical or ideological positions framed by the left or the right and supported by facts and examples, and reviewed for their consequences are seldom seen.
Attitudes are the force driving the present debate about the future, and about Barack's success.
It could be a change in the stars, the formulas of the spin meisters and their imitators, but we have gotten lazy. Attitude now substitutes for analysis. And attitude is applied to every political action.
So--let's analyze the attitudes! This 2 part blog begins with the first 3 types of attitude groups.
By reading widely in forums and comments across the USA, Southern Perlo identified the six types of attitudes described below.
1. The Bell ringers as a group with an attitude are increasing. Their gains are being made among Democrats and independents. Their central mantra is routed in the perception: "I see no change." They see re-cycled Clintonites in high posts, unethical officials who bend or break rules, They see, after five months of Barack's presidency, a war being expanded, gay issues being delayed, former high crimes being ignored, reservations about oversight being implemented, and details being overlooked on a whole range of their vested issues.
The bell ringers are so named for their emotional response to their perception, their loud wailing, their constant peals that politics is just a vast gray sameness, no matter who is in or wins. Instead of national continuity, or recognizing the importance of nominal disruption, ignoring the need for skilled leadership in the cabinet and among high official, ignoring the need for skilled nuance in nurturing social trends, bell ringers obviously expect and accept only radical change.
They want it done the instant, without regard to other domestic or international considerations. Anything less than the full agenda of their hopes and they conclude sulkily nothing matters. Many bell ringers are disappointed and disillusioned Obama supporters, not ready to abandon ship, but becrying the differences in steerage from what was promised by the advance notices. Their attitude sees power as a force of collusion; they believe public questions are scripted, deals are brokered, the American people are bonked. Their bell ringing is the sound of desolate, inconsolable ennui. Chuck comment in a 6/22 internet post is typical: "Really? I mean, really? I keep hearing people from this administration say how deeply everyone feels about these issues, I keep seeing a lot of hand wringing, I keep hearing about how things are (slowly) moving in the right direction. Again, I ask, really?"
Chuck goes on: "The Justice Department - OBAMA'S Justice Department - couldn't have made the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) brief any more disgusting and off-the-mark if they had argued that gay men waste sperm cells so in essence they are committing murder to half-a-human life or something equally ridiculous. Compare the DOMA brief to the only positive thing to come out of this administration in terms of gay equality (not rights, folks, equality...if you believe he are asking for any more than anyone else has got, you must be a retarded Senator from Pennsylvania...) which was pot-shotting a few rights for government same sex employees. . . it's inconsequential and only done to throw us off the scent of our own blood being poured out by lack of leadership from a man who happily took our money and made lots of promises. Telling me you "look forward to working with Congress" on the repel of DOMA and DADT is akin to saying, "Not my problem, be mad at them." Is [Obama] the President or a clerk at the DMV? I'm angry about your tip-toeing. . . Try being a leader, not a politician."
And, lastly, from a blog on foreign affairs: "Who would have thought ten years ago that a Democratic President of the US would refuse to condemn an Iranian Government´s attempt to rig an election and to clamp down on the subsequent protest marches calling for more western style freedom?"
2. Camp followers, members of the political refugee train are from all sides of the political spectrum. What they share in common is the the attitude of capitulation; they are simply will to let someone else do the thinking for them—especially if it sounds good and makes them feel good. They generally avoid critical reflection, dwell in cliches, place individual rights above the general welfare, but serve stale, entrenched speech when its comes to the perceptions of political acts. Often, this acts are seen through a partisan lens.
For example, Rmarc, at the nyt.com, posted about Iran's civil disorders: "The Iranians must be taking technical advice from the Republican party from Florida in 2000!"
Buddy, from the other side, posted: "How is Democratic amoral realpolitik any less reprehensible than Republican amoral realpolitik? Time for Obama to lead, not just jump in front of the parade after the fact."
No fresh thinking or original or pertinent analysis here. Even those in Iran calling for new elections or a vote recount have twitted and requested that American officials, including the President not speak out or comment about the situation. The consensus is it would only make matters worse! Inside Iran, the Supreme Leader and other officials would use such comments as clear examples of American provocation and direct evidence of an American conspiracy to overthrow the current leadership and meddle in Iranian internal affairs.
Such a leap of thought is easy in Iran, where the US did depose an elected government in 1953 to install the former Shah. The US speaking now out would have the wrong results, and quickly turn the tide against those who support free, honest elections.
Yet here in American the consequences of American actions are not debated in the context of their impact within Iran, or around the world. Instead, camp followers jump on yesterday's train, quipping from old favorites. From a nyt.com post: "Florida 2000 election experts were sent to Iran as part of a secret deal between Rushed Limbaugh, self-proclaimed leader of Western morality, ethics, and drug dealing and the Ayatollahs."
3. Scripts, an attitude group, act by proxy. Scripts--the name taken from those who served for others during the Civil War--are those emotionally motivated to adapt a perception because it is socially or historical shared. It's the way grandparents, parents, neighbors, co-workers, the local community, the folks at the club think. The attitudes of scripts are a proxy for the prevailing community view.
Emotionally, scripts are detached from politics, but are emotionally engaged by political actions. Scripts mostly agree that all politicians are the same, liars, deceivers, wimpy. Similar but different than camp followers and bell ringers, they combine the disappointment in politicians with the clichéd mantras of camp followers, with an important difference: Scripts are usually hawks on foreign affairs. Stern, war-like, forceful, tough word and minds are what they expect from American leadership. This desire often seems to be made tougher when it is expressed as irony: from Salt Lake City, "just love them, no they are not part of the axis of evil, I'm sure negotiations will work."
Another: So my liberal progressive friends...what do you do now? Just ignore him? More unproductive talk? Remember: No teleprompters in negotiations!"
Two more post excerpts: "Let's see if Obama will teleprompt the North Koreans to dis-arm. Oh, my bad, Obama's plan was to destroy US nukes to show the North Koreans that the US don't need them. In response, Kim Jong II will give up his nukes. What a smart idea."
"Like I said a while ago, Seoul is about to be vaporized by North Korea as a show of Force! Obama will back down from this guy, China will continue to feed and give energy to North Korea, supplying it's 90% of it's energy for North Korea and feeding it! Obama has put us even more at the mercy of China."
But the script's view of the world is selective. Keenly focused on Korea and Iran, they overlook the issues of Peru, Somalia, Tibet, and Darfur, to name several.
Print
Email
