International opinions on the USA Presidential election

[LaraOnline]

Date: 10/3/2008 9:19:34 PM
Author: LaraOnline
I think Obama HAS to win.

...?

I wanted to update this post, but the machine wouldn't let me. I wanted to clarify this statement, that I think Obama 'HAS' to win. What I meant to say was, in the mind of the modern voter, it is possible that the political playing field is not level.

I meant 'has' as in, with the current conditions in place. Not that he should, or that it would be best for him. I don't have a fully formed opinion on which party would be best.

The conservative has an innate optimism in the human condition, a sense that a person can influence and control his or her life, and create their own destiny.

I feel that this outlook was really strong just after WW2, and that the modern citizen's outlook has shifted, to a far greater cynicism regarding the power of the individual to 'cut through', and a preoccupation with potential abuses of power, particularly economic power, of both powerful individuals and powerful institutions.

Therefore, the Republican message is less palatable to media, and to the average, MODERN 'nice person'. The Republicans are therefore starting behind the eightball. They would have to get their message really, really 'on target' to win, because their whole position is less clear to the cynical modern voter.

When I was younger I saw the conservative party as pretty much 'for the rich'. That was my in-depth analysis. It shows how badly the conservative position is sold to the average punter. Now that I am in small business, and see first hand how governments make it so much harder for people to make their own success, I have a more complex view. But most modern people are not in the position of being fully responsible for their own economic survival. The rise of the modern employee has really changed the face of politics, in my view anyway.

 

[arjunajane]

I also echo lara''s question - is one of Sarah Palin''s actual platforms/policy ideas to make abortion illegal? Or is this just a rumour?
If its the case, how do American women (and men) feel about that?
thanks!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/3/2008 11:28:36 PM
Author: LaraOnline

Date: 10/3/2008 9:19:34 PM
Author: LaraOnline
I think Obama HAS to win.

...?

I wanted to update this post, but the machine wouldn''t let me. I wanted to clarify this statement, that I think Obama ''HAS'' to win. What I meant to say was, in the mind of the modern voter, it is possible that the political playing field is not level.

I meant ''has'' as in, with the current conditions in place. Not that he should, or that it would be best for him. I don''t have a fully formed opinion on which party would be best.

The conservative has an innate optimism in the human condition, a sense that a person can influence and control his or her life, and create their own destiny.

I feel that this outlook was really strong just after WW2, and that the modern citizen''s outlook has shifted, to a far greater cynicism regarding the power of the individual to ''cut through'', and a preoccupation with potential abuses of power, particularly economic power, of both powerful individuals and powerful institutions.

Therefore, the Republican message is less palatable to media, and to the average, MODERN ''nice person''. The Republicans are therefore starting behind the eightball. They would have to get their message really, really ''on target'' to win, because their whole position is less clear to the cynical modern voter.

When I was younger I saw the conservative party as pretty much ''for the rich''. That was my in-depth analysis. It shows how badly the conservative position is sold to the average punter. Now that I am in small business, and see first hand how governments make it so much harder for people to make their own success, I have a more complex view. But most modern people are not in the position of being fully responsible for their own economic survival. The rise of the modern employee has really changed the face of politics, in my view anyway.

And boy, are you not just hitting a nail on the head with THAT analysis. There are entirely different views of reality in the 2 parties here.

Right now I''m still waking up, but I will elaborate a bit in another post. Coffee is my sole concern at present....(gonna have to go whip up on the man if my coffee doesn''t show up soon. Dang men: don''t they know their place?? To make and bring me COFFEE?????

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/4/2008 3:50:48 AM
Author: arjunajane
I also echo lara''s question - is one of Sarah Palin''s actual platforms/policy ideas to make abortion illegal? Or is this just a rumour?
If its the case, how do American women (and men) feel about that?
thanks!

I don''t know that she has stated anything on her position on the legal status of abortion. In her defense, from what I''ve read, she has not been a crusading social engineer/activist in Alaska, on such issues. But the PARTY position is one against abortion - (I''m not sure it is explicitly stated that the party would work to make it illegal). It''s a primary reason she was chosen, along with maybe trying to pick up disgruntled Hillary (she''s female) and be seen as an agent of change (from the back of beyond, corruption fighter/maverick). McCain could not choose a running mate who was not in lockstep with the party on this issue or he would lose what they call "the base" - those evangelical "values" voters, who vote almost strictly in accordance with what they deem religiously dictated, and without whom the Republican party cannot win, or so they perceive.

Her personal views, which she has stated, are pretty much on one extreme end of the abortion issue. I don''t think there is much debate about that. As for me, (I can''t speak for all Americans, although I''m sure I speak for a swath...but not from my state...I''m something of an anomaly here in Bible Belt Oklahoma) I don''t trust people with that much "certainty" that they are correct. They''re usually pretty good at imposing that certainty on others. But that''s just my personal observation.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 10/4/2008 3:50:48 AM
Author: arjunajane
I also echo lara''s question - is one of Sarah Palin''s actual platforms/policy ideas to make abortion illegal? Or is this just a rumour?

If its the case, how do American women (and men) feel about that?

thanks!

She is personally against it but believes it should be up to each state to decide. With our ecomony the mess that it is, neither party is talking about abortion rights that i know of.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/4/2008 7:47:52 AM
Author: mrssalvo

Date: 10/4/2008 3:50:48 AM
Author: arjunajane
I also echo lara''s question - is one of Sarah Palin''s actual platforms/policy ideas to make abortion illegal? Or is this just a rumour?

If its the case, how do American women (and men) feel about that?

thanks!

She is personally against it but believes it should be up to each state to decide. With our ecomony the mess that it is, neither party is talking about abortion rights that i know of.

For Lara, AJ, whomever else would like information about Palin''s views on abortion: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm
You can also browse to find other candidate''s positions on other issues.

I agree with mrssalvo about these issues being pushed from the limelight b/c 1) Obama wouldn''t have to change anything about the current status quo unless the Dems in Congress try to overturn the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act to make all abortions legal at any time (which I don''t think he will if he knows what''s good for him) and 2) as mrssalvo said, the economy/war is at the forefront of everyone''s agenda.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/4/2008 6:40:04 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 10/3/2008 11:28:36 PM

Author: LaraOnline
The conservative has an innate optimism in the human condition, a sense that a person can influence and control his or her life, and create their own destiny.

And boy, are you not just hitting a nail on the head with THAT analysis.

This, a million times this.

This is the biggest issue I have with the Republican party. If you insist on Abstinence Only Education, are Anti-Choice, and don't support Social Security, you have serious issue with math. Or sense.

If you don't teach people how to not get pregnant, and force them to have the inevitable babies, you'd better be prepared to pay up for the bumper crop of kids that result.

I feel like the Republican party has this naive view that if people 'can't keep their legs closed', it's not the GOP's problem and they can just suffer the consequences and lie in the bed they made. Nevermind that history has shown that the above mentioned formula of no sex ed + no choice + no support = massive extreme poverty = a boatload of crime. Then it's everyone's problem.

Yes, it would be nice if people just 'kept their legs closed' and thus avoided the whole cycle. It'd be nice if my hair naturally turned red and I lost 20 pounds by eating chocolate. But wishing doesn't make it so. If the Republican party isn't willing to deal with the reality of how things actually are, then I don't feel that they are capable of running the country intelligently.

Edited to add: If the above is nothing more than a party line and the vast majority of Republicans don't feel that way, then they should dispense with touting this line and stop wasting everyone's time. The issue of abortion and proper sex ed should be a no-brainer by now, there are new issues to deal with. Get on with it.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/3/2008 11:28:36 PM
Author: LaraOnline

I wanted to update this post, but the machine wouldn't let me. I wanted to clarify this statement, that I think Obama 'HAS' to win. What I meant to say was, in the mind of the modern voter, it is possible that the political playing field is not level.

I meant 'has' as in, with the current conditions in place. Not that he should, or that it would be best for him. I don't have a fully formed opinion on which party would be best.

The conservative has an innate optimism in the human condition, a sense that a person can influence and control his or her life, and create their own destiny.

I feel that this outlook was really strong just after WW2, and that the modern citizen's outlook has shifted, to a far greater cynicism regarding the power of the individual to 'cut through', and a preoccupation with potential abuses of power, particularly economic power, of both powerful individuals and powerful institutions.

Therefore, the Republican message is less palatable to media, and to the average, MODERN 'nice person'. The Republicans are therefore starting behind the eightball. They would have to get their message really, really 'on target' to win, because their whole position is less clear to the cynical modern voter.

When I was younger I saw the conservative party as pretty much 'for the rich'. That was my in-depth analysis. It shows how badly the conservative position is sold to the average punter. Now that I am in small business, and see first hand how governments make it so much harder for people to make their own success, I have a more complex view. But most modern people are not in the position of being fully responsible for their own economic survival. The rise of the modern employee has really changed the face of politics, in my view anyway.

As a conservative, I agree with that statement. Each individual has more control over his/her life and current situation than the government ever will or should IMHO. I think that's where the term "bleeding heart liberal" came about and why Republicans have a cold reputation.

ETA: Not trying to start any fights or get off topic - just agreeing with Lara's viewpoint.

Lara - could you tell us more about your own political system?

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 10/4/2008 2:52:21 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 10/4/2008 6:40:04 AM

Author: ksinger

Date: 10/3/2008 11:28:36 PM


Author: LaraOnline

The conservative has an innate optimism in the human condition, a sense that a person can influence and control his or her life, and create their own destiny.

And boy, are you not just hitting a nail on the head with THAT analysis.

This, a million times this.


This is the biggest issue I have with the Republican party. If you insist on Abstinence Only Education, are Anti-Choice, and don''t support Social Security, you have serious issue with math. Or sense.


If you don''t teach people how to not get pregnant, and force them to have the inevitable babies, you''d better be prepared to pay up for the bumper crop of kids that result.


I feel like the Republican party has this naive view that if people ''can''t keep their legs closed'', it''s not the GOP''s problem and they can just suffer the consequences and lie in the bed they made. Nevermind that history has shown that the above mentioned formula of no sex ed + no choice + no support = massive extreme poverty = a boatload of crime. Then it''s everyone''s problem.


Yes, it would be nice if people just ''kept their legs closed'' and thus avoided the whole cycle. It''d be nice if my hair naturally turned red and I lost 20 pounds by eating chocolate. But wishing doesn''t make it so. If the Republican party isn''t willing to deal with the reality of how things actually are, then I don''t feel that they are capable of running the country intelligently.


Edited to add: If the above is nothing more than a party line and the vast majority of Republicans don''t feel that way, then they should dispense with touting this line and stop wasting everyone''s time. The issue of abortion and proper sex ed should be a no-brainer by now, there are new issues to deal with. Get on with it.

This is an interesting aspect of the Republican party to me - this whole dominating policy aspect of Christianity overload - teaching creationism in schools as science (shudder) - and of abstinence only sex education in public schools. It seems to me to be an overhang of your Puritan beginnings (please correct me if I''m wrong) because it is not at all a defining aspect of conservative politics on this side of the fence. I don''t think conservative politicians here would sensibly argue that creationism should be taught as reality. And I don''t think they would ever advocate abolishing sensible sex education in schools, either.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/4/2008 9:57:45 PM
Author: LaraOnline

Date: 10/4/2008 2:52:21 PM

Author: Galateia

Date: 10/4/2008 6:40:04 AM


Author: ksinger

Date: 10/3/2008 11:28:36 PM



Author: LaraOnline


The conservative has an innate optimism in the human condition, a sense that a person can influence and control his or her life, and create their own destiny.

And boy, are you not just hitting a nail on the head with THAT analysis.

This, a million times this.



This is the biggest issue I have with the Republican party. If you insist on Abstinence Only Education, are Anti-Choice, and don''t support Social Security, you have serious issue with math. Or sense.



If you don''t teach people how to not get pregnant, and force them to have the inevitable babies, you''d better be prepared to pay up for the bumper crop of kids that result.



I feel like the Republican party has this naive view that if people ''can''t keep their legs closed'', it''s not the GOP''s problem and they can just suffer the consequences and lie in the bed they made. Nevermind that history has shown that the above mentioned formula of no sex ed + no choice + no support = massive extreme poverty = a boatload of crime. Then it''s everyone''s problem.



Yes, it would be nice if people just ''kept their legs closed'' and thus avoided the whole cycle. It''d be nice if my hair naturally turned red and I lost 20 pounds by eating chocolate. But wishing doesn''t make it so. If the Republican party isn''t willing to deal with the reality of how things actually are, then I don''t feel that they are capable of running the country intelligently.



Edited to add: If the above is nothing more than a party line and the vast majority of Republicans don''t feel that way, then they should dispense with touting this line and stop wasting everyone''s time. The issue of abortion and proper sex ed should be a no-brainer by now, there are new issues to deal with. Get on with it.

This is an interesting aspect of the Republican party to me - this whole dominating policy aspect of Christianity overload - teaching creationism in schools as science (shudder) - and of abstinence only sex education in public schools. It seems to me to be an overhang of your Puritan beginnings (please correct me if I''m wrong) because it is not at all a defining aspect of conservative politics on this side of the fence. I don''t think conservative politicians here would sensibly argue that creationism should be taught as reality. And I don''t think they would ever advocate abolishing sensible sex education in schools, either.

In my opinion..and again this is just my perception/opinion..the far-right is not as representative as people think it is of Republicans. The politicians in my state do not generally make this kind of argument, most Republicans I can think of don''t anyway. In my years (not long I know) I''ve met only 3-4 Republicans that ever felt that way. But again, that is just my experience. Also, I personally don''t see conservative and Republican as being completely synonymous. Republicans are conservative, but conservatives aren''t always Republicans. I am generally pretty conservative, but I am not a member of the RNC even though I am supporting the RNC candidate. If I agreed with the candidate from DNC, I would vote for them.

 

[LaraOnline]

I agree that the whole 'abortion debate' is pretty unimportant when compared with the topics that matter - US foreign policy, and the economic health of the country.
Which, in many ways, should traditionally be seen as conservative pre-occupations and strengths.

Yet, because of its incumbency, the Republicans are really being challenged on their own turf. Yet I think any government that has faced these challenges that arose during this term would be facing an 'interesting' election.

I personally can still remember where I was when I heard that the US was launching war on Iraq as a result of the dramatic events of 9/11. I was in art school, making a sculpture. Talk about a defining moment.

To quote George Bush himself, 'these are troubled times'. The incumbent leader in such times was always going to become a figurehead and fall guy, pretty much regardless of the actions that his administration took as a result of 9/11.
I thought heading to Iraq seemed a circuitous route to peace. But what would I know... I'm an art student in the middle of nowhere!

Of course, later we discovered that even Hussein's ministry was fully immersed in the fiction of WMD, until the very last moment, after the US action had begun.
Limited intelligence, and not acting decisively on intelligence, (from memory, a feature of the Clinton administration, according to a couple of articles by disgruntled insiders I read in newspapers over here...they claimed they had the chance to kill Bin Laden, but were pulled back at the last) leads to peculiar outcomes. But that's war, in general, isn't it.

It is very much in the US character to 'take action', is it not? It will be interesting to see whether post-Iraq engenders a more subtle style of diplomacy in the decades to come. The US, as with all governments I guess, steadfastly ignores the 'blind spots' in its foreign policy vision, but I think that the subtleties of the Middle East is really encouraging a remake of the US character, into something less defined.

Geography has undoubtedly played a part in this formation of the US character on the internationals stage... the US, unlike Europe, has limited shared borders. There are not a multitude of national sensibilities jostling within limited land space.

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 10/4/2008 10:19:30 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS

In my opinion..and again this is just my perception/opinion..the far-right is not as representative as people think it is of Republicans. The politicians in my state do not generally make this kind of argument, most Republicans I can think of don't anyway. In my years (not long I know) I've met only 3-4 Republicans that ever felt that way. But again, that is just my experience. Also, I personally don't see conservative and Republican as being completely synonymous. Republicans are conservative, but conservatives aren't always Republicans. I am generally pretty conservative, but I am not a member of the RNC even though I am supporting the RNC candidate. If I agreed with the candidate from DNC, I would vote for them.

This is interesting to me... and I guess it's the reason why I brought up the Sarah Palin abortion question - private morality or public policy - in the first place.

Personally, I feel broad sections of the media in this country have a LOT of trouble 'placing' the conservative party. I feel comfortable saying this, as I have trained and worked as a (small-time) newspaper journalist with an interest in politics!

This difficultly in locating and understanding the 'true' themes of conservatism is caused by a lot of factors.

Firstly, judging from my own experience, and I graduated from university with a political degree, most university lecturers (in Arts/Humanities) had no sympathy or understanding of the perspectives of the conservative. AT the time I was studying, anyway.

I graduated with a degree in politics, with only the most passing concept of what conservatives stood for! In our system, conservatives are represented by the Liberal Party. The left-leaning party is the Labor Party, that was formed through worker unions. Unions remain the main conduit for this party to this day.

Once a journalist, my pre-conceptions were not at all challenged. In fact, they were intrenched! Journalists in this country remain heavily unionised. They as people are generally inherently opposed to the Liberal party.

Also, newsvalues and the realities of the newsroom tend to support the left, and undermine the right. Let's not forget that the printing press itself is associated with breaking the hegemony of the Churches, and with the spread of education to 'the common man'. Equal voting rights, voting rights for women, all manner of very important freedoms and improvements for ordinary people have flowed from the increase in communication facilitated by the printing press.
So the general newsroom is inherently and naturally pre-occupied with thoughts of 'the common person'. Which is why so much of the press can be jingo-istic at times, I guess.

But the left is more naturally aligned with this view in a way the conservative view is not. The conservative simply says 'Wealth and freedom can also be yours'. In that way, it is speaking of something that is simply outside the scope of many if not most people.

In fact, many people can find this message outright confronting, rather than uplifting.
This is all off the top of my head. I think I'm on a tangent.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 10/4/2008 10:39:32 PM
Author: LaraOnline

Date: 10/4/2008 10:19:30 PM

Author: SarahLovesJS


In my opinion..and again this is just my perception/opinion..the far-right is not as representative as people think it is of Republicans. The politicians in my state do not generally make this kind of argument, most Republicans I can think of don't anyway. In my years (not long I know) I've met only 3-4 Republicans that ever felt that way. But again, that is just my experience. Also, I personally don't see conservative and Republican as being completely synonymous. Republicans are conservative, but conservatives aren't always Republicans. I am generally pretty conservative, but I am not a member of the RNC even though I am supporting the RNC candidate. If I agreed with the candidate from DNC, I would vote for them.

This is interesting to me... and I guess it's the reason why I brought up the Sarah Palin abortion question - private morality or public policy - in the first place.


Personally, I feel broad sections of the media in this country have a LOT of trouble 'placing' the conservative party. I feel comfortable saying this, as I have trained and worked as a (small-time) newspaper journalist with an interest in politics!


This difficultly in locating and understanding the 'true' themes of conservatism is caused by a lot of factors.


Firstly, judging from my own experience, and I graduated from university with a political degree, most university lecturers (in Arts/Humanities) had no sympathy or understanding of the perspectives of the conservative. AT the time I was studying, anyway.


I graduated with a degree in politics, with only the most passing concept of what conservatives stood for! In our system, conservatives are represented by the Liberal Party. The left-leaning party is the Labor Party, that was formed through worker unions. Unions remain the main conduit for this party to this day.


Once a journalist, my pre-conceptions were not at all challenged. In fact, they were intrenched! Journalists in this country remain heavily unionised. They as people are generally inherently opposed to the Liberal party.


Also, newsvalues and the realities of the newsroom tend to support the left, and undermine the right. Let's not forget that the printing press itself is associated with breaking the hegemony of the Churches, and with the spread of education to 'the common man'. Equal voting rights, voting rights for women, all manner of very important freedoms and improvements for ordinary people have flowed from the increase in communication facilitated by the printing press.

So the general newsroom is inherently and naturally pre-occupied with thoughts of 'the common person'. Which is why so much of the press can be jingo-istic at times, I guess.


But the left is more naturally aligned with this view in a way the conservative view is not. The conservative simply says 'Wealth and freedom can also be yours'. In that way, it is speaking of something that is simply outside the scope of many if not most people.


In fact, many people can find this message outright confronting, rather than uplifting.

This is all off the top of my head. I think I'm on a tangent.

I don't think you're on a tangent, it was very interesting! Well so far, I think we have at least two things in common..our universities (or the one I attend anyway) do not look at conservatives favorably in my opinion.

I'm also getting a degree in politics (another thing we have in common!) and so far the only courses I've seen offered studying the conservative view inevitably have a negative slant.


ETA: Okay I should correct just saying universities overall..and say "many of" because obviously the few extreme Christian schools would probably have positive opinions of conservatives.

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 10/4/2008 11:01:00 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS

I don''t think you''re on a tangent, it was very interesting! Well so far, I think we have at least two things in common..our universities (or the one I attend anyway) do not look at conservatives favorably in my opinion.

I''m also getting a degree in politics (another thing we have in common!) and so far the only courses I''ve seen offered studying the conservative view inevitably have a negative slant.

ETA: Okay I should correct just saying universities overall..and say ''many of'' because obviously the few extreme Christian schools would probably have positive opinions of conservatives.

Well, the examples of areas of university education where a positive view of Liberal (ie conservative!!) politics in my mind was at business schools, commerce faculties and such.

My economics studies kind of studiously avoided politics... I guess that''s because economics is overwhelmingly theory-based, and so avoids real life except in an historical and doesn''t tackle the politics of parties head on.

It is interesting to hear that university arts faculties can be similar over there! Undoubtedly, the US community seems much more positive and supportive of capitalism generally then here, so I guess I wondered if there was a more balanced view of the economic / social landscape.

Interestingly, our most successful Labor government(that''s the union-based party) had a treasurer Paul Keating that was seen as quite a right-wing fellow
(''out of touch'', according to voter polls) - he was a bit of a hero of mine in high school, as he did all manner of ''far-out'' (and right wing) things, like floated the dollar Sounds ground breaking doesn''t it!!

We floated our dollar quite late it seems to me hmm around 1982 I think, haven''t thought about this stuff for such a long time. No, it was 1983. How dark ages was it not to have a floating dollar!!! But at the time, it was hotly debated, no doubt.

He also reduced sharply protectionism for industry, encouraged unions to amalgamate into massive unions, so that employers and the government could negotiate more successfully. Subduing the unions was an incredibly important part of improving Australia''s productivity...however, reform seems to have stalled now.

Our newly elected Labor government, the first since PK, is not as economically sophisticated. They''ve been in the wilderness for a loooong time, and they love referring things to committees.

I would attribute the media and the general public''s slowly increasing economic literacy as in many ways due to Paul Keating''s influence. We are culturally a society of bounders and lazy people, and we have no great inherent love of capitalism haha.

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 10/4/2008 11:01:00 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS

ETA: Okay I should correct just saying universities overall..and say ''many of'' because obviously the few extreme Christian schools would probably have positive opinions of conservatives.

Hmm, I''m not so sure. Wouldn''t they be more heavily into welfarism, as in ''tithing'', and be pretty much anti-government and financial systems in general? Or, perhaps with the more ''welfare-friendly'' view of the Democrats, perhaps many Christian schools would actually be Democrat friendly.

But having never been to the US, nor ever really hung out with any extreme Christians, I suppose I couldn''t really guess sensibly on that.

Perhaps, by even guessing that yourself, and us discussing it, we are simply reinforcing an ad-hoc view that Republicanism = extremism! This knee-jerk pairing undoubtedly does wonders for the Democractic vote!

The media here also tries, on occasion, to create a link between Christian and conservative parties, such as emphasising conservative policies that see Christian (private) schools given public funds.
This particular theme has always been interesting to me, as private school parents also pay taxes, on top of their education costs. By sending their students to a private school, they are to some extent subsidising the public system.

However, there is no real connection between churches and conservatives here, as far as I know. Generally, church interests are reflected in minor parties.

 

[iheartscience]

Great posts, Lara!

 

[arjunajane]

Thankyou Karen, Mrs and Indy for answering my question

 

[Pandora II]

First of all, I haven't read all the other posts.

I'm an elected representative in the UK and work for a major political party - I know a huge amount about UK politics, but I'm not that up on American politics. Here's my take on things:

- Your politicians seem to think that extreme mud-slinging and negative campaign strategies are a good idea.

- There's an awful lot of sound bite nonsense and almost no real policy coming out. Everything said plays to the lowest common denominator - don't you all feel patronised by it?

- Personality seems to be more important than policy.

- I find it incredible that someone like Palin could EVER be a vice-president. She's a loony gun-toting creationist who has barely set foot outside her back garden... UNBELIEVABLE!

Here, we may have some banter in Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesdays in Parliament, but negative campaigning is regarded in a poor light. UK punters want policy detail, not empty motherhood and apple pie waffle or bitchiness about the other candidate. Any politician who is overtly religious will probably not get elected - we don't 'do' religion in politics here.

I'm torn on the outcome of the US election - I don't really like any of the candidates. The Democrats will go for a more insular, protectionist stance that isn't great for the rest of the world, but while I was quite taken with McCain, the thought of that nutjob as vice-president has left me feeling the world is probably better off with Bush (and that is saying something!).


To give an idea of my politics, most people here would describe me as a Liberal Conservative. I'm pro-choice, pro-small state, pro-low taxes, support homosexual marriage/adoption, pro-free markets, very anti-religion in any part of public life and very conservative on law and order.

 

[LaraOnline]

Pandora, your post was so interesting.
I also found it interesting that you were able to summarise your political orientation so succinctly! The mark of a professional!

I agree with you that the US seems awash in sound bites, misrepresentations of opponents positions and ferocious - no, make that *vicious* campaign activity that focuses far more on winning - whatever the cost - than of actually enunciating detailed policy.

I feel that, unfortunately, the Australian system is moving closer to the US system, every minute.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/5/2008 9:22:04 AM
Author: Pandora II
First of all, I haven''t read all the other posts.

I''m an elected representative in the UK and work for a major political party - I know a huge amount about UK politics, but I''m not that up on American politics. Here''s my take on things:

- Your politicians seem to think that extreme mud-slinging and negative campaign strategies are a good idea.

- There''s an awful lot of sound bite nonsense and almost no real policy coming out. Everything said plays to the lowest common denominator - don''t you all feel patronised by it?

- Personality seems to be more important than policy.

- I find it incredible that someone like Palin could EVER be a vice-president. She''s a loony gun-toting creationist who has barely set foot outside her back garden... UNBELIEVABLE!

Here, we may have some banter in Prime Minister''s Question Time on Wednesdays in Parliament, but negative campaigning is regarded in a poor light. UK punters want policy detail, not empty motherhood and apple pie waffle or bitchiness about the other candidate. Any politician who is overtly religious will probably not get elected - we don''t ''do'' religion in politics here.

I''m torn on the outcome of the US election - I don''t really like any of the candidates. The Democrats will go for a more insular, protectionist stance that isn''t great for the rest of the world, but while I was quite taken with McCain, the thought of that nutjob as vice-president has left me feeling the world is probably better off with Bush (and that is saying something!).


To give an idea of my politics, most people here would describe me as a Liberal Conservative. I''m pro-choice, pro-small state, pro-low taxes, support homosexual marriage/adoption, pro-free markets, very anti-religion in any part of public life and very conservative on law and order.

1) Yes.

2) Insert a "NOT" between "is" and "overtly" and you have the situation here. Completely on its head from Europe/UK/Australia. The dems tried to avoid the insertion of religion into the politics for the longest time....and kept losing elections. So they finally gave in to the Dark Side, and now EVERYBODY wears their religion on their sleeve and talks in religious terms. And since most of the voters who vote along dogmatic/religious lines, are not exactly applying critical thinking skills, but going on what their pastors say they should do (of course, electioneering is strictly forbidden for churches if they wish to keep their tax-exempt status - wink wink nudge nudge), soundbytes and bumper sticker slogans using "trigger" words are as effective as not. Of course in fairness, critical thinking skills have been declining here for a long time, and not just amongst the religious voters. Their ascendancy and influence was like the canary in the coal mine though, if you ask me.

3) A mixed platform like that doesn''t exist here, and is a huge part of the problem. The politics here have become a polarized world view/religious war. I know I personally will never support a party who actively courted -and in spite of everything still does court - a huge group of voters based on racism and religion. And the republican party DID. It''s not up for debate. It was called The Southern Strategy (here is a link to an article where the Republican National Committee apologizes for it), and it was tacitly accepted and even applauded by moderate Republicans as long as it was winning elections. The problem was that when they became a block large enough to win elections, they hijacked the party "for God" and increasingly framed all public issues in theological terms. Now that it is falling out of vogue...or rather, the "base" is not so in lockstep as it was, the Republican "moderates" whine about how unfairly they are conflated with the more extreme elements of their party in the rest of the world''s mind. I have no sympathy. They brought that perception on themselves. When they show they are ready to talk to the rest of us out here, I''ll consider some of what they have to say. I''ve read too much history to ever accept the worming of overtly religious rhetoric into government as a harbinger of anything good. And no, I''m not pleased at all that it has entered the Democratic party...like a good European, I want religion OUT of the public discourse.

 

[LaraOnline]

Karen,
You have really helped me understand why there seems such a strong correlation between *coughs* ''redneck, racist, uptight, small town'' thought... and the conservative party over there.
I guess at the end of the day it IS a gross simplification of the reality of the US, but that ''character'' looms fairly large in the foreign understanding of the US people.
I guess it''s a bit like the beer-swilling Aussie yob... there is a grain of truth!! Actually, more than a grain. I guess that''s the thing that can really get under peoples'' skins about stereotypes...there is a level of truth to so many caricatures, that''s why they make us smile.
I hasten to add, in regard to international perception of US people, that there are a number of competing concepts here

many of the US people I have met have been truly outwardly focussed in a way that even the great Aussie traveller (our modern concept of ourselves) is not: high achievers, academic people, free thinkers and not at all beholden to their ''great state of the union''.
However, I do think the natural state of consciousness over there must be fairly unrelentingly self-absorbed... you have a really great national landscape (and natural environment), I can see why it grabs the local imagination and leaves not so much room for outsiders...
I think I have heard passing reference to the ''southern strategy'' before. Shame on them! I guess that''s the great risk of democracy, isn''t it... that ''the mob'' will prevail, over reasoned thought. I mean, we did burn witches, sometimes the group as a whole just aint that smart... here, that dark side of democracy tends to focus on slogging business with ever increasing government taxes, as the populace is largely unsupportive of business interests, and they like their votes to be bought.

 

[starsapphire]

Date: 10/5/2008 9:22:04 AM
Author: Pandora II
First of all, I haven''t read all the other posts.

I''m an elected representative in the UK and work for a major political party - I know a huge amount about UK politics, but I''m not that up on American politics. Here''s my take on things:

- Your politicians seem to think that extreme mud-slinging and negative campaign strategies are a good idea.

- There''s an awful lot of sound bite nonsense and almost no real policy coming out. Everything said plays to the lowest common denominator - don''t you all feel patronised by it?

- Personality seems to be more important than policy.

- I find it incredible that someone like Palin could EVER be a vice-president. She''s a loony gun-toting creationist who has barely set foot outside her back garden... UNBELIEVABLE!

Here, we may have some banter in Prime Minister''s Question Time on Wednesdays in Parliament, but negative campaigning is regarded in a poor light. UK punters want policy detail, not empty motherhood and apple pie waffle or bitchiness about the other candidate. Any politician who is overtly religious will probably not get elected - we don''t ''do'' religion in politics here.

I''m torn on the outcome of the US election - I don''t really like any of the candidates. The Democrats will go for a more insular, protectionist stance that isn''t great for the rest of the world, but while I was quite taken with McCain, the thought of that nutjob as vice-president has left me feeling the world is probably better off with Bush (and that is saying something!).


To give an idea of my politics, most people here would describe me as a Liberal Conservative. I''m pro-choice, pro-small state, pro-low taxes, support homosexual marriage/adoption, pro-free markets, very anti-religion in any part of public life and very conservative on law and order.

I feel patronised by the hi-lighted comments in the quote above.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/6/2008 8:38:42 PM
Author: LaraOnline
Karen,
You have really helped me understand why there seems such a strong correlation between *coughs* 'redneck, racist, uptight, small town' thought... and the conservative party over there.
I guess at the end of the day it IS a gross simplification of the reality of the US, but that 'character' looms fairly large in the foreign understanding of the US people.
I guess it's a bit like the beer-swilling Aussie yob... there is a grain of truth!! Actually, more than a grain. I guess that's the thing that can really get under peoples' skins about stereotypes...there is a level of truth to so many caricatures, that's why they make us smile.
I hasten to add, in regard to international perception of US people, that there are a number of competing concepts here

many of the US people I have met have been truly outwardly focussed in a way that even the great Aussie traveller (our modern concept of ourselves) is not: high achievers, academic people, free thinkers and not at all beholden to their 'great state of the union'.
However, I do think the natural state of consciousness over there must be fairly unrelentingly self-absorbed... you have a really great national landscape (and natural environment), I can see why it grabs the local imagination and leaves not so much room for outsiders...
I think I have heard passing reference to the 'southern strategy' before. Shame on them! I guess that's the great risk of democracy, isn't it... that 'the mob' will prevail, over reasoned thought. I mean, we did burn witches, sometimes the group as a whole just aint that smart... here, that dark side of democracy tends to focus on slogging business with ever increasing government taxes, as the populace is largely unsupportive of business interests, and they like their votes to be bought.

Of course there is more to it, I hasten to say. That was just broad strokes. But since I pretty much explained what you had observed as an outsider but had no explantion for...well...with your political background and perceptiveness, I'll let you decide if what I'm saying passes the "sniff test".

I saw Bill Maher (do you know who he is? Political comedian...just released a movie called "Religilous" here in the states - haven't seen it yet) the other night and he, in his pretty over-the-top way said there were 2 Americas, one progressive and outward-looking and the other....let's just say...backward? He was pretty harsh. But the basic assessment itself is not far wrong, IMO. I know the world sees Bush and thinks the whole country is like him, but it helps to recall that each of his elections was extremely close - in the 2000 election, the loser, Al Gore, actually won MORE of the popular vote. So it was NOT some landslide of support for Bush in either election. And yes, the Southern Strategy is showing itself now clearly as the Faustian deal it always was and is starting to crumble around the edges...at least this time.

If this board does anything I hope it shows - again - that not all Americans fit the sterotype - we're not all redneck, racist, whatever. (Although this board is HARDLY a cross section of America. The US people posting on here are overwhelmingly educated, urban, and overall pretty solvent, usually to a relatively high level in both areas, and that makes a HUGE difference. In my best Okie accent, "Darlin', you ain't met the REAL Joe Six Pack on this board, trust me. ) And in that regard, I sympathize with the conservatives who are tired of that image, even though I still contend that on the world stage, they bear quite a bit of the responsibility for that current perception. But getting indignant about the perception doesn't help, it only reinforces it, even if at times the foreign perceptions are wrong, and they can be just as un-nuanced at times. I don't see that just being outside the US gives the humans out there any particular innoculation against unfairly lumping us all together as a group. We humans do like to take the easy road sometimes. That said though, it certainly won't help the situation to tell everyone who points out that they perceive our collective failings to eff-off. Self-reflection is difficult whether individually or collectively, and usually only comes when you've been forced into it by some sort of pain. But none of it can be done, if we will never first acknowledge that we've ever made a mistake....like Bush himself perhaps?

I get amused, darkly, sometimes, because here in Oklahoma, you see oodles of vehicles - usually the big bloated ones - with bumper stickers that say "God Bless America" in red, white and blue letters, (or a fierce looking eagle's head with a flag airbrushed over the face, with a slogan that says "Fear THIS" - saw that one at lunch today). I always think that if I truly believed in that God, my bumper sticker would say instead, "May God Have Mercy on Our Souls". And that alone might say more about the polarized viewpoints than any other thing...

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 10/6/2008 11:15:25 PM
Author: ksinger
I don''t see that just being outside the US gives the humans out there any particular innoculation against unfairly lumping us all together as a group. We humans do like to take the easy road sometimes.

Hear hear! I whole heartedly agree!!!
But how could you tell me all this, and for us to agree, and then for you to follow with the story of the ''Fear This'' sticker ???!!!

shame on you! hahah

 

[miraclesrule]

At risk of using a football analogy...it''s always easier to see the ball in play when you are up above the fray.

It is very much like being able to have a more objective opinion, such as the global community, when they aren''t in the thick of the polar divide that threatens our country and our constitutional rights.

I do feel extremely patronized by the 5 minute soundbytes on our nearly monopolistic media, primarily owned and operated by a neo-con who openly admits his agenda. It''s no surprise for those who wish to exercise their thinking skills instead of their emotional reactions.

American leaders use fear mongering to make the populace pliable to their control. It''s not like Europe. Terrorist''s have been creating isolated mayhem for years but the Europeon and French just continue to go about their business. They don''t let fear control them. Americans do. Therefore we are easily exploited by would be dictators whose aspirations are those of power and control, over people and wealth. Religion and religious extremists play a huge role in their agenda. Despite this country being founded on the principles of freedom, including religious freedom.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/7/2008 12:09:54 AM
Author: miraclesrule
At risk of using a football analogy...it''s always easier to see the ball in play when you are up above the fray.

It is very much like being able to have a more objective opinion, such as the global community, when they aren''t in the thick of the polar divide that threatens our country and our constitutional rights.

I do feel extremely patronized by the 5 minute soundbytes on our nearly monopolistic media, primarily owned and operated by a neo-con who openly admits his agenda. It''s no surprise for those who wish to exercise their thinking skills instead of their emotional reactions.

American leaders use fear mongering to make the populace pliable to their control. It''s not like Europe. Terrorist''s have been creating isolated mayhem for years but the Europeon and French just continue to go about their business. They don''t let fear control them. Americans do. Therefore we are easily exploited by would be dictators whose aspirations are those of power and control, over people and wealth. Religion and religious extremists play a huge role in their agenda. Despite this country being founded on the principles of freedom, including religious freedom.

On a smaller level, but equally trying, try living in the home state of the Gaylord family....
Needless to say I DON''T read the Daily Disappointment.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/7/2008 12:09:54 AM
Author: miraclesrule
At risk of using a football analogy...it''s always easier to see the ball in play when you are up above the fray.

It is very much like being able to have a more objective opinion, such as the global community, when they aren''t in the thick of the polar divide that threatens our country and our constitutional rights.

I do feel extremely patronized by the 5 minute soundbytes on our nearly monopolistic media, primarily owned and operated by a neo-con who openly admits his agenda. It''s no surprise for those who wish to exercise their thinking skills instead of their emotional reactions.

American leaders use fear mongering to make the populace pliable to their control. It''s not like Europe. Terrorist''s have been creating isolated mayhem for years but the Europeon and French just continue to go about their business. They don''t let fear control them. Americans do. Therefore we are easily exploited by would be dictators whose aspirations are those of power and control, over people and wealth. Religion and religious extremists play a huge role in their agenda. Despite this country being founded on the principles of freedom, including religious freedom.

And there is my ace in the hole, if you will. My leaning in viewing the world has always been "big picture" rather than detail. The danger there is overgeneralization, but I think it''s the only way to view how our situation is actually unfolding. It''s too easy to get mired down in Sarah Palin''s lip liner, or who Obama had lunch with last week, but how we "move" is so much larger.

For the micro details I have History Boy, who assures me that not only have we here in the US been through a similar scenario in the 30''s - (obvious), but also 2 times before...By the time I get here, my details are usually fuzzy, sadly - and he DOES give details. I wish sometimes I could just record his explantory stuff, and then play it back and type it out. It is GOOD to be married to a man who breathes history/government/macroeconomics all day. He''s like a walking text I can consult without reading.

And when he isn''t able to pull it out of memory, he has 27 miles of reference books to peruse.

I kid you not. I''m drowning in history texts and analyses.

 

[Delster]

Date: 10/3/2008 11:04:20 AM
Author: swimmer

Date: 10/3/2008 4:45:20 AM
Author: Delster
I''ve nothing much to add here as bee said it all really in terms of how the US election is portrayed over here.


I don''t post in this section much because I find it very America-centric and, at the moment, very American politics central. I find it anything but an ''Around the World'' board. Kudos to you Freke for being curious, I for one really appreciate your being interested in our (non-Americans) opinions!

Thank you for sharing Delster. Please stick around

and share your thoughts and make topics on politics or world affairs that concern you, Ireland, EU, whoever. Yeah, it is very heavy USA over here, but doesn''t that represent the forum''s population? And come on, for the first time in a long time we have an election that really means something with candidates that come from very different places...and a female vp candidate...and Saturday Night Live...and all the debates and spin...there is just a great deal going on. But please don''t abandon us, or we will miss out on more opps for international perspective.
Thanks for posting!

Hi Swimmer

I do agree it''s an interesting and exciting election this time round for you guys. And of course I agree PS is USA-heavy and of course it should be, it''s a US site! It''s one of the reasons I enjoy reading on here, I get a different perspective on things to what I get here at home.

I just find it a bit intriguing that basically the whole of the ''Around the World'' section of the site at the moment is dominated by American politics. How come these threads aren''t in Hangout? Is there a forum rule that these topics can only be discussed in ATW? Just seems like this section of the site, at the moment, is about anything but ''around the world''...

And don''t worry, I am hanging around, I like it here!

btw ksinger - I love reading what you write. I learn so much more about the States every time you post.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/5/2008 9:22:04 AM
Author: Pandora II
First of all, I haven''t read all the other posts.

I''m an elected representative in the UK and work for a major political party - I know a huge amount about UK politics, but I''m not that up on American politics. Here''s my take on things:

- Your politicians seem to think that extreme mud-slinging and negative campaign strategies are a good idea.

- There''s an awful lot of sound bite nonsense and almost no real policy coming out. Everything said plays to the lowest common denominator - don''t you all feel patronised by it?

- Personality seems to be more important than policy.

- I find it incredible that someone like Palin could EVER be a vice-president. She''s a loony gun-toting creationist who has barely set foot outside her back garden... UNBELIEVABLE!

Here, we may have some banter in Prime Minister''s Question Time on Wednesdays in Parliament, but negative campaigning is regarded in a poor light. UK punters want policy detail, not empty motherhood and apple pie waffle or bitchiness about the other candidate. Any politician who is overtly religious will probably not get elected - we don''t ''do'' religion in politics here.

I''m torn on the outcome of the US election - I don''t really like any of the candidates. The Democrats will go for a more insular, protectionist stance that isn''t great for the rest of the world, but while I was quite taken with McCain, the thought of that nutjob as vice-president has left me feeling the world is probably better off with Bush (and that is saying something!).


To give an idea of my politics, most people here would describe me as a Liberal Conservative. I''m pro-choice, pro-small state, pro-low taxes, support homosexual marriage/adoption, pro-free markets, very anti-religion in any part of public life and very conservative on law and order.

Hmm...I need to move to the UK.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/7/2008 7:16:58 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 10/7/2008 12:09:54 AM
Author: miraclesrule
At risk of using a football analogy...it''s always easier to see the ball in play when you are up above the fray.

It is very much like being able to have a more objective opinion, such as the global community, when they aren''t in the thick of the polar divide that threatens our country and our constitutional rights.

I do feel extremely patronized by the 5 minute soundbytes on our nearly monopolistic media, primarily owned and operated by a neo-con who openly admits his agenda. It''s no surprise for those who wish to exercise their thinking skills instead of their emotional reactions.

American leaders use fear mongering to make the populace pliable to their control. It''s not like Europe. Terrorist''s have been creating isolated mayhem for years but the Europeon and French just continue to go about their business. They don''t let fear control them. Americans do. Therefore we are easily exploited by would be dictators whose aspirations are those of power and control, over people and wealth. Religion and religious extremists play a huge role in their agenda. Despite this country being founded on the principles of freedom, including religious freedom.

And there is my ace in the hole, if you will. My leaning in viewing the world has always been ''big picture'' rather than detail. The danger there is overgeneralization, but I think it''s the only way to view how our situation is actually unfolding. It''s too easy to get mired down in Sarah Palin''s lip liner, or who Obama had lunch with last week, but how we ''move'' is so much larger.

For the micro details I have History Boy, who assures me that not only have we here in the US been through a similar scenario in the 30''s - (obvious), but also 2 times before...By the time I get here, my details are usually fuzzy, sadly - and he DOES give details. I wish sometimes I could just record his explantory stuff, and then play it back and type it out. It is GOOD to be married to a man who breathes history/government/macroeconomics all day. He''s like a walking text I can consult without reading.

And when he isn''t able to pull it out of memory, he has 27 miles of reference books to peruse.

I kid you not. I''m drowning in history texts and analyses.

Holy crap. I think I''m marrying a younger version of your guy!