Well said.
Emotional
appeal is, sadly, what it's all about. Screw meaningful content.
How about them Bush girls? (Is Yale still
considered Ivy League?)
Without thinking about who is right or wrong, it was really interesting how the simple ideas
of the Republican Party aroused passion so easily, as compared to the "nuanced multilayeredness" of Democratic
thinking. Many Americans will be rallied by the Republicans' speeches, which appealed to ideas that it is easy to
feel enthusiastic about. It even moved the patriot in me to listen to some of it. Of course, much of it was generic
patriotism, which no party owns. Nonetheless, the Republicans' appeals to patriotism seem more effective
emotionally. Arnold raised and exhibited an almost "-none OD like" level of this. I almost got a DIHL myself. (
Then I got a bit scared of his dictator-like presentation, but maybe he put on too much PI, or snorted some!)
I'd say that the Democrats have their work cut out for them, in terms of emotional appeal. The Republicans
have just flat out done better at this so far, IMHO. To win, Kerry needs to role model the emotions we need and want
to feel; and evoke them powerfully. He needs to be firey and passionate; sharp and clear headed to defeat the
incumbent.
Incumbency always enjoys the benefit of appealing to people's wish to strongly believe we are doing
great, of course. Then there is the fear of the unknown, which Kerry represents more than Bush as an incumbent
(Kerry should note here that there are also a few scary unknowns with Bush). They played that one up too. This is
already quite a bit of inherent emotional power the Republicans have. But there's more to it.
The Democrats are
a relatively complicated party in search of simple ideas and the strong passions that attach to them. If they want
to be successful, they need to meditate continuously until they get the same kind of emotional clarity the
Republicans seem to enjoy. It can't ride squarely on anger against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Why? Anger isn't the
emotion of leadership, but is rather the emotion of the oppressed (The "help is on the way" slogan targeted this
issue, but fell short). It's a "beta emotion" if used too much. Conversely, fear is often evoked to great effect by
those in power.
Regarding emotional clarity, I think that the idea of "integrity" is fundamentally important for
Democrats. Integrity, personal and national, is a huge concept that seems to sum up much of what they talk about.
Integrity makes you feel comfortable with who you are, like you are a "good person". People need and yearn to feel
that. But Democrats also need to appeal better to the evocative ideas that already dominate the American emotional
palette; like freedom, democracy, security, reassurance, and hope. For example, they need a compelling idea of
"sustainable prosperity" to compete with "Reaganomics". I think sustainable prosperity results from the efficient
sharing of human and global resources, within communities wherein simple happiness and human potential are fostered.
I personally get lots of warm and fuzzy emotions thinking about that one. Peace is another wonderfully emotive idea.
A just war can only make sense, and be ultimately won, from within a compelling idea of peace.
"Prosperity",
"integrity" and "peace" are elegant political ideas that evoke deep, powerful feelings. Perhaps the Democrats should
consider using them more often. Then again, just because something feels good does not make it so.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-03-2004 at 03:03 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Well said.
Emotional
appeal is, sadly, what it's all about. Screw meaningful content.
How about them Bush girls? (Is Yale still
considered Ivy League?)
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
And then would Harvard be Bush
League?
Nice picture, Mr. Holmes. You may as well keep us guessing.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-03-2004 at 02:13 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Well said Doc. Good points that
the dems should be looking at. But I agree with Holmes' remark about emotional appeal.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
The advantages the Republican Party brings to this election are fundamental ones - better leaders and
better ideas. The Democrats have built (or degraded) their power base to "gimme" special interests without a
unifying plan for every citizen. The leadership team holding office is clearly one of the best, most effective,
most clear-eyed bunch of men and women in recent history.
It's easy to get emotional once the trust is
justified.
The two best speeches were by Arnold and by Zell Miller - loved them both.
Kerry sold out his own party. 90% of
the Democratic delegates oppose the war in Iraq, and so does a majority of the nation.
He should be
seething with righteous indignation over a war waged under false premises — that would add some needed emotional
substance to the Democratic campaign — but he just wants to convince everybody he can fight it better. Pussy. He’s
just handing the election over to Bush.
Give truth a chance.
Bush is pushing buttons and pulling heartstrings. Kerry isOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
not.
Yeah, Arnold had me at "John Wayne." Or was it "President Richard Nixon?" No, wait: I think itOriginally Posted by Whitehall
was "Girly-Men." Or "SIEG HEIL!" Shit, I can't remember.
Hey, at least he admitted that he's a bad actor.
(How endearing.)
Zell Miller?
"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's
Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone
calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."
Ugh. Come out of the closet already (and don't
forget your loafers).
I was just reading his autobiography, Zell Miller: M.A.N. With Huge Cock (And Proud
To Show Ya). A fascinating memoir.
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
I'm sorry if this is off the
discussion as I didn't read this whole thread (being lazy), but in regards to politics and emotion...
I think
that Michael Douglas summed it up in The American President:
For the last several months
Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was to a certain extent about character. And while
I have been unwilling to engage in his attacks on me, I have been here three years and three days and I can say
without hesitation that being president of this country is entirely about character. For the record, yes, I am a
card carrying member of the ACLU ... but the more important questions is why aren't you Bob. Now this is an
organization whose sole purpose is to defend the bill of rights ... so it naturally begs the question why would a
Senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for president choose to reject upholding the
constitution. Now, if you can answer that question folks than you're smarter than I am ... because I didn't
understand it until a few hours ago. America isn't easy. America, is advanced citizenship ... you've got to want
it bad ... because its gonna put up a fight. Its gonna say you want free speech? Then lets see you acknowledge a man
whose words make your blood boil who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you
would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Its gonna say you want to claim this land is the land of the
free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens
exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that; defend that; celebrate that in your classrooms
... then you can stand up here and claim that this is the land of the free. I've known Bob Rumson for years and
I've been acting under the assumption that the reason Bob devoted so much time and energy shouting at the rain was
because he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong, Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it, Bob's
problem is that he can't sell it. He is interested in two things and two things only ... making you afraid
of it and telling you whose to blame for it ... that ladies and gentlemen is how you win elections. You gather a
group of middle aged, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time and to preach to
them about American values and character. And then you flash an old photo of the presidents girlfriend and you
tell them she's to blame for their rotten lives ... and you go on television and you call her a whore. Sidney Ellen
Wade has done nothing to you Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, protect the interests of
American school teachers and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate Bob, then
you'd better stick with me ... because Sidney Ellen Wade is way out of your league. I've loved two women in my
life. I lost one to cancer ... and I lost the other because I was so busy keeping my job, that I forgot to do my
job. Well that end right now. Tomorrow the White House is sending a bill to Congress for its consideration ... House
Resolution 455, an energy bill, calling for a twenty percent reduction in the emissions of fossil fuels over the
next ten years. It is by far, the most aggressive stride ever taken to attempt to reverse the affects of global
warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out.
I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of
assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security and I will go door to door if I have to
but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right and I'm gonna get the guns. We've got serious problems and we
need serious people. And if you want to talk about character and American values Bob, fine ... but you'd better
come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card, you just tell me where and when and I'll show up.
This is a time for serious people Bob and your fifteen minutes are up. My name is Andrew Shepherd and I am the
President.
Creating a campaign is easy. You tell the country what
the problems are and you say that you're the person to solve them. Winning is hard because you have to blame the
other person for all of the problems or say that their solution is dumb and yours is better.
Now I'm
going really off topic...
People complain that politicians lie. Well, I thought about this, and they have to,
basically. Bush was honest, and he got fried and later retracted his statement.
"We may never win the war on
terror..."
Wow, truth for once. You can win this just like you can't win the war on drugs...you can't prevent
individuals from doing chaotic things when you give them the freedom and liberty that incidentally extends to having
the capability to do them. If you have the right to bear arms, you automatically have the capability to cause harm
to many people. That's the reality of the situation...but politicians can't admit to that. No one will vote for
a guy who admits that the system is fallible and that you can't prevent every bad thing from happening. Kerry
comes right back and says that he will fight the war better and win...and then, naturally, Bush must retract his
statement or Kerry will look stronger than him despite the fact that Kerry can't 100% prevent random horrible acts
from happening, either.
I was thinking about this, and I may be wrong because this was a recent thought, but any
politician that started preaching the truth would lose. Therefore, it is actually by our voting that keeps liars in
office because they tell us what we want to hear, not the truth. We want to hear that we are strong, safe,
economically growing, creating jobs, etc...no one wants to hear the President admit that we're in a recession...and
if he did, the stock market would take a 1,000-point shot. Yet everyone complains that politicians lie. Who votes
in the liars, and who needs the liars to lie to sleep soundly at night? Hmmm...
The scapegoat is created with
the sole purpose of putting a face to the fear and making people safe. The war in Iraq, oil, special interests,
etc. aside, is a way to show citizens that the government is taking action and being proactive in fighting
terror...who would vote for a President who said, "Well, individuals did this, and there's not much we can do about
it. All we can do is strengthen our defenses and prevent further catastrophes in the future. However, since the
people who did this are dead from the crashes, there's not much else we can do to punish them, is there?" (again, I
know these people are part of bigger groups with leaders, but I am taking major liberties to make a point)
It's
sad, but the government is an interesting result of the human psyche.
What a psychological field day one could
have analyzing this...
Please no one take this as the start of a political debate for one side or the other...I
was just taking this as a partial psychological analysis...just brainstorming.
[QUOTE=Holmes...Emotional appeal
is, sadly, what it's all about. Screw meaningful content....[/QUOTE]
Something I noticed because of it's
currency, (I'm not effected because I'm not an hourly employee and I live in California with laws that overrule)
was Bush's talk about making the country more "worker friendly". This from a man who just signed into law a bill
taking away "overtime pay" from millions (except for those who live in the 8 states who's laws overrule this).
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
I wondered too
about "worker friendly". Massive immigration or new "guest worker programs" are certainly NOT in the interest of
anyone legally currently holding or seeking a job in the USA.
Some of the other programs Bush mentioned might
have merit but the devil is in the details. The overtime rule change seems much misrepresented in the mainstream
press. It does help low wage employees.
I will admit I was a little embaressed with all the "USA" chanting
but I'm not one for mass emotions.
I'm curious about the reactions from people who saw it in other
countries.
Ultimately, a voter has four choices - Bush, Kerry, Nader, or not voting. Somebody has to hold
the job and no one is perfect. Life is full of choices like that.
Aw Bush better work hard if he
wants to keep those numbers up. I think he loses 1% in the polls every time his daughters are shown on TV.
Hmmm... I dont think the Governator
needs PI to get the ladies. He has enough primal instinct flowing through his blood anyway. lol
Hopefully he can
be president oneday, just gotta get that amendment passed
That much is true.Originally Posted by Whitehall
Originally Posted by Zeus
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
This response is to the point in manyThe advantages the Republican Party brings to this election are fundamental ones - better
leaders and better ideas. The Democrats have built (or degraded) their power base to "gimme" special interests
without a unifying plan for every citizen. The leadership team holding office is clearly one of the best, most
effective, most clear-eyed bunch of men and women in recent history.
illustrative ways. I agree that Democrats lack a comprehensive plan. But this isn't necessarily a fatal flaw. An
incomplete plan can be better than an overly simplistic or wrongheaded, complete one. I also agree that the
Democrats are beholden to special interests. But so are the Republicans, as Belgareth would remind us. So it's
meaningless to point out that either side is. But it is logical, and quite meaningful to compare lists of who each
is beholden to. I'll save that for another post.
Lastly, I agree that Bush and company can seem
clear eyed (e.g, "Nobody ever won a war by being sensitive!") Many would vehemently disagree with us here. But for
the sake of argument, there may be certain simple facets of national and international events they are more clear
about (assuming they are genuine, also for the sake of argument). But it's easy to seem clear eyed if you
only look at the most simplistic, black and white portrayals of issues (e.g., "sensitive war vs. tough war";
"you're with us or against us"). If you see the multi-leveled, multi-contextual world as entirely composed of
plainly right/wrong and true/false ideas, and simplistic ideas at that; then whatever you do see most clearly will
be merely artificially clear, in some sense. Arguably the most "clear", black and white thinking could be the
least helpful (Therefore it's OK to be be insensitive to our potential allies who might otherwise share our
risks (such as not finding WMD), responsibilities and burdens). The smaller your perspective, and the fewer facts
you consider, the easier it sometimes is to organize it all into an "internally coherent" whole; especially if you
are willing to throw away a lot more insights and facts along the way. What that means is that internal consistency
and simple overarching ideas can seem easier to achieve.
Consider this simplistic, right-leaning political line
of thinking (a paraphrase of Bush in a TV interview): "We're tough on badguys, and we'll keep being tough until
the bad guys are gone! Our citizens must make sacrifices. Freedom has a price. Period!" The advantage of this
simplistic rhetoric is that it covers Bush's foreign, domestic, and economic policy in one fell swoop. Wow! It's
easy to understand, and helps us organize complexities to make a simple world. How satisfying! "A unifying plan for
every citizen!" Now there's an idea folks can get behind!! On the other hand, this stance is fatally flawed in its
subtleties. But when considered in isolation as a counterstance, the correct subtleties don't arouse the
passions that the stance itself does. Therefore the problem in reaching a more successful line of thinking is to
reframe the whole issue in a more compelling way. But this is extremely difficult, since the initial
framing aims at extremely primitive emotions. This kind of pandering to base emotions is an essential part of the
inherent appeal of right winged rhetoric. Politics (like pheromones!) are in no small way a battle for people's
most primitive feelings, and the Republicans are currently doing better at this. Consider the emotional power of
raising the terror alert, for example.
Can you characterize the two parties as different in this respect? I
think so. That again highlights the problem the Democrats have -- to clarify and simplify the things they believe
they have seen with a broader and deeper vision, and therefore relate emotionally to people better. This takes a lot
of work intellectually (especially since some of their ideas are newer or more "progressive"); and requires skill at
role-modeling the appropriate passions; as well as communication skills. Each party has its own challenges,
strengths and shortcomings. In fact, many who criticise Bush do so on grounds fairly independent from which party he
belongs to. I agree with Bel that neither provides the answer. I see the Democrats as at best a party in transition.
Republicans may be more internally consistent, but may be externally less appropriate to changing times.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-05-2004 at 10:24 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
The biggest problem in the
democrats outlook is the trap many have fallen into. The issues are too complex with too many potential variables to
fully encompass. At some point you have to simplify or you do like Carter did, ponder forever and never really do
anything.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
True. At various points you have to simplify to go/no-go, such as when your advisor interrupts you to
say New York and Washington DC have been attacked! But a black and white approach is the worst one to initially
approach something with. That is the problem of prejudices and rigidities of various kinds. And when your world
view starts to unravel around the edges, it's also time to see bigger things. Now is a time for both passionate
simplicity and largeness of vision, I would suggest. No party has claimed this sound approach as their own yet. But
that is our challenge.
If you are missing pieces of the puzzle, you can't always see the simplest picture
better by throwing away still more pieces and just working with a partial picture. Often thinking bigger is the
quickest road to elegance, or appropriate simplicity; as well as to sound and committed decisions.
Ultimately, in fact, the greatest simplicity is in seeing the bigger picture. This is a crucial philosophical issue
at stake in contemporary politics; in some sense the philosophical issue.
For example, we are
increasingly challenged to take a long term, global, earth based, cooperative and sustainable approach given our
current, rapidly shrinking world; and given the futurist space, life-support and resource issues the earth is
presenting to us. These issues are all about the bigger picture, or the need for holism. There are, of course, other
realms in which we are called to be more holistic, such as in the realms of increasingly interacting and/or clashing
spiritual approaches and religions.
According to Plato (the father of modern secular politics) and most other
philosophers, grasping more of a potential whole is the essence of wisdom, or philosophy. This would also be true,
then, of political philosophy. The lack of this wisdom lies at the heart of our political thinking these days.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-05-2004 at 10:55 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Pondering forever without doing anything is not pondering well. Thinking without doing (or talkingOriginally Posted by belgareth
or feeling, or intuiting) is just another form of small mindedness.
But haven't we had all the cultural
lobotomies we need? Isn't our addiction to stimulation lobotomizing? How about religious fundamentalism; the mental
paralysis of fear; and excess political partisanship? How about the aforementioned black and white thinking that
dominates American policy these days?
You are doubtless one of the better thinkers here, Belgareth. But it is
worth noting that people who do think poorly or unproductively love to tell others they "think too much". There's
something to be said for figuring stuff out.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-05-2004 at 10:58 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Exactly right. You are pointing out one of the worst, most dangerous flaws of the Bush camp. If itOriginally Posted by DrSmellThis
doesn't fit into their philosophy they reject it out of hand. A couple of good examples are stem cell research and
the Kyoto protocols. Rather than accept the fact that there are issues to be worked out, they reject them out of
hand to the detriment of society as a whole. They have even gone so far as to try and silence their detractors by
censoring sciencetific debate. It does not solve the problem, only makes the solutions more painful in the long
run.
At the same time, the dems attempt to solve every problem by throwing money at it (Yes it is an
over-simplification, but the problem is real) and by give-aways. That simply creates additional burden on the most
productive segments of society, which is a dis-incentive to increased productivity, without really helping the most
needy except in the short term. Giving the masses bread and circuses is not the answer either.
The problem stems
from our system that encourages politics to be based on the next election, they never have a reason to think beyond
the next four years. We need to change the mind set of our leadership to look at the problems and solve them rather
than to simply talk to get votes.
Religion has no place in running a government. It is no less mind numbing than
the over-stimulation and apathy caused by too much television. I don't want to side track your very valid points by
starting a religious debate so will leave it at that. I do believe that we need to put far more emphasis on teaching
people to think ofr themselves rather than to follow any group or belief system like a flock of sheeps to
slaughter.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
"Religion has no place in running a government."
This has merit but history teaches us that a civilization
without a religous bond is decadent. We denigrate the religous faith of others at our own risk.
I personally
profess no creed (OK, I can't stomach any of that mumbo-jumbo that passes for theology) but a society WITHOUT
religion scares me. What our liberals seem to want is a society were religion is replaced with legalisms and
political correctness. I don't think that will work. The Communists couldn't.
Ours might be a time when a
new religion is begin born, one that will build a faith and a moral system based on our so much greater
understanding of human nature and the place of humans on our planet and in our universe.
The religious
impulse is universal in humans. There must be a reason and we suppress it at our risk.
Unfortunately, where
we're headed seems more and more like "Brave New World" every day.
"Unfortunately, where we're
headed seems more and more like "Brave New World" every day." I'll agree with that point but will argue that part
of the problem is the religions.
I didn't say a there was a problem with being religious. I said that it had no
place in running a government. Look at this silliness over the ten commandments placed outside a courthouse. The
argument is religious, both sides of it! From my perspective, it doesn't matter in the least if it remains or is
moved. The entire thing is a waste of time and money. Same on the subject of prayer in school. In short, it is not
the business of government any way you look at it.
A society without principles scares me almost as much as a
deeply religious society scares me. Over the centuries, religion has played a major role in the formation of our
civilization but as also created and continues to create hatred and suffering. Respect for human rights is not
universally tied to religion or even a necessary part of it. Despite our basically religious foundations we have
committed crimes against our fellow man innumerable times, often in the name of our religions. Bad decisions are
made in government almost daily because our religions require it. The pope publicly states that government officials
cannot participate in their religion because they choose to do what they believe is right rather than follow
doctrine that ultimately harms millions of people.
Show me a religion that is compatible with the needs of a
changing, evolving society on an ever shrinking planet and I'll recant my position. But I don't believe you can do
that.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
"Pussy. He’s just handing
the election over to Bush."
I think the average Democrat decided long ago that Bush needed to be defeated at
all costs. Then they decided that they needed to pull together and get someone up there who could win and they
picked the wrong guy. I think now that most Democrats have decided that this election is a foregone conclusion with
Bush winning. I was in New Jersey this long holiday weekend and the Asbury Park Press did a poll and, although I
can't remember the exact results, it concluded that about half the voters favor Bush, and nearly equal amounts now
favor either Kerry or Nader. If this poll is at all accurate it means that half the Democrats have given up on
Kerry (I know I have). The next 4 years are going to be very strange ones indeed.
That too.Originally Posted by koolking1
There's so much effort not to alienate the conservatives that they've lost sight of the liberals.
Another
issue is that elections are about constituencies.
The Republicans can always rely on the Christian Right so long
as they stand firm against abortion.
The Democrats used to be able to rely on organized labor and Black voters.
But union membership is only about 12% of the workforce and younger Black voters aren't registering.
Instead of
being proactive and trying to build their constituencies (registering Blacks, being more agressive on women's
issues, pushing for national health care, etc.), the Dems are trying to compete for those middle class white voters
that haven't already gone over to Bush.
Well, I haven't lost sight of who I'm votingOriginally Posted by koolking1
AGAINST. I just wish there was somebody to vote FOR.
The world economic situatation is not good. Even with a world class president,Originally Posted by koolking1
we should expect a very bumpy ride. But when you have a (dry?) drunk at the wheel...
Give truth a chance.
Sad.Originally Posted by koolking1
If it's Bush & Co., strange at best.The next
4 years are going to be very strange ones indeed.
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
Don't give up on it yet. Both
parties get a boost in ratings right after their conventions. Give things a couple weeks to settle out. Bush could
screw things up again and the war in Iraq is forcing a lot of people to reconsider their stance. Remember, it ain't
over til the fat lady sings. Nothing is decided until the ballots are all counted.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
The big issue that needs to be discussed is how much responsibility does the USA need to take in preserving world
order.
Bush has shown that he is willing to lead the US into big commitments that aim for major changes an,
hopefully, improvements.
Kerry SEEMS to be saying that we can do less and either strive for a less ordered
world than Bush would like or expect other countries to do more at our suggestion.
Do we sit back and hope
the rest of the world (Russia, France?) contributes to our protection and the protection of the world economic
order?
Maybe we should sit back, or maybe the world doesn't need more order and protection but I haven't
heard a cogent argument from Kerry and the Democrats on that position. Buchanan on the right offers something like
that but the left is inarticulate. They only hate Bush and dispise America.
At least the Republican
Convention was clear in arguing that there is a big threat and that aggressive action is needed to oppose it.
Further, Kerry has not been aggressive about foreign affairs during his Senate career.
I doubt Kerry wants to
join this debate because he knows how most Americans lean.
Everyone agrees that we would
love things to be nice and "orderly" on the Earth (which sometimes has its own "ideas" on the issue). There is an
important question in there; and a huge question. But we'd need to define clearly and carefully what it means to
"preserve world order"; and for that matter, what is "world order" and "disorder"? Further, what is the "world
economic order"? And what does it mean to "commit" to world order? And what does it mean to "preserve" it, as
opposed, to, say, "implement" it? These are not trivial questions when we are talking about changing the world;
especially if we are talking about, in any sense, unilaterally changing it; or changing it without the other
"tenants'" consent. I'm confused about what Kerry said to make it seem like he is "striving for a less ordered
world", but hopefully defining our terms will help.
Arnold talked a bit about "the world order". Given what you
said about your favorite speeches, perhaps you had this in mind regarding the Republicans addressing the world order
at the convention: When Arnold said that "if you believe this country, not the United Nations, is
the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican", in the context of the speech, to me he
implied something to the effect that Democracy in all it's greatness comes from America (evoking
powerful patriotic emotions in the listener); and therefore America is best qualified to say what democracy should
be around the world, and is best qualified (has the right? responsibility?) to implement democracy around the world,
as opposed to the United Nations. (again appealing to the passions of patriotism, almost making you want to accept
what he is saying on a primal level).
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-07-2004 at 02:55 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Here's a news item regarding
some of the other emotional devices Arnold used in his speech,
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=2256828
...and
here's the text of the actual speech. It is definitely illustrative of the politics of emotion:
SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you very much. Thank you. What a greeting. What a greeting. Wow. This is like
winning an Oscar -- as if I would know. Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." And that's
what the Democrats should have called their convention.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, on
the way up here to the podium, a gentleman came up to me and said, "Governor, you are as good a politician as you
were an actor." What a cheap shot.
(LAUGHTER)
Cannot believe it.
Anyway, my fellow Americans, this is an amazing moment for me. To think that a once-scrawny boy
from Austria could grow up to become governor of the state of California and then stand here...
(APPLAUSE)
... then stand here in Madison Square Garden and speak on behalf of the
president of the United States -- that is an immigrant's dream.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: It is the American dream.
You know, I was born in Europe and I've
traveled all over the world. And I can tell you that there is no place, no country, more compassionate, more
generous, more accepting and more welcoming than the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
As long as I live, I will never forget that day 21 years ago when I raised my right hand and took
the oath of citizenship. Do you know how proud I was? I was so proud that I walked around with an American flag
around my shoulders all day long.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight, I want to talk to you about
why I'm even more proud to be an American -- why I'm proud to be a Republican -- and why I believe this country is
in good hands.
(APPLAUSE)
When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw Communism with my own eyes. I remember the
fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector.
Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the
soldiers in the eye. Just look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of
his own car and ship him back to the Soviet Union as slave labor.
Now, my family didn't have a
car. But one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to the Soviet checkpoint. I was a little
boy. I was not an action hero back then.
(LAUGHTER)
But I remember. I remember how
scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car and I would never see them again. My
family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union, and
it is because of the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: As a kid
I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. Now, don't misunderstand me, I love
Austria, and I love the Austrian people.
But I always knew America was the place for me. In school,
when the teacher would talk about America, I would daydream about coming here. I would daydream about living here. I
would sit there and watch for hours American movies transfixed by my heroes like John Wayne.
(APPLAUSE)
Everything about America seemed so big to me, so open, so possible.
I finally arrived here in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty
pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire.
The presidential campaign was in
full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and
English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left.
SCHWARZENEGGER: But then I heard Nixon speak. Then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free
enterprise, getting the government off your back, lowering the taxes and strengthening the military.
(APPLAUSE)
Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.
I said to my friend, I said, "What party is he?"
My friend said, "He's a
Republican."
I said, "Then I am a Republican."
(APPLAUSE)
And I
have been a Republican ever since. And trust me -- and trust me -- in my wife's family, that's no small
achievement.
(APPLAUSE)
But I am proud to be with the party of Abraham Lincoln,
the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan, and the party of George W. Bush.
(APPLAUSE)
To my fellow immigrants listening tonight, I want you to know how
welcome you are in this party. We Republicans admire your ambition. We encourage your dreams. We believe in your
future.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: And one thing I learned about America is that
if you work hard and if you play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.
(APPLAUSE)
Everything I have, my career, my success, my family, I owe to America.
(APPLAUSE)
In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born.
It doesn't make any difference who your parents were. It doesn't make any difference if you're like me and
couldn't even speak English until you were in your 20s. America gave me opportunities, and my immigrant dreams came
true.
I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities. And I believe they
can. That's why I believe in this country, that's why I believe in this party, and that's why I believe in this
president.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: Now, many of you out there tonight are
Republican like me in your hearts and in your beliefs. Maybe you're from Guatemala. Maybe you're from the
Philippines. Maybe you're from Europe or the Ivory Coast. Maybe you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New Mexico.
(APPLAUSE)
And maybe -- just maybe -- you don't agree with this party on every
single issue. I say to you tonight that I believe that's not only OK, but that's what's great about this country.
(APPLAUSE)
Here we can respectfully disagree and still be patriotic, still be
American and still be good Republicans.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: My fellow
immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? Well, I tell you how. If you believe that
government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a
member of an interest group, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
If you believe
your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for
the progress of our children, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
If you believe
this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe that we must
be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there's another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise,
faith in the resourcefulness of the American people and faith in the U.S. economy. And to those critics who are so
pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie-men.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth
of any of the world's major industrialized nations. Don't you remember the pessimism of 20 years ago, when the
critics said Japan and Germany are overtaking the U.S.? Ridiculous.
Now, they say that India and
China are overtaking us. Don't you believe it. We may hit a few bumps, but America always moves ahead. That's what
Americans do.
(APPLAUSE)
We move prosperity ahead.
(APPLAUSE)
We move prosperity ahead. We move freedom ahead. And we move people ahead.
And
under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, America's economy is moving ahead in spite of a recession they
inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER:
Now, the other party says that we have two Americas. Don't you believe that either. I have visited our troops in
Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany, and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train
before they go overseas. I have visited our military hospitals. And I tell you this, that our men and women in
uniform do not believe there are two Americas. They believe we are one America, and they are fighting for it.
(APPLAUSE)
We are one America, and President Bush is defending it with all his
heart and soul.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: That's what I admire most about the
president. He's a man of perseverance. He's a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, who
doesn't waiver, and does not back down.
(APPLAUSE)
My fellow Americans, make no
mistake about it: Terrorism is more insidious than Communism, because it yearns to destroy not just the individual,
but the entire international order.
The president did not go into Iraq because the polls told him
it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite. But leadership isn't about polls.
(APPLAUSE)
It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing
behind those decisions.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: That's why America is safer
with George W. Bush as president.
(APPLAUSE)
He knows you don't reason with
terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. You see, they hate the power of
the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. And they hate the
liberating breeze of democracy.
But, ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's
decency.
(APPLAUSE)
We are the America that sends out the Peace Corps volunteers
to teach our village children. We are the America that sends out the missionaries and doctors to raise up the poor
and the sick.
SCHWARZENEGGER: We are the America that gives more than any other country to fight
AIDS in Africa and the developing world.
(APPLAUSE)
And we are the America that
fights not for imperialism, but for human rights and democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
You
know, when the Germans brought down the Berlin Wall, America's determination helped wield the sledgehammers. And
when that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square, America stood with him. And
when Nelson Mandela smiled in election victory after all those years in prison, America celebrated, too.
We are still the lamp lighting the world, especially those who struggle. No matter in what labor
camp they slave, no matter in what injustice they're trapped, they hear our call. They see our light. And they feel
the pull of our freedom.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: They come here, as I did,
because they believe -- they believe in us. They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "If only I can
get to America." You know, someone once wrote, "There are those who say that freedom is nothing but a dream." They
are right. It's the American dream.
(APPLAUSE)
No matter the nationality, no
matter the religion, no matter the ethnic background, America brings out the best in people.
(APPLAUSE)
And as governor -- as governor of the great state of California, I see
the best in Americans every day.
(APPLAUSE)
I see the best in Americans every day,
our police, our firefighters, our nurses, doctors and teachers, our parents.
And what about the
extraordinary men and women who have volunteered to fight for the United States of America?
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: I have such great respect for them and their heroic
families.
Let me tell you about the sacrifice and the commitment that I have seen first-hand. In
one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg, he had a hole
through his stomach, and his shoulder had been shot through. And the list goes on and on and on.
I
could tell that there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll
get out of the hospital?" He said, "Sir, in three weeks."
And do you know what he said to me then?
He said he was going to get a new leg, and then he was going to get some therapy, and then he was going to go back
to Iraq and fight alongside his buddies.
(APPLAUSE)
And you know what he said to
me then? You know what he said to me then?
SCHWARZENEGGER: He said, "Arnold, I'll be back."
(APPLAUSE)
Well, ladies and gentlemen, America is back -- back from the attack on
our homeland, back from the attack on our economy, and back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because
of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush.
(APPLAUSE)
My fellow Americans, I want you to know that I believe with all my
heart that America remains the great idea that inspires the world. It's a privilege to be born here. It's an honor
to become a citizen here. It's a gift to raise your family here, to vote here, and to live here.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Our president, George W. Bush, has worked hard to protect and preserve the American
dream for all of us. And that's why I say, send him back to Washington for four more years.
SCHWARZENEGGER WITH AUDIENCE: Four more years. Four more years. Four more years. Four more years.
Four more years. Four more years.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you, America. Thank you, and God bless you
all.
Thank you.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-08-2004 at 01:50 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
time to start gearing up
for the Arnold-Hillary slugfest in '08.
.........
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Then we just need the good Reverend Jesse Jackson, ColinOriginally Posted by koolking1
Powell, etc. to run again as a third party, and we'd have the most interesting presidential race in history: first
woman, first foreign-born citizen, and first African-American...wow...
...not only that---and correct me if I'm
wrong---but wouldn't that also mean three people whose primary focus in life hadn't been politics until much later
in life (Actor, Reverend, First Lady and whatever else she was before that...not sure, maybe it was
political...........okay, so scratch the founding fathers in case they apply)? Interesting...
...as impossible
as that seems, I wouldn't mind seeing the first and last happening...the middle, however, is risky due to
conspiracy theorists that someone could technically circumvent the system and become President almost like The
Manchurian Candidate...but I think that the current political system prevents someone from destroying the
government...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks