And no, I’m not talking about religion; I’m talking about politics. I watch bits and pieces of the Republican and Democratic national conventions and have the same response I had when covering campaign events back in 2008 — I just find them creepy.
I don’t understand how someone could, or why someone would, sit there mindlessly applauding an endless string of cliches, platitudes and shallow applause lines. I don’t know how someone applauds when a speaker says things like “We’re going to get America moving again” or “It’s time to move this country forward.” Those statements are utterly meaningless, completely empty rhetoric devoid of anything even remotely resembling a coherent thought. They’re political cotton candy.
When President Obama says “This election is not about me, it’s about you,” how does any intelligent person cheer and applaud such meaningless tripe? When he says things like this:
“Yes, our path is harder — but it leads to a better place. Yes, our road is longer — but we travel it together. We don’t turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up. We draw strength from our victories and we learn from our mistakes, but we keep our eyes fixed on that distant horizon, knowing that Providence is with us, and that we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on Earth.”
How does someone cheer for that? It’s empty pablum. It’s a series of substanceless platitudes. And we should find it insulting, not inspiring.
I understand why someone would think it’s important to vote for Candidate X because Candidate Y supports policies that they strongly dislike, or because Candidate X supports policies you like. But I simply cannot understand getting emotionally invested in someone who is inevitably going to disappoint you, who is feeding you a steady stream of promises that they have little intention of pursuing once in office — either because they recognize the political reality that there’s no way the policy they supported in the campaign will make it through Congress (which is what Obama did with the health care reform bill, immediately discarding the public option he promised to pass because there was no way to get the votes in either the House or Senate) or because they never had any intention of doing it.
I just don’t get it. I’m apparently not capable of feeling that way. I can’t look at a politician — any politician — and invest emotion and hope in them. Yes, that is cynical; it’s also justified, and always has been.
76 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Brownian
September 11, 2012 at 9:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Don’t look at me. I can barely stand lengthy wedding speeches.
morgandourif
September 11, 2012 at 9:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree. I simply don’t see the point in getting emotionally tied to a politician; I think that’s falling for the trap. I try to limit it more to respect – not blinded, completely realistic. That way, I don’t feel like I’ve been personally betrayed – or, worse, try to defend a politician from reality – every time a politician inevitably has to bend to the realities of the political system.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 9:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But I simply cannot understand getting emotionally invested in someone who is inevitably going to disappoint you…
Because the alternative is worse, that’s why. Worse in a way that will cause serious harm to large numbers of people, and to our society as a whole. If you really don’t have an emotional investment in keeping the REpublicans away from real power, after all they’ve done already (and after proving they didn’t learn a thing from it), then you probably don’t care enough to talk about the issue at all.
Seriously, Ed, why are YOU so invested in belittling the enthusiasm of people who are trying to make things at least a little bit better in our own country? Why is it so important to you to ridicule and run down a sincere desire to push a collective effort to do some real good? All your droning cynicism (not to mention your bogus equivalency crap) does is serve the most reactionary interests by contributing to the demoralization of people who need every ounce of energy they can muster to fight off the endless destructive attacks of people who — to put it charitably – don’t have their best interests at heart.
Yes, Ed, we all know Obama won’t be able to deliver on all of his promises. How fucking stupid do you think we are? But even another Jimmy Carter is still better for America than another four years of the party of Bush Jr., Rove, Cheney, Romney, Paul, etc.
heddle
September 11, 2012 at 9:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m with you Ed–but at an advanced stage. I didn’t watch the conventions, won’t vote, and don’t care who wins.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 9:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Speaking of bogus equivalency, it’s perfectly obvious that Obama’s platitudes are a shitlolad more honest and realistic than Romney’s. (Oh, and you seem to be forgetting that guy who spoke before him…remember that guy who got such huge applause by talking about FACTS, not platitudes? That speech alone blows your tired “equivalency” platitudes out of the water.)
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 10:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not giving a shit what happens to millions of real people is “advanced?” What, your Calvinist theology made you a superior etherial being while I was asleep?
tommykey
September 11, 2012 at 10:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Didn’t watch any of the conventions either.
slc1
September 11, 2012 at 10:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Heddle @ #4
I assume that means that Prof. Heddle won’t be going to his local polling station at all. There are other races on the ballot, including his local Congressional race and the US Senate race. Are none of the candidates in those races acceptable to his exacting standards?
democommie
September 11, 2012 at 10:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Don’t watch conventions, don’t read, with few exceptions, most politicians “speeches”–which are increasingly written by people who know nothing but what they learned in their “Scammin’ the Sheeple” communications/propaganda classes. I read a lot of commentary by people who have no monetary or authoritarian interest in the proceedings.
I agree with Raging Bee, up to a point well short of totality, that Ed sometimes seems to lose sight of the fact that the GOP is an institution that LIKES to lie, because it’s worked so well for them for the past 40 or so years. The DNC is not quite that far gone, yet.
heddle
September 11, 2012 at 10:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
RagingBee,
“Advanced” does not imply “superior” in a positive sense as in advanced stages of an illness or advanced age. And the gratuitous reference to Calvinism just shows, for the gazillionth time, that if you get a bee in your bonnet you have a tendency to become a troll.
chriswalker
September 11, 2012 at 10:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You know, Raging Bee, it is perfectly possible to think that [i]both[/i] political parties are absolutely full of shit. A criticism of Barack Obama doesn’t equate to an endorsement of Mitt Romney nor does expressing bewilderment at popularity and emotional investment in meaningless platitudes and empty promises mean that you fail to recognize when something good is actually achieved.
The Obama Administration has continued and in some cases strengthened many of the worst Bush-era policies concerning national security and law enforcement. The fact that his opponents are worse overall doesn’t change that.
slc1
September 11, 2012 at 10:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Raging Bee @ #6
Let’s not forget that, in 2008, Prof. Heddle thought that Sarah Palin was just peachy keen.
Modusoperandi
September 11, 2012 at 10:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, please. That was your underwear tossed on stage.
Jordan Genso
September 11, 2012 at 10:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think applauding during the conventions and being a “true believer” are separate issues.
I was not at the DNC, but I did attend the Michigan Democratic Party’s State Convention this past weekend, and yes, I applauded the speakers, even when they made statements that were similar to the quotes in the OP.
If someone on stage said:
I would applaud that, because it’s a mentality I support. Obviously, those sentences give no insight as to specific policy preferences, but there’s nothing wrong in demonstrating support for your preferred political philosophy.
If nothing else, it’s no worse than applauding for your favorite sports team during a game.
dingojack
September 11, 2012 at 10:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee – “You’re worse than a hopeless romantic. You’re a hopeful one”.
:) Dingo
ronstrong
September 11, 2012 at 10:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is exactly how I have felt for a long time. I just can’t bring myself to feel particularly excited about either candidate and have never been able to understand those who do.
busterggi
September 11, 2012 at 10:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Damned if I know how people do it.
Even back in high school when we were forced to attend pep rallies I never joined in because whether the football team won or not made no difference to me nor did I see how the win would make the school better.
Maybe its just part of the herd mentality that some of us lack.
Chiroptera
September 11, 2012 at 10:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t understand how someone could, or why someone would, sit there mindlessly applauding an endless string of cliches, platitudes and shallow applause lines.
You really don’t understand pep rallies? I mean, I don’t like them much, I even have a few criticisms of them beyond my personal dislike (especially in a political context), but I kind of understand them.
And here I am, someone who usually has trouble understanding people in general!
Nathaniel Frein
September 11, 2012 at 10:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I know that where I live, my vote can help make a difference between this state voting Romney and this state voting Obama. And I know that given a choice between the two, I’ll pick Obama.
This doesn’t change the fact that I’m immensely frustrated with Obama. Unfortunately, all the things I dislike from him would likely be worse under Romney. I can only hope that not having to look towards getting re-elected will allow Obama to operate with a bit more freedom.
I also know that many people live in states where, because of the electoral college, their votes literally do not matter. The heart of this problem is, of course, the electoral college itself. It was a system that made some sense when “high-speed communications” meant the pony express. It’s obsolete today. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t be able to choose our president via a completely popular vote. That way everyone’s vote would truly count.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 10:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Obama Administration has continued and in some cases strengthened many of the worst Bush-era policies concerning national security and law enforcement. The fact that his opponents are worse overall doesn’t change that.
No, but the fact that his opponents are worse overall is good and sufficient reason to muster every ounce of available energy to keep said opponents from ever taking power again. If that means a lot of less-than-perfectly-substantive platitudes in the meantime, well, that’s a pretty small price to pay compared to the price of a Romney victory.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 10:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can only hope that not having to look towards getting re-elected will allow Obama to operate with a bit more freedom.
It will, at the very least, give the progressive left four more years to organize themselves as a force within the Democratic Party, and hopefully rally behind a viable successor to Obama, who will have a stronger coalition to do what Obama has failed to do.
Randomfactor
September 11, 2012 at 10:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Years ago a candidate was told he had the vote of “every thinking American.”
His reply was “That’s not enough; I need a majority.”
That’s why appeals to emotion work, and why they’re needed. Because the people casting the ballots are human beings. We are, as the saying goes, a rationalizing and not a rational species.
Who Knows?
September 11, 2012 at 10:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee @ 3
Agreed. Ed is being a bit condesending here.
Brownian
September 11, 2012 at 10:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I never felt anything at pep rallies, but I really doubt it’s because I’m immune to any herd mentality. I wonder if it has much more to do with how certain people appreciate types of stimuli.
For instance, an ex and I used to argue about music quite often. She’d find a particular song enjoyable whereas I’d be put off by the lyrics. It turned out that lyrics were simply something her ears didn’t register as readily, so they weren’t that important a component of her enjoyment of the music.
So, and this is just a guess here, it may be the case that some people, like Ed, myself, and others, are too tuned in to the lack of content in the platitudes to be moved, while others are much more tuned in to the emotions of the speaker and the crowd.
(And I don’t mean to privilege one modality over the other. Over the years, as the stick up my ass has loosened somewhat, I’ve learned to enjoy the emotional stimuli of events like conventions much more than I once could.)
And just because I’d be remiss if I didn’t note it:
That’s classic heddle for you. “Responding to a reasonable interpretation of my words rather that my intended one makes you a fool and a troll!”
dingojack
September 11, 2012 at 10:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From here.
Anyone can confirm (or deny) this?
Dingo
ronstrong
September 11, 2012 at 10:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chiroptera @ #18
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I never understood pep rallies either. They always seemed pointless to me, even in high school, just a bunch of people jumping around and shouting meaningless cheers. And I found the very idea of “school spirit” absurd in general.
When I think about it, I have also never understood the drive of some people to feel like part of something “greater than themselves” Maybe that’s it. Maybe, whatever it is that makes some people feel good about being part of a greater whole is absent from some of us.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 10:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree with Raging Bee, up to a point well short of totality, that Ed sometimes seems to lose sight of the fact that the GOP is an institution that LIKES to lie…
I suspect that Ed — like a lot of people who like to think of themselves as “out-of-box thinkers” — is himself emotionally invested in the old idea that both of the “establishment” parties are equally bad, and we need some sort of (unspecified) third party to shake things up. That idea has turned out to be nothing but wishful thinking — the kind of wishful thinking that leaves us vulnerable to exploitation by extremists and con-artists, who only need to cobble up a front organization, call it an “alternative,” and get a good amount of buzz and support, even when it’s run by a moron with asinine ideas and white-supremacist chums. Our recent exsperience with third parties has been nothing but disastrous, but there are some “true believers” who still cling to the fantasy.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…I have also never understood the drive of some people to feel like part of something “greater than themselves”…
Because when we’re faced with a threat that’s greater then ourselves (like an invasion, natural disaster, corporate greed, or fascist putsch), we NEED to join with something greater than ourselves to repel the threat effectively. We human animals understand this at an instinctive level, and that’s where all the “team spirit” stuff comes from.
Jordan Genso
September 11, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I do think the pep rally comparison is appropriate. And like others here, I’ve not been one to get excited from school pep rallies. But I attribute that to being relatively apathetic about my school winning or losing a sports game.
When it comes to political elections, I care deeply about who gets elected. And therefore, the political pep rally (aka convention) is something that works to get me excited.
bobaho
September 11, 2012 at 10:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
slc1 commented:
Far be it from me from speaking for another; however, one of the major problems in every election is the incumbency advantage. My local Senator and Representative may read (D-NY) in the CSPAN box, but the may as well read (R-Wall Street) or (B-Big Money) when it comes to issues surrounding those very important problems. It’s one thing to call false equivalence, it’s another to completely ignore and discount the corrosive atmosphere of money in the system. The reality is that there are damn few candidates who would not throw any voter under the bus for a few more dollars. They are not in it to do good or to accomplish some lofty goal, they are in it to get more money. They get that money by attaining power, staying in power, and building a Rolodex of wealthy friends and interests. And if you are not in that Rolodex, and your interests do not coincide with those in the Rolodex, then you may as well forgetaboutit; that rep or sen cares not a tinker’s dam about you or your issues.
dingojack
September 11, 2012 at 10:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think that Aerica’s ‘duopoly’ is a product of the voting system. In order for a viable third party canidate to have a chance of carrying enough voting clout to matter, serious electoral reform would be required (what that would end up looking like is anyone’s guess).
Dingo
democommie
September 11, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why do we even need to vote? GOD’s already “elected” our rulers! {;>)
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The reality is that there are damn few candidates who would not throw any voter under the bus for a few more dollars.
Lazy, ignorant blanket dismissals like that only serve to reinforce the power of the 1%, because they erode the people’s confidence that progressive political change is even conceivable. If all politicians are corrupt, then ALL thoughts of political change become futile, and we’re left with the two equally bad choices of apathetic acceptance of the 1% agenda, or bloody revolution.
dave
September 11, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I take it you dont believe in Marriage, Child-rearing, Dating, Friendships, or frankly, almost any interpersonal relationships. Everyone is going to dissapoint you sometimes.
OK. In a less snarky manner, the conventions are full of mostly meaningless pablum. I dont watch. I will read the transcripts of the more important speeches the next morning. That being said, I total understand the desire, and the need, to rev up your supporters. I also understand that detailed position statements are not a good way to sell your product to the majority.
Jordan Genso
September 11, 2012 at 11:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s a bullshit statement. I work at the local level with many candidates for office, and only a small percentage of them have done/said anything that would lead me to feel your statement comes anywhere close to applying to them.
It may not be a coincidence that the candidates I work with have little chance of ever being elected, since I am in a heavy Republican area, but there are countless numbers of people who want to get into politics for virtuous reasons.
I would even be willing to make that statement about the Republican Party- that a majority of their candidates actually want to do the correct thing. I do believe that in our system, those who do the wrong thing unfortunately sometimes get rewarded and move up to higher office. So the politicians that are most visible are the ones who are more likely to have made selfish decisions, but they should not be representative of all politicians.
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 11:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
slc1 writes:
Since we don’t have access to the comments posted in Ed’s blog at ScienceBlogs.com, I want to clarify that while heddle did note he liked then-Gov. Palin soon after the McCain campaign announced she was their VP nominee, he backed away from that conclusion after we all got to know her better. Some of us are more proactive in our research than others, so of course there’s going to be lag times when it comes to people taking a more informed position.
On paper and given nearly none of us knew her at the time, her resume provided a nice complement to Sen. McCains with the exception of her lack of executive experience, a weakness shared by the then-Sen. Obama. It was only after we did our due diligence that we discovered no reasonable good person could support Ms. Palin for any job.
I was immediately attracted to her as a possibility the day her candidacy was announced after reading her Wikipedia page; which was obviously doctored just prior to the announcement in preparation of the McCain team announcement. However I did about four hours of research that evening and came to be horrified anyone had ever given her any job. But a lot of what I learned about her took weeks to be delivered to the population who is more passive in their becoming informed on political affairs and more reliant on the mainstream media.
So I think slc1 is once again defaming another person.
cjcolucci
September 11, 2012 at 11:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
True, they all talk in platitudes, and none of them will deliver on anywhere close to all of the substantive promises, but the politician’s or party’s choice of which platitudes to spout and what substantive promises to bother making is informative, and, to my mind, sufficient reason to chose one over the other.
ArtK
September 11, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My 17yo son had to watch some convention speeches for his American History class, and extract some issues for discussion and comparison with the opposition. It was hard wading through all of the fluff to find any real issues.
BTW, here’s an old friend who takes Obama’s “Forward” very seriously:
Allen West: Obama Campaign’s ‘Forward’ Slogan Promotes ‘Soviet Union, Marxist-Socialist Theme’
dingojack
September 11, 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ArtK – you know who else used ‘forward’ in a Presidential ad?
But I’m guessing Allen will tell us that is completely different, right Allen?
;) Dingo
flex
September 11, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I suspect that locus of control theory may be applicable in situations like political conventions and pep rallies (essentially identical performances).
There are lots of people who get their feeling of worth from external sources. For them, the presence of lots of similarly minded people agreeing with their own sentiments is a very uplifting and confidence building experience. Once they’ve been re-assured that their opinions are valid by the crowd, they emerge energized and ready to knock on doors. I’ve seen this at many of the political conventions I’ve been to.
Then there are people who rely on their own internal feelings of self-worth. These people are less likely to understand and get enthused by the platitudes and crowd cheering which occur.
Neither locus is necessary better than the other. In the extreme both can lead to self-destructive behavior, but most people oscillate between the two depending on the environment. Even someone who has a strong internal locus of control can be enthused or dejected by the performance of a favorite sports team, jumping up from the couch and yelling.
Having a very strong internal locus of control myself, I can understand how Ed can think that political rallies are boring and somewhat incomprehensible. However, there are people who do feel empowered and energized from rallies. It takes both kinds to win an election, but enthusiasm is a powerful force.
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 11:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think it’s incredibly harmful to our society when some people conflate their justifiable criticism of politicians effectively deploying both emotional pleas and psychological tactics promoting tribalism relative to the importance of our voting and supporting good causes.
Cynicism is not an arguable motivation to avoid the obligations required of us in a legitimate liberal democracy. Especially in an era where it’s even more imperative ‘the People’ have some aptitude for understanding an increasingly complex technical world and where propagandists are increasingly sophisticated in their ability to misinform large swaths of the population.
Bronze Dog
September 11, 2012 at 11:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Also had pep rally apathy during my grade school years, though I wouldn’t be completely apathetic for a political rally, since the election is going to have big consequences. I can handle vague platitudes about helping each other up and such if I think they’re sincere about it, though I prefer them mixed in with firm declarations about goals and plans.
These days, however, I’m quite jaded. I was lukewarm about Obama the first time, with my hopes around “average caretaker president” most of the time. I did have bouts of hope that he’d go after the civil rights abuses of the Bush administration, but nothing firm enough to give into the cult of personality I tended to see at Obama rallies on TV. (I know. Sampling bias.) I voted for him because I was voting against McCain/Palin and didn’t feel a whole lot of emotional investment necessary to feel deeply betrayed or disappointed if he failed to deliver what I wanted in the next four years. (I still feel some of that, but largely blunted by my lowered expectations.)
If something weird happens, and Texas develops swing state potential instead of being virtually guaranteed Romney state, I’ll hold my nose and vote Obama again, but I won’t be happy about it, and I won’t be part of a cheering crowd if he wins. I’ll just quietly sigh in relief that Romney lost. I wouldn’t want to give the false impression that I was ecstatic with the way Obama has been running things.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 12:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
On paper and given nearly none of us knew her at the time, her resume provided a nice complement to Sen. McCains with the exception of her lack of executive experience…
You were that easily suckered for even that long? My first reaction was to label her the next Harriet Miers.
slc1
September 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Michael Heath @ #36
So I think slc1 is once again defaming another person.
Who me? Seriously, I think that Heath is somewhat deficient in his remembrance of Prof. Heddle’s position in 2008. It is true that his defenses of Ms. Palin petered out after a while but they were replaced with bad mouthing Joe Biden.
At no time do I recollect him saying that Ms. Palin was totally unqualified for the office, especially being one heartbeat away from the oval office under a 70+ year old man with a history of health problems.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 12:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are lots of people who get their feeling of worth from external sources.
Actually, a lot of our worth DOES come from external sources: if you want to do anything more sophisticated than hunting, gathering, and pooping in the woods, you need a society to provide the groundwork, and other people’s accomplishments (or at least needs) to build on.
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 12:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
M earlier:
Raging Bee writes:
Your reaction is incoherent. You disqualify Ms. Palin for a factor that would not be on her resume but one which could find in a couple of hours of research. Within hours of the announcement I did find what you cite here plus a ton of other far more compelling reasons to reject her. The only way I could meet the standard you assert I should be able to perform at is if upon immediate receipt of the Palin announcement, God divinely revealed to me what Sarah Palin was really like. So shame on me for depending on my own research and thinking skills.
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 1:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You disqualify Ms. Palin for a factor that would not be on her resume but one which could find in a couple of hours of research.
No, I initially disqualified Palin because I’d never heard of her, and she immediately struck me as another “ousider” with no experience, no accomplishments, and no other qualifications to be VP. The couple of hours of research came after that assessment, and showed she was even worse than I’d originally thought.
Area Man
September 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not a huge fan of conventions or political speeches in general, but the emotional reaction that people have is to the speaker, not merely to the words they say. Yes, it’s a lot of platitudes and cliches, but such speeches serve as a signaling mechanism that the speaker is one of you, and the audience signals right back with their applause. There’s no great mystery here.
Gretchen
September 11, 2012 at 1:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, they don’t. They outright say that the speaker is one of you, which generally speaking he is not. That is indeed a signal, but one of the cheapest and weakest ones possible, which is Ed’s point. As such it barely deserves a condescending smile, let alone a standing ovation.
dingojack
September 11, 2012 at 1:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Two examples of Ed’s ‘poitical platitudess and empty rhetoric’:
Dingo
Ed Brayton
September 11, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee wrote:
You can suspect this only if you ignore the innumerable times when I’ve said the opposite. Not only have I never said that the two parties are equally bad, I think that idea is patently absurd and I have hammered people for thinking it. And I’ve said many times that Obama is clearly, absolutely and incontrovertibly better than Romney. I completely understand voting for him and working for his reelection on that basis. I still don’t understand screaming and applauding when he, or anyone else, fires off empty platitudes at us. And no, I didn’t, and don’t, “get” pep rallies either.
akkonor
September 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Spoken like a true useful idiot.
oranje
September 11, 2012 at 2:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
On the pep rally note, we had them in high school, but we didn’t have any sports teams. It was the oddest damn thing. No one, from students to teachers to administration, really knew why we bothered.
For the conventions, well, I do ignore them, but that’s because I already know for whom I’m voting and why. I also avoid domestic media until after the election, as I can’t take the jingoism, distortion, and pathos appeals. It’s getting harder, though, as the BBC is covering the hell out of this election.
It’s starting to remind me of Sportscenter being on all night: the scores never change, but they keep finding small things upon which to report. Conventions are like the first round of the playoffs, but you don’t have to pay too much attention to know what’s going on.
abb3w
September 11, 2012 at 2:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@51, Ed Brayton:
I wonder if it might be tied to comparatively lower levels of “mirror neurons”? (I don’t much “get” them either, aside from a vague abstract understanding of how other people may be responding.)
ronstrong
September 11, 2012 at 3:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
If it makes you feel better, I think I understand what you are trying to say. You understand why someone might prefer one candidate to another. You might even have a preference for one candidate to the other yourself. But You don’t see any good reason for anyone to get truly excited about either candidate.
If that’s so, that’s pretty much how I feel about it too. It’s a choice between “meh” and “Blechh”. I just can’t bring myself to be enthusiastic for “meh” just because “Blech” is worse.
democommie
September 11, 2012 at 3:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
akkonnor@52:
Thanks for participating in the discussion; now, go fuck yourself.
Jordan Genso
September 11, 2012 at 4:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed wrote:
I would dispute the claim that the convention speeches only contain empty platitudes, if that is in fact what you are stating. I think many speeches do have some parts of real substance, wedged between the empty platitudes. In that situation, the platitudes can serve the purpose of keeping the energy of the crowd engaged in order to help the real substance make an impact.
Of course, the empty platitudes also serve less beneficial purposes, but I don’t accept the idea that they provide no benefit at all.
Ed Brayton
September 11, 2012 at 4:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jordan –
But it’s the empty platitudes that tend to get the loudest applause. And Obama’s speech had very little substance to it; it was mostly rhetoric. Bill Clinton’s speech was much more substantive and policy-focused (and he was right about most of it too, which matters far more to me than it does to the political cheerleaders). It’s the stupid cliches — “We must get America moving again” or “It’s time for Americans to believe in America again” — that fire people up. And again, I just don’t get it. They should have their intelligence insulted by such tripe, but they scream and cheer and cry. And this is exactly what I find creepy about the whole thing.
akkonor
September 11, 2012 at 5:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Shorter ed brayton: why isn’t everybody as cool as me?
tacitus
September 11, 2012 at 5:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Pep rallies must be one of those uniquely American things. We certainly didn’t anything like that in the UK when I was growing up and for all I know they still don’t now.
Yes, there are annual party conferences, but they’re typically ignored by the general public, and the most people get to see of them are sound-bytes on the news, which tend to be selected because they are about some policy or other.
I think in the eyes of most foreigners, the US obsession with patriotism, pep-rallies, pledges, platitudes (how’s that for alliteration!) and other aspects of American exceptionalism reminds them of the stuff that goes on in the more autocratic regimes around the world. The fact that so many Americans don’t seem to notice that, seems flat out bizarre to many who come to these shores.
There is a place for national pride — I’m the first to be proud of Great Britain when there is something substantial to be proud of — like the recent Olympic Games, whose success was, in part owed to the thousands of tireless volunteers who made the whole event a joy to experience. But that’s very different from what happens these days in the US, where everyone seems to want to puff themselves up with meaningless rhetoric.
Jordan Genso
September 11, 2012 at 5:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree that it is irrational when the cliches move people. But if the rhetoric is original, I’ll admit to allowing that rhetoric get me inspired. When the President was talking about how it was our actions/votes in 2008 that caused DADT to be repealed (and the other accomplishments of his administration), I found it very effective. When the focus is so often about what the President was able to accomplish, that part of the speech was an eloquent way for him to remind us he’s only there to accomplish those things because of our work in 2008. And therefore, if we work that hard again this cycle, we can take pride in the accomplishments of his second term.
After the posts you’ve written in praise of Hitchens for his eloquent writing style, I’m surprised if you can’t at least empathize with those who appreciate the President’s ability to inspire through speeches (and/or be inspired by them). As Dingo noted @50, some of the greatest speeches in history can be viewed as mostly rhetoric.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
September 11, 2012 at 6:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sure… but what relevance does that have to the USA as it is in 2012?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
September 11, 2012 at 6:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Somewhat OT, but while we’re discussing different varieties of “true believer: Cato Shrugged: The new president of the Cato Institute wants to remake the think tank in Ayn Rand’s image.
mantistoboggan
September 11, 2012 at 7:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I often hear my fellow citizens lament that they must choose the lesser of two evils. There are two problems with this view:
-If what they say is true, they’re still voting for evil. Your vote is a violent act that forces a preferred flavor of coercion on your fellow citizens.
-A much more accurate characterization would be to say that you’re voting for the evil of two lessers. Free people do not vote for these swinish Napoleons.
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 7:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
akkonor writes:
No, as smart as Ed in terms of critical thinking skills; where I confidently assert it would be a far better world if Ed’s capabilities and integrity were the median.
Chiroptera
September 11, 2012 at 7:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath, #66:
At first I thought akkonor was MrBongo until I noticed that there was no mention of Muslims.
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 7:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chiroptera writes:
Ed’s immunized himself from exposure to mrbongo for several days with today’s post about the Pakistani Christian girl: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/09/11/pakistani-girl-free-for-now/
Ed Brayton
September 11, 2012 at 9:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael–
That was not an attempt to immunize myself against that lying moron, nor would it be effective if I’d tried. I’ve been writing about Islamic barbarism for years and none of that immunized me from his lies.
Pseudonym
September 11, 2012 at 9:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To understand how people can do this at political conventions, it helps to know that they’re all drunk.
Michael Heath
September 11, 2012 at 10:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed writes:
So I needed a wink or [/snark] following what I wrote? [It was a joke; I wouldn't read you daily if you demonstrated any concern about what mrbongo and his ilk think when it comes to what you blog about.]
Raging Bee
September 11, 2012 at 11:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
mantistoboggan: voting for the lesser of two evils means you get less evil than you had before. It means incremental change, which is, most times, the only constructive change you can get.
Besides, what else are we supposed to do — sit by and not support any improvement until a saint or messiah runs for office?
Rike
September 12, 2012 at 6:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But there is no reason to put any facts or promises in any speeches, since most of the time it will be impossible to follow up on them later, as we have seen already.
democommie
September 12, 2012 at 7:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Besides, what else are we supposed to do — sit by and not support any improvement until a saint or messiah runs for office?”
And that worked out so well in the fable about JESUS.
mantistoboggan
September 12, 2012 at 11:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bee:
As noted in the second part of my post, I don’t really buy that the choice is between the lesser of two evils within the War Party. Evil of two lessers is much more accurate.
My recommendation is to withhold sanction of the War Party by declining to participate in election day violence. There will be no messiah.
akkonor
September 12, 2012 at 2:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am not this mrbongo whoever he is
dornierpfeil
September 14, 2012 at 10:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Mr. Brayton,
You are not a tribalist. You do not rely on your lizard brain for 99.99% of your decision making. That is not a bad thing.
A Good Reason Not To Vote This Year - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum
September 11, 2012 at 6:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] A Good Reason Not To Vote This Year After seeing the extravagent conventions, the barriage of attack ads, and the empty promises from the candidates I can honestly say that I won't be voting this year. I don't believe either Obama or Romney, and I don't see why anyone would. I think Ed Brayton of Free Thought Blogs, really hit the nail on the head here in this article, particularly at the beginning of the third paragraph: How Can Anyone Be a True Believer? | Dispatches from the Culture Wars [...]