Discussions With An Acquaintance
I have an acquaintance with whom I exchange some written notes and letters about many issues of the day. I thought I'd post some of the things I'd written to him recently, with some of the less relevant things edited out.
First, I had told him that I hear the word "revolution" mentioned more than perhaps I have ever heard it since the 1960s, mainly about economic issues. He responded that he felt it wouldn't happen any time soon, as most people, but especially the young people needed to create a revolution, are too self absorbed. He gave a much longer answer, but that was the gist of it. So I replied:
As to a “revolution,” you make some excellent points about young people and how so many, young and older, are just concerned with themselves. Democrats seem to have lost their voice over time, although they may be regaining it slowly, but surely. If I were wealthy, I’d hope that the Democrats succeed in many ways, to mute some of the anger that is continuing to grow out here in the real world. If you look back at the Depression, the wealthy wrung their hands and said the end was near, just because of what I’ll call in general, “The New Deal.” In my opinion, it was the New Deal policies (not all of them) that helped save the very system for the wealthy. For one thing, Roosevelt closed the banks for a while, and the world didn’t end. They reopened to a much calmer atmosphere. But on revolution again, I just am saying that I hear the word tossed about now, not that many may actually mean it, but it is interesting that the term is being used, unlike at any time I can remember. I told you before, that I owned a working class bar for eleven years. Even during those times (the 70s and half of the 80s) I didn’t hear my customers use that term very often, and I had some pretty radical folks, but during that day and age, workers had more rights, in my opinion, and many workers made “decent” wages and benefits, by the standards of those times. These things are being curtailed for workers at an alarming rate today, and the proceeds are going into the pockets of the very wealthiest Americans.
He then mentioned how the wealthy have so much control of the country now. My reply:
And you’re absolutely right, the wealthy control so much of the country, that for us to ever get back to where we were (like I was saying in the 70s & 80s) it will be VERY difficult. If there were a revolution, and wealthy people were lined up against the wall to be shot, I can just imagine though, that some of these (expletive deleted) would have a final request: “Can I call my money manager to ask him if there’s some way I can take it all with me?” Well, I do agree with you, I doubt that revolution is in the cards for any time soon. I just hope the Dems turn up the heat, because that’s the best we can hope for now.
He noted that he was dumbfounded by the '04 election result, that is, that so many Americans supported Bush.
Yes, Bush still has support, but he’s been so discredited, that I just don’t think many of us believe anything he says anymore, and that’s sad! This administration just seems TOTALLY incompetent! We only have one president, and I think many people, regardless of party affiliation, want to give support to a president, but this guy has blown it! He still has power though, with the veto. He seems disconnected from reality much of the time, and I suppose if I’d sent so many people to their deaths and injuries, I’d want very much to believe that it was all worth it, but the polls show (and the big poll last November) that Americans don’t believe we’re winning.
In a response to me, the guy mentioned that he felt that I'd missed some of his point about Bush and the support he has. He felt that people should be totally outraged by many of Bush's policies.
I really didn’t miss your point about Bush, and actually many folks ARE outraged about a number of things about this administration, and certainly should be, but they (the Administration) have played the “terrorist” card and the “national security” card very effectively up until last November’s election. As you noted previously, Kerry wasn’t great, and that also played into Bush’s re-election. Kerry had many flaws, as even his own advisers have admitted, and let’s not forget, the polls prior to the election showed that even a majority of people who said they planned to vote for him, also indicated that they were not all that thrilled with him; that is, they weren’t passionate about him.
Sometimes, people like you and I, who follow politics and pay a lot of attention to national and world events, forget that most other folks DO NOT pay that much attention to these things. Most voters have a kind of “casual” interest in politics, and while I wish we could change that, it is just a fact. Unfortunately, (and I’ll skewer both parties on this, not just the Republicans) the political advisers/consultants have mastered these “sound bytes,” as they’ve come to be called. They are short and to the point (although their complete truthfulness is frequently called into question), and they can be devastating to a political opponent. Kerry’s failure to quickly respond to the Swift Boat ads gave his opponents a leg up. Further, his changing story about events in Vietnam made even his supporters cringe. His opponents brought out all of this, and very effectively. Part of his problem was, in my opinion, that he essentially said, “Vote for me, because I’m not Bush,” and at that point in time, it just didn’t fly with enough voters. Again, his consultants have admitted since ’04 that they laid back and expected Kerry to win, because Bush was so “wounded,” and that they didn’t really hit home on a number of things, issues which were largely corrected in the congressional elections of last November.
Never to be accused of being competent, Bush flubbed his second term, right from the get go. He took on Social Security “privatization,” and it was dead before it started (most of us know that something has to be done about SS, but he blew it). To me, he could have regained much of his popularity and support if he’d have gone the health care route, and worked with Democrats and Republican leaders to get universal coverage of some kind, probably phased in over several years. Whether that would have “saved” his presidency, I don’t know, as the war issue just hangs over this administration like a death wreath. And, look at LBJ, he got lots of social programs passed, but his legacy still remains Vietnam.
The guy then lamented the outcome of the '04 election (again), and how voters could ever have chosen Bush (again).
You make some very good points, but in ’04, you were ahead of the other voters. Now, I think the voters (or the “public”) are ahead of the politicians, including many Democratic politicians.
He kindly noted that he felt that I have missed my calling and that I should be some kind of political consultant (Notice that the word "con" is part of that word.)
You’re too kind! Besides, I’ve never missed my calling…I always make it to supper.
He also made a few comments about Kerry, noting that he understood that Kerry wasn't great, but that he clearly felt him to be the better choice. I commented:
(Kerry's) been far better at articulating his positions since the campaign, than during the run up to the election, in my opinion. Like it or not (and you & I don’t/didn’t like it) Bush laid out much more clearly what he stood for, and “at that moment,” people chose him. To me, the key words are “at that moment.” Let’s not forget the “Great Society” of LBJ, among other things. “At that moment,” we wanted many of those programs, but not long afterwards, we had second thoughts about much of his program. I come from a VERY Democratic and populist neighborhood*(see note below), but even many folks there were questioning some Great Society programs. But, that’s good!!! In the end Americans do tend to know what works and what doesn’t, although it can take us awhile to figure things out, which is kind of natural, as it can take time to see how things go.
And you surely shouldn’t short change yourself, as you were ahead of many Americans in ’04. Now many folks are much closer to your position, than to Bush; not that they totally embraced Bush’s policies then, but Kerry just didn’t offer a hell of a lot of alternative, at least in a coherent, articulate way. He’s really been something of an undistinguished senator for all of these years, and I recall that many people I knew, at first thought him to be BOB Kerrey (spelling? I think he spells his name this way, but I’m not sure, and I’m too lazy to look it up.), the former Democratic senator from Nebraska, and someone I COULD have been passionate about. Anyway, once Howard Dean imploded with his “yell,” which the media latched onto, and as they are wont to do, people turned to Kerry, seeing him as the only viable alternative, and as someone who could “BEAT BUSH!” At that point, Bush was reeling, and the polls showed that Kerry had a substantial lead in a “hypothetical” match up. After that, I’ve already said what I feel happened... I should note, I told a former boss of mine, who’s a very staunch Democrat, that Kerry had many weaknesses, but at that time (about June, ’04) he scoffed and said, “Bush is done!”
We Americans seem to want things too quickly. We’re always in a hurry. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are the same with politics and news in general. We want to plop our asses down in front of the TV, pick up the remote, put on our favorite news channel and get what Bush said today, what Kerry said today, who had an accident on “Dead Man’s Curve,” what the weather will be like tomorrow, and who won the ballgame, all in about two minutes or less. Then with a “Whew! Now I know what’s going on,” we can turn to whatever channel has a rerun of “Gomer Pyle” or “Gilligan's Island.” This has made us VERY susceptible to those sound bytes that politicians in both parties use so effectively, and also to the stories that the media latch on to (What, because Dean went “Yeeehaaaw,” that somehow disqualifies him from being a candidate? Hey, maybe he watches reruns of “Gomer Pyle,” too.). So, Mr. X sees this Swift Boat ad about Kerry, and then he hears on the news that Kerry has told his story this way in whatever the hell year it was, then he wrote a book and said something a little different, and now he’s saying this, and pretty soon, Kerry’s a mess in the mind of that voter. His “I voted for the war, before I voted against it,” comment only solidified his image in the minds of many voters, that’s why the Republicans kept running it. Voters who had been “somewhat disposed” to vote for Kerry previously, suddenly felt uncomfortable with him, and they chose to swallow hard and for vote for “W,” again, even though they weren’t happy with many things. And you think you ramble at times…
More on point to your last reply, you’re right, the power of the presidency has increased in many ways under Bush. I am encouraged somewhat by the ’06 elections, and the increasing voice Democrats are finding. (I ended with some hand written...ah...scribbles, as the guy sometimes refers to me as a "radical." So I wrote, "I really don't mind the "radical" label, and perhaps you remember the song by Supertramp, "The Logical Song," which has the words, "Watch what you say, they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."
* That “populism” is instilled in me to this day, as I’m sure you can tell. And don’t forget, I was in business too, so I understand both sides of some of the issues. Most working class folks understand that businesses have to make money, although there is a tiny minority that seems to be afraid that someone will make a nickel off of them. Anyway, working class people also know when they’re being “taken,” and when the rich just keep taking, regardless of how well off they already are.
First, I had told him that I hear the word "revolution" mentioned more than perhaps I have ever heard it since the 1960s, mainly about economic issues. He responded that he felt it wouldn't happen any time soon, as most people, but especially the young people needed to create a revolution, are too self absorbed. He gave a much longer answer, but that was the gist of it. So I replied:
As to a “revolution,” you make some excellent points about young people and how so many, young and older, are just concerned with themselves. Democrats seem to have lost their voice over time, although they may be regaining it slowly, but surely. If I were wealthy, I’d hope that the Democrats succeed in many ways, to mute some of the anger that is continuing to grow out here in the real world. If you look back at the Depression, the wealthy wrung their hands and said the end was near, just because of what I’ll call in general, “The New Deal.” In my opinion, it was the New Deal policies (not all of them) that helped save the very system for the wealthy. For one thing, Roosevelt closed the banks for a while, and the world didn’t end. They reopened to a much calmer atmosphere. But on revolution again, I just am saying that I hear the word tossed about now, not that many may actually mean it, but it is interesting that the term is being used, unlike at any time I can remember. I told you before, that I owned a working class bar for eleven years. Even during those times (the 70s and half of the 80s) I didn’t hear my customers use that term very often, and I had some pretty radical folks, but during that day and age, workers had more rights, in my opinion, and many workers made “decent” wages and benefits, by the standards of those times. These things are being curtailed for workers at an alarming rate today, and the proceeds are going into the pockets of the very wealthiest Americans.
He then mentioned how the wealthy have so much control of the country now. My reply:
And you’re absolutely right, the wealthy control so much of the country, that for us to ever get back to where we were (like I was saying in the 70s & 80s) it will be VERY difficult. If there were a revolution, and wealthy people were lined up against the wall to be shot, I can just imagine though, that some of these (expletive deleted) would have a final request: “Can I call my money manager to ask him if there’s some way I can take it all with me?” Well, I do agree with you, I doubt that revolution is in the cards for any time soon. I just hope the Dems turn up the heat, because that’s the best we can hope for now.
He noted that he was dumbfounded by the '04 election result, that is, that so many Americans supported Bush.
Yes, Bush still has support, but he’s been so discredited, that I just don’t think many of us believe anything he says anymore, and that’s sad! This administration just seems TOTALLY incompetent! We only have one president, and I think many people, regardless of party affiliation, want to give support to a president, but this guy has blown it! He still has power though, with the veto. He seems disconnected from reality much of the time, and I suppose if I’d sent so many people to their deaths and injuries, I’d want very much to believe that it was all worth it, but the polls show (and the big poll last November) that Americans don’t believe we’re winning.
In a response to me, the guy mentioned that he felt that I'd missed some of his point about Bush and the support he has. He felt that people should be totally outraged by many of Bush's policies.
I really didn’t miss your point about Bush, and actually many folks ARE outraged about a number of things about this administration, and certainly should be, but they (the Administration) have played the “terrorist” card and the “national security” card very effectively up until last November’s election. As you noted previously, Kerry wasn’t great, and that also played into Bush’s re-election. Kerry had many flaws, as even his own advisers have admitted, and let’s not forget, the polls prior to the election showed that even a majority of people who said they planned to vote for him, also indicated that they were not all that thrilled with him; that is, they weren’t passionate about him.
Sometimes, people like you and I, who follow politics and pay a lot of attention to national and world events, forget that most other folks DO NOT pay that much attention to these things. Most voters have a kind of “casual” interest in politics, and while I wish we could change that, it is just a fact. Unfortunately, (and I’ll skewer both parties on this, not just the Republicans) the political advisers/consultants have mastered these “sound bytes,” as they’ve come to be called. They are short and to the point (although their complete truthfulness is frequently called into question), and they can be devastating to a political opponent. Kerry’s failure to quickly respond to the Swift Boat ads gave his opponents a leg up. Further, his changing story about events in Vietnam made even his supporters cringe. His opponents brought out all of this, and very effectively. Part of his problem was, in my opinion, that he essentially said, “Vote for me, because I’m not Bush,” and at that point in time, it just didn’t fly with enough voters. Again, his consultants have admitted since ’04 that they laid back and expected Kerry to win, because Bush was so “wounded,” and that they didn’t really hit home on a number of things, issues which were largely corrected in the congressional elections of last November.
Never to be accused of being competent, Bush flubbed his second term, right from the get go. He took on Social Security “privatization,” and it was dead before it started (most of us know that something has to be done about SS, but he blew it). To me, he could have regained much of his popularity and support if he’d have gone the health care route, and worked with Democrats and Republican leaders to get universal coverage of some kind, probably phased in over several years. Whether that would have “saved” his presidency, I don’t know, as the war issue just hangs over this administration like a death wreath. And, look at LBJ, he got lots of social programs passed, but his legacy still remains Vietnam.
The guy then lamented the outcome of the '04 election (again), and how voters could ever have chosen Bush (again).
You make some very good points, but in ’04, you were ahead of the other voters. Now, I think the voters (or the “public”) are ahead of the politicians, including many Democratic politicians.
He kindly noted that he felt that I have missed my calling and that I should be some kind of political consultant (Notice that the word "con" is part of that word.)
You’re too kind! Besides, I’ve never missed my calling…I always make it to supper.
He also made a few comments about Kerry, noting that he understood that Kerry wasn't great, but that he clearly felt him to be the better choice. I commented:
(Kerry's) been far better at articulating his positions since the campaign, than during the run up to the election, in my opinion. Like it or not (and you & I don’t/didn’t like it) Bush laid out much more clearly what he stood for, and “at that moment,” people chose him. To me, the key words are “at that moment.” Let’s not forget the “Great Society” of LBJ, among other things. “At that moment,” we wanted many of those programs, but not long afterwards, we had second thoughts about much of his program. I come from a VERY Democratic and populist neighborhood*(see note below), but even many folks there were questioning some Great Society programs. But, that’s good!!! In the end Americans do tend to know what works and what doesn’t, although it can take us awhile to figure things out, which is kind of natural, as it can take time to see how things go.
And you surely shouldn’t short change yourself, as you were ahead of many Americans in ’04. Now many folks are much closer to your position, than to Bush; not that they totally embraced Bush’s policies then, but Kerry just didn’t offer a hell of a lot of alternative, at least in a coherent, articulate way. He’s really been something of an undistinguished senator for all of these years, and I recall that many people I knew, at first thought him to be BOB Kerrey (spelling? I think he spells his name this way, but I’m not sure, and I’m too lazy to look it up.), the former Democratic senator from Nebraska, and someone I COULD have been passionate about. Anyway, once Howard Dean imploded with his “yell,” which the media latched onto, and as they are wont to do, people turned to Kerry, seeing him as the only viable alternative, and as someone who could “BEAT BUSH!” At that point, Bush was reeling, and the polls showed that Kerry had a substantial lead in a “hypothetical” match up. After that, I’ve already said what I feel happened... I should note, I told a former boss of mine, who’s a very staunch Democrat, that Kerry had many weaknesses, but at that time (about June, ’04) he scoffed and said, “Bush is done!”
We Americans seem to want things too quickly. We’re always in a hurry. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are the same with politics and news in general. We want to plop our asses down in front of the TV, pick up the remote, put on our favorite news channel and get what Bush said today, what Kerry said today, who had an accident on “Dead Man’s Curve,” what the weather will be like tomorrow, and who won the ballgame, all in about two minutes or less. Then with a “Whew! Now I know what’s going on,” we can turn to whatever channel has a rerun of “Gomer Pyle” or “Gilligan's Island.” This has made us VERY susceptible to those sound bytes that politicians in both parties use so effectively, and also to the stories that the media latch on to (What, because Dean went “Yeeehaaaw,” that somehow disqualifies him from being a candidate? Hey, maybe he watches reruns of “Gomer Pyle,” too.). So, Mr. X sees this Swift Boat ad about Kerry, and then he hears on the news that Kerry has told his story this way in whatever the hell year it was, then he wrote a book and said something a little different, and now he’s saying this, and pretty soon, Kerry’s a mess in the mind of that voter. His “I voted for the war, before I voted against it,” comment only solidified his image in the minds of many voters, that’s why the Republicans kept running it. Voters who had been “somewhat disposed” to vote for Kerry previously, suddenly felt uncomfortable with him, and they chose to swallow hard and for vote for “W,” again, even though they weren’t happy with many things. And you think you ramble at times…
More on point to your last reply, you’re right, the power of the presidency has increased in many ways under Bush. I am encouraged somewhat by the ’06 elections, and the increasing voice Democrats are finding. (I ended with some hand written...ah...scribbles, as the guy sometimes refers to me as a "radical." So I wrote, "I really don't mind the "radical" label, and perhaps you remember the song by Supertramp, "The Logical Song," which has the words, "Watch what you say, they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."
* That “populism” is instilled in me to this day, as I’m sure you can tell. And don’t forget, I was in business too, so I understand both sides of some of the issues. Most working class folks understand that businesses have to make money, although there is a tiny minority that seems to be afraid that someone will make a nickel off of them. Anyway, working class people also know when they’re being “taken,” and when the rich just keep taking, regardless of how well off they already are.
posted by Randy at 2:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home