NEW HAMPSHIRE January 10, 2008Posted by wmmbb in US Politics.
I will give you Iowa, the caucusing system there seems extraordinary as it is participative. By contrast New Hampshire seems to me a return to stupid land. It seems that people make their decisions on the basis of what they have been conditioned to think by television, run in turn by a few major corporations. So addictive is the drug that apparently the expression in the “hood” is that hope does not pay the cable.
Then there is the fact, a cultural barrier, that preferences are not distributed, and the election is decided on the basis of first preferences, so that Senator Clinton can be declared th winner with 39% of the vote. Obama with 36% is a a rank failure. Now that is the Democrats. 70 year old McCain, the person dudded by the Bush dirty tricks department last election season, wins the Republican nomination for the potential two Electoral College votes New Hampshire may have on offer.
Of course, we should not discuss that other aspect of television democracy that involves corporate funding of “suitable” candidates. It seems that however much a candidate such as Obama may appeal through the poetry of campaigning, the policy positions seem ovned and paid by the generous corporate benefactors. Obama is not the exception, but the rule.
The greatest democracy on earth is far from that. Americans have been suckered by advertising. The theory here, forlorn and still born, is that with enough insults, the American electorate will wake from its dream, shake itself, and transform the democratic process. And yet, I suspect that some issues such as the Iraq War, health coverage, and income insecurity, are not going to go away. Any process, however imperfect that shifts the focus from the interests of the few to those of many may well be just the beginning of a democratic reawakening in the republic of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
Update: 10 January 2008.
Mrs Clinton was caught on camera during one campaign stop being emotional, at the point of tears, and that seemed to evoke sympathy on behalf of some voters. If I cry then those responses will be triggered in you since that is the way the human information processing system/nervous system works. It does not follow that you will cry, these messages are caught by the cortex, and there is different cultural conditioning that frames subsequent behavior. If I am a sympathetic person, let us just suppose, I will feel “poor Mrs Clinton”, and I can rationalize my feelings by observing she has comprehensive grasp of the policy detail and “they” have got it in for her because she is a woman, and has greater feelings for other human beings because she is a mother (which is probably true too). Otherwise, we can think that she is not tough enough for the rigors of the job – like, for example, the current incumbent. The problem, and here I am making a substantial criticism for a change of television politics, is that the medium between the response and the situation, making it difficult to judge authenticity and making susceptible to spin. The medium is vulnerable to fakery, to spin and other detrimental consequences for the democratic process. The first requirement in any democratic electoral process is its integrity.