You're overreacting to the point of misinterpretation.
Hillary lacked charisma, yes. You're right on that bit. For the rest, nobody is calling for grandiose promises and lies. I know that's how you, Frumple, and others feel about Sanders. He spoke in grandiose terms, yes. But the way I interpret that kind of speech isn't as promising to accomplish those things. Maybe if I look back at his speeches, I'd find myself corrected, but I don't remember him directly promising he would accomplish the more lofty stuff.
He... spoke in grandiose terms. That called for and stated commitment to things that were often enough either flat out impossible (some of the economic stuff; protectionism et al doesn't tend to actually do what folks like to say it does, ferex -- offshoring isn't the primary thing that shut down the oft referenced factories), functionally impossible, or stated as a goal with zero or close enough to it indication of how he was going to go about it. Much of his policy points or stated implementations were just kinda'... empty. Enthusiastic, claiming to address the worries of a particular group or problem of a particular issue, just more or less lacking on anything about how it was going to
happen, or whether he could actually do it. Say a lot, say it well (enough), don't say anything with it. Is the problem. Some folks try to obfuscate it with a lot of things (puffery, "just campaign promises", etc.) but, y'know. It's lying. Distorting the truth of what you're saying, exaggerating its veracity or ability to be implemented. Some of that I can excuse; I understand the reality of starting high and bargaining down to what you wanted. Some of it would have not done nearly what he claimed it would, and that's a hell of a lot less kosher with me.
I've just went over his campaign's issues page, actually. Dug up some speeches to refresh memory and whatnot. Half the time I was sitting there wishing I could get my hands around the neck of whoever wrote it and shake them until they answer "How?" Don't get it wrong; there was a lot that was pretty clear, or at least less troublesome. It's just, y'know. Most of the time was something his competitor was also stating intention to do, generally with some indication or another that there was more behind considering of the subject than nice words and enthusiasm. When the major difference between you and your competitor is that you're willing to promise unreachable goals, well... the message your supporters are sending me is that they want to be lied to, at the very least a little. Though jeeze, no, the fact that someone makes lofty statements and constantly litters their rhetoric with it but doesn't
directly promise to do X Y or Z related to it doesn't really get them a bye, at least from me. That's "baffle them with bullshit" territory, basic demagoguery, and
exactly the sort of lying I'm talking about.
People generally aren't stupid. They don't take promises at face value. Sanders supporters didn't look at the situation as "vote Sanders = get socialism". What you're missing is that he spoke with conviction. He made it abundantly clear what his ideals were. So for anybody who aligned with those same ideals, they could be confident they had an ally. And no one could dig up any history that contradicted the character he presented. That is energizing.
I mean, it can be energizing? Conviction can mean a lot. Do recall I liked sanders a fair bit before I really looked into him much. The turn off for me (maybe other folks with similar interpretation of things, but I ain't gon' try to speak for 'em at the moment) is when conviction is where conviction shouldn't be. If you're very enthusiastic about something you very much
cannot do, that's... not encouraging, if you're speaking towards someone that's actually aware of what you can do. It's letting your ideals get in the way of your ideals, and when that's happening how clear you're making those ideals you're kneecapping isn't much of a consolation. I get how folks can get pumped from it but it's a major, major turn off for me in particular.
And... yeah. People don't take promises at face value (sometimes, anyway). But there's a difference between not taking a promise at face value and swallowing anything that stands up to even the least of scrutiny (i.e. listening to other people talk, from what I saw of folks I talked to and saw talking when not drowning themselves in the latest media bullshit), and it was the latter that was the problem. That was one of the things that seriously twigged me out about this election, tbh. Really damn often I'd see comments along the lines of, "Well, that's what's people are saying" or, "Well, that's what the news is all saying". They were defending positions based on the general opinion of folks around them or what the media was reporting on (not necessarily what it was actually
saying, but just where the attention was landing and what the general tone was), but there was more or less just no... checking. Taking a few minutes to see whether that general opinion was on the the up and up or the media wasn't being what has become its normal self. To an extent I don't blame them, but to the other extent it is a very clear demonstration that truth or accuracy is
not what they're looking for. As you note, folks're looking for a message, a tone, a feeling -- and I get that. But the problem is when that message, tone, and feeling, either cannot be engaged with in good faith, or close enough to it it barely matters. T'me, that's what happened this election.
Beyond that... yeah, people aren't stupid. But they show a very noted tendency to believe something they want to hear, even if it's not true or they can't actually support it (and just to clarify, I ain't sayin' I'm immune to it or somethin' stupid like that). When someone says X politician is heinously corrupt, they want to hear that, because all politicians are corrupt and everyone knows it. And if someone blares a gigantic story about that for days and then a quiet retraction weeks later, well. You can't really fight that with honesty, y'know? You can try, but people want the sexy story, particularly if it aligns with what they "know" to be true, not the boring one that refutes it. It won't work. Will note for the Nth time -- I came into this election cycle under the assumptions that many left wing voters did. I just bothered to dig at them a bit
Way more energizing than someone who cautiously states the modest goals they think are realistic for the next term, and hopes that people will check out their website for more details. Maybe that's great for political junkies who really know their shit, can pick apart and assess the plan, and nod to themselves thinking "Hmm yes I do believe this is a good plan." For the mainiacs and Frumples of the world, I can understand why this would be preferable to character posturing. But most people are not political junkies. They don't have the knowledge to accurately assess what is a good political action plan. They just want to know they can trust that the person they vote for genuinely shares their convictions. It's peace of mind for people who otherwise feel disempowered.
I mean, shit, SG.
I'm not a political junkie, or if I am holy hell the bar to meet that has lowered a lot since I was younger. I spent some time actually checking stuff, but in terms of time investment and whatnot, the only reason I may have came across as one was because just about everything I talked about was
really bloody easy to see. My "knowledge to accurately assess political actions" was mostly high school or intro-level college economics and/or social studies and 2-3 minutes of google on a subject, maybe ten or fifteen if it was something particularly obscured. I'm not some kind of person that stayed glued to political news 24/7 or has spent years engaging in the political process or theory (which was one of the reasons I liked having M around, tbh -- to a fair extent he actually
had, which was part of what drove him up the wall, ha). Some grounding in it due to general education, but that's about it. Just... someone willing to do a bit of checking, for whom not taking at face value actually involves a tiny modicum of effort.
And hell, I don't actually need some kind of meticulously detailed plan, tbh. Just
some plan. Some indication from the candidate that shows that, yes, they know what the blue hell is involved in trying to do what they're wanting to do, and how to achieve it. And sanders didn't fail entirely on that front but he failed enough it was a significant mark in the con column for me. Conviction without capability is less than useless to me. It doesn't reassure me, it doesn't energize me, and frankly it kinda' terrifies me. It makes me wonder exactly what's going to happen when they fail. And hell, I still gave it a vote, even as I was becoming less and less sure about the support. I just don't think it was the right action in hindsight.
I get the peace of mind, I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think the peace of mind they're settling on is warranted, it's not enough for me. Trust takes more than words, more than shared conviction. It takes testing, and demonstration, and what sanders was offering wasn't that, to me. He stayed on message pretty well but that sort of consistency isn't what I'm looking for, y'know?
It was blatantly fucking obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that this was a problem for her that would haunt her candidacy, and ignoring that was a matter of stubbornness.
Oh, aye. Absolutely
zero argument it was an obvious problem. But from what I saw, y'know, folks
didn't actually ignore it. It was just any attempts to establish otherwise were drowned the fuck out by media and/or the electorate's dearth of incredulity and monofocus on what the media was spewing or on specific issues they were letting consume all their attention (usually the "scandals", obviously enough). FTFE, et al. It doesn't matter how much attention you give something if no one will notice it. I mean, the effort's nice and maybe worthwhile for other reasons, but so far as dealing with the issue it's just kinda' useless.
And... yeah. You don't
have to tell lies or offer grandiose promises to build trust and motivation. The problem is the attempt to do that was, actually, y'know. Clinton. More than a lot of stuff. But people had already assumed she could not be trusted and her motivations were in bad faith, and would only listen to shit that reinforced that assumption. When you're in that state of mind the veracity of what you're listening to starts mattering less and less and
less.To blatantly ignore them and tell people who are worried about it that they don't have a choice is hubris. Pure hubris. And the way I see it, that's what happened.
And the thing is, that's not what I saw happen. It's not what I saw the actual DNC try to do, it's not what I saw clinton try to do. Not their words, at the very least not to any substantial amount, not her words, again similarly. It definitely
is what I saw liberal talking heads say, sure, and a fair few left-wing online folks, and that sort of thing, may they be fornicated by flaming pitchforks for a thousand days and a day. Clinton "supporters" and left-wing media (and definitely, definitely right wing, too) and whatnot. I would entirely agree the message you're talkin' about was out there. It was just complete fucking bullshit from what I could see and an utter distortion of the character or intention of the person they were (intentionally or not) running a character assassination campaign against. Just don't ask me what the proper counter to that was. I've already said I can barely even guess, and that dealing with someone that won't even acknowledge the existence of your point is something I don't know how to make inroads on.
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1389696 times)