I grew up loathing politics in my country of origin. I couldn’t stand the hypocrisy and rampant corruption I heard and witnessed every day. Where I came from, politicians win elections by popularity, terrorizing, and pandering to the poor and uneducated. When they get to office, corruption is the norm. One person, one vote is a curse in a democratic yet less educated developing nation.
I’ve been jaded with politicians at an early age. I vowed to myself to never get into politics. I prefer to look for other ways to do service and make a difference. When I was young I remember looking up to the U.S. wondering how “enlightened” leaders in America play politics. Politicians there must be smart and corruption non-existent. I was wrong. We don’t understand a country until we live there.
One thing I like about the U.S. though is that it’s very easy to “tune out” politics if I want to. There are more distractions here: MTV, sports, business, travel, technology, Hollywood, shopping, and endless consumerism. So for the most part I’ve ignored U.S. politics and just focused on my work and on being a good citizen. But since the Iraq war and since I’ve become a U.S. citizen, I paid closer attention to what’s going on in Washington. Since then I’ve learned a lot of things, including U.S. history, details of the election process, the deep ideological differences between the two main political parties, the geopolitical role of U.S. as a nuclear superpower nation, and crucial issues such as economy, health care, education, and alternative energy.
But my interest in politics reached its peak with the on-going election. Here are the top 25 things I’ve learned so far from the 2008 U.S. presidential election, in no particular order.
- Democrats are spineless tree-huggers. Republicans are fear mongering war freaks. Independents are fence-sitting hecklers.
- Watching the election coverage on TV is a great practice on patience, tolerance, equanimity, and critical thinking. CNN tries to be objective. PBS is intelligent but boring. MSNBC has a bad case of Bush hatin’. FOX is a shit hole.
- Change, maverick, and truthfulness have lost their meanings.
- If you follow the election too closely you’ll get prophetic nightmares.
- Issues are secondary, worldviews and framing are primary. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is key strategy.
- The blogosphere is a web of political lies and conspiracy theories.
- Factcheck.org is an indispensable resource to cut through the bull.
- Graduating as magna cum laude, serving as president of Harvard Law review, and being a U.S. Senator mean nothing. Describing yourself as a hockey mom and pitbull with lipstick is a winning strategy.
- Two memoirs + a bunch of geeks = Amazing Money Machine
- Ron Paul has bigger balls than Joe Lieberman.
- Bob Barr + Ralph Nader = None of the Above
- Community organizers are laughable. Fuck Thank you, Giuliani!
- People are idiots and politicians love to capitalize on this basic fact.
- Small town values, as opposed to worldcentric views, are more useful for governing the most powerful nation in the world.
- Watching the election campaign on TV makes you dumber. Following the election on the internet makes you smarter (assuming your home page is not pointed to the Huffington Post or the National Review).
- Democrats and Republicans stretch the truth, but GOP talking heads are pompous hypocrites. (Do some objective fact checking and get back to me.)
- Whoever was the Republican National Convention set designer is so fired.
- Real straight talkers: Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Jesse Ventura. Ben Stein is asinine.
- Nobody wants to be associated with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, especially the Republican party. Now that’s “change” we can believe in.
- George W. Bush is probably shitting his pants already. Hurrah for Bugliosi!
- Brain-dead politics is America’s disease. Parody is the best medicine.
- I’m part of the demographic known as “nation of whiners.”
- I can tolerate Papa Bear O’Reilly but my patience is really tested with Sean Hannity.
- I have a hidden desire for dominatrix types.
- I’m a masochist for subjecting myself in the political freak show drivel. We are now in the era of electotainment.
I’m sure I’ll be learning more as we move closer to election day. But the more I learn about U.S. politics the more it strikes me that the political dynamics is not much different with politics in developing nations. Yes, U.S. politics is more sophisticated and complicated on the surface. But on a deeper level it is still plagued with corruption, deception, terrorizing, and hypocrisy. It’s the same shit wrapped differently, with astronomical sums of money. I find it kind of irritating and funny.
P.S. Objectivity is overrated. We’re all biased one way or the other. When all is said in done we make our decisions on a conscious and unconscious subjective level. In my view, the Republicans had lost it in this election. They no longer respect the intelligence of the voting public. They are using the “people are idiots” strategy. They have surrendered on the issues and resorted to soap opera and drama. That’s why I’m voting for Obama.
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 1 person and commented on 0 times
Comments (8)
Can I ask why aren’t you voting for Ron Paul (even if you have to write him in the ballot)? Symbols are important, I get that, and when Obama presented himself as the anti-war candidate I liked him too. But increasingly the difference he represents seems more and more superficial (Afgahnistan is NOT that different, it is increasingly revealing itself to be an unwanted occupation as well).
A man that sticks to his guns as everyone around him ridicules him for decades, and humbly and gracefully rides the wave of support he gets as this self-taught economics student gets everything pretty much right when all the experts got it all wrong (and they still ignore him) – now that’s change I can believe in. I don’t agree with all his stances on things but Ron Paul has still inspired me powerfully.
The buzz I get from Obama is real too but feels kind of like empty calories or Red Bull or something. Ron Paul is the slowly developed lovingly cooked whole meal.
Dean,
thanks for asking.
i like Ron Paul. even more than McCain. it’s debatable but i believe that Obama’s policies and vision would be better for the U.S. in the long run, even if we have to make some sacrifices to get there.
but more importantly, my worldview is more aligned with Obama’s idealism.
see: http://www.c4chaos.com/2008/08/we-pick-the-presidential-candidate-who-shares-our-worldview/
i guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
~C
You have read my mind. This is an awesome list. This election, more than anything, makes me realize a lot about our society. I can’t help but be surprised by the madness, but what do I expect with “culture” the way it is. There’s such addiction to drama and little sense and reason. I hope the “people are idiots” strategy doesn’t work.
As I said, where’s Orwell when you need him?
To me, the two-party US electoral system has more in common with a spectator sport such as baseball or football–where the differences between the players or fans on each opposing team are negligible and the whole game serves as a fantastically effective distraction from the deeper issues, and from what really matters–than it does a democratic system of government.
Just sayin’.
Siona,
the two-party US electoral system has its strengths. i grew up in a democratic country where any idiot who has a political ambition can start a party. elections are won through popularity and pandering to the poor and uneducated. it’s more corrupt, disastrous, chaotic, and somewhat funny.
that said, there are some saner (or hopelessly idealistic
) voices who are calling for “Third Way” politics. i’m sure you’ve heard of them already 
~C
In a past life as a (failed) political scientist, I learned that the fate of any electoral system can basically be summed up by the simple equation X+1, where X is equal to the number of positions available in any given electoral race, and the total (X+1) determines how many parties will be viable. All major American elections (practically everything above the city level- and those elections tend to be non-partisan) are “first past the post”- only one person can win. Therefore, there can only be two viable parties in any given district. In a parliamentary system, this allows for many functional minority parties (such as the LD’s, Greens, and various Nationalist parties in England), but a Presidential system precludes that (as everyone ultimately has to rally around the same two parties candidates).
Now, place this system in a country as large and diverse as America, and the system ends up spiraling into what I like to call a “Meaningless Manicheanism”- a senseless two-party dualism in which both parties can do nothing but oppose the other, and political philosophies ultimately become meaningless, replaced with tags emptied of value (Left! Right! Liberal! Conservative!). Fareed Zakaria observed this in the book he wrote a few years ago, “The Future of Freedom”. The parties are whatever agenda the leading candidates pour into them.
My sister works for the Democratic party. I have a co-worker who is a staunch Republican (one of the few Americans that I work with). When I mentioned to him my sister’s current job, his immediate response was, “I’m sorry.” When I inquired a little more about his political opinions, he brought up something that hit it all home- “All the Democrats ever do is oppose! If we’re for something, they’re against it!”
I’ve heard my sister say the EXACT. SAME. THING.
About the Democrats, and how all the Republicans do is oppose… oppose… oppose.
So I opt out of this maddening and meaningless system. I have that luxury; absentee voting is enough of a pain in the ass, and there’s no race to speak of in South Dakota this year.
At the same time, it’s hard to say if other systems are really better. Some allow for more spread of representation, but don’t use it- Japan’s “X+1″ comes out at 6, yet the country’s politics continue to be dominated by a single mega-party (The LDP) and a group of minor parties that can’t work together long enough to create a stable coalition. Switzerland and Israel have systems in which the possible number of parties in bounded only by the size of the legislature- yet this system is really only suitable for very small countries, not continent-spanning empires.
Or there’s the Chinese option. One party makes the rules. It’s damn effective… but it’s also corrupt, stupid, frustrating, and occasionally brutal. I would not recommend this path to any developed nation. Especially one sitting on the largest arsenal on the planet.
People are not idiots. They’re just unaware of who they really are. And the one who said people are idiots is also unaware of Who He Really Is. Otherwise, he would not say that people are idiots. Rather, I agree that the Ego is probabaly an idiot.
Oneness,
the person who coined “People are idiot” is Scott Adams. see Dilbert Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle
incidentally, Scott Adams just did a survey of economists on who has the better economic plan, Obama or McCain.
most economists who participated in the survey (Democrats and Independents) lean towards Obama.
see http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_survey_of_economists/
bottom line: people are not only unaware of who they are. they are also unaware of important issues. hence, people are idiots
~C
Trackback/Pingback (1)
[...] a result, I’ve learned a lot of things in U.S. politics that I never paid attention to before. And for the first time in my life I contributed to a [...]