OK it is unbelievable i thought the Dutch politics were a mess. especially after the death of Pim Fortuyn (first dutch political murder). But the american elections are even worse. It seems to me that most people vote because they like a persn. But they do not think about what that candidate stands for and what his idea's are. Do you people get the same impression as me or not? I think it is stupid that if a candidate says a sentence wrong the whole country gets mad and talks about it for weeks. or if somebodys wife yells at a reporter(most reporters are anoying). Or people start discussing if somebodys warr meadal is deserved or not? Who Cares?? Why do the politicians not talk about subjects that are importend. Cyoto Protocol World politics Abortion Wealthfare The elections seem to me more of a popularity contest then a election. But i fear it has always has been this way. The problem is that the way the elections are held a charismatic person why is very bad for the country can be elected (no i'm not talking about Bush or Kerry). Pim Fortyun almost got elected Dutch prime minister (ok he got shot a couple of weeks before the elections, and i think and hope he would not have been chosen if he was still alive). Hitler also got Elected. Just because they were charismatic and kept yealling it was the fault of the immigrants. In holland we had 8 great years with great partys running the netherland. Then Fortyun came and told everybody that holland was a terrible country to life in and that the goverment did everything wrong. He blamed the immigrants (ofcourse who else ) and he kept on complaining about the waiting lists in hospitals and about education. The next elections a party (CDA) got elected the biggest party in holland and they said they would do better then the previous government.And they would improve in education. One of the first things they did was cutting the money for education. ok sorry for that rant i just had to get it of my chest. The dutch are stupid. and do not think before voting. OK the reason of this thread (besides getting it of my chest, yes i'm irritated) is that i want to know if other people also have the idea that the elections ia more of a popularity contast. and that the things that are really importend are put aside when people vote? .Most people do not even know what the candidates think about most topics. I feal that if Michael Jordan wants to be presidant he would win, because he is so popular(ok maybe not anymore but a couple of years ago he would have won). I feel that this kind of democratic politics does not work I'm very disapointed in most humans. (ok i should never post when i'm irritated)
ok sorry i forgot one thing. Why can't people ust accept each other. And not judge everybody that is different then they are. (like Other religion or other sexual preferances or other ideas about politics) It is ashame. Wy can't people just accept and respect each other
America is as you described because the majority of the people have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine that is mass-media. The attention span of this country has been shot, as the news media has become more of an entertainment industry than source of accurate information. The capitalistic and "fat" nature of Americans has led to general ignorance and disregard of the forces that make the country run.
Democracy is coming, arno! (Realplayer needed; there's also a kick=== song version on his album "The Future"). I try to keep up politically. I try to follow current events, read as much as I can, and still find myself unimaginably ignorant on the subject. But if I stop to think about it, it upsets me to no end that my vote is equal to that of someone who votes because GWB is handsome, because JFK redux is "French-looking." (I take it you're not currently living in the US. Many radio hosts use "French-looking" as if it were Kerry's first name. I don't have a clue as to any answers to your questions, just commiseration with the asking. We like to look at shiny things? Wishing for a benevolent dictator won't make it so.
Do you think this new, though? For the better part of two centuries, most people never even saw the president of the US. Now we see and hear every single mis-speak ad infinitum. Literacy rates have climbed, but to what end? Look at all the people who walk out of "Fahrenheit 9/11" genuinely p===ed, for the first time. Why? Can't they read? How does someone live with an Internet connection, always on, and know nothing of what goes on around them? I can look at p*rnography only so many hours a day. That leaves me at least an hour to catch up on the day's news. "Yellow journalism" applies currently to some of our cable stations, perhaps, but it was not coined in this era. The sins of Rupert Murdoch are little in comparison to those of a Pulitzer or a Hearst. They don't necessarily help the situation, but media can't be fully to blame.My question: has it always been this way, and is there an actual chance for society's improvement? I'm no Marxist, but don't you think general ignorance fosters, not detracts from, societal structure? Willful ignorance is a survival mechanism. It kind of has to be built in, no? If our educational system were dramatically improved, and knowledge was free-flowing, don't you think that the middle- and lower-class lifestyles lived by the vast majority of citizens would no longer be acceptable, sustainable? When I first moved to New York and was looking for an apartment, a really cool landlord was talking to me about NY life. Here everybody walks, so you see somebody with a $5,000 suit on, sharing the sidewalk with a homeless man. A lot of the restaurants, during spring and summer, serve customers at sidewalk tables. People spend $50 on a prix fixe dinner before rushing off to the theater, all the while seeing the beggar starving twenty feet away. The landlord, as he was commenting on this, said something to the effect of, "Why haven't there been more revolutions?" I thought about it a minute, and couldn't answer him. Baffles me. Want to start a commune?
Why would middle class lifestyles be considered unacceptable. Are you saying the middle class has too much, and should be giving more to the poor? Or that they have too little, and should be getting more from the rich? You say your no Marxist, but you certainly seem to espouse his ideals. arno_ed, I don't think that what you describe is as widespread as many believe. Of course there are those who choose their candidate for rediculous reasons (the Dean Scream, anyone), but many voters choose based on party affiliation, and many more choose based on the candidates stance on a particular issue(s) that they find important. For example, I would have trouble voting for a pro-choice candidate, or a tax-and-spend candidate.
When I was studying Asian politics we would constantly run into examples of country's that will swing wildly from far left to far right elections. One party will come in, pass new laws that structure government systems the way they think it should be structured and then when a group that gets affected negatively by it gets their panties all in a twist, they back the other part in the next elections. Then the opposition party gets in and reverses everything and a new group a people get pissed. These wild swings don't usually happen every election, sometimes it is over a long period of time. This especially true of Parliamentary structures. But in some cases (I think India flip - flopped wildly somewhat recently) it can get a little crazy. You don't really see wild swings here for a couple of reasons. The biggest reason is because the Republican and Democratic party in America on a grand political spectrum are so unbelievably close to each other in ideology. It's just the difference between the pendulum on a 7 foot grandfather clock and tiny little coo-coo clock, the swings aren't as far to the left and the right. If totalitarianism was a 0 and true communism was a 100, the Republicans would be a 45 and the Dems would be a 46. So even when one party gets control in the Legislative and Executive branch, things don't change things that much. The other is the staggered elections. All of the Legislative and Executive branch cannot be thrown out in a single election. The other factor is the third branch, the Judiciary, which leads to checks and balances and keeps really wild laws from staying on the books. Just the fact that they are there keeps law makers from attempting drastic changes. Ok, my POLS 101 teaching days are coming back... sorry for those who felt talked down to.
i hope you are right. If i look at the people i know around me (and those are the intellligent people in holland universaty) to much people vote based on who they like or what the media tells them. Or worse they vote because they have always voted for that group. Alot of people always vote for the CDA. that is the biggest christian group. But they used to be in the centre now they are right. So people still vote for them even tough thay might not represent there opinion. If i read the BBS most discusions are about what somebodys wife said, or that somebody says the wrong words. Or somebody doesn't deserve e purple heard. And not about the importent subjects. I know there will always be people who Do think before they vote but i fear there are to few. I hope you are right
