http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/sep/02/tony-blair-obama-mccain
"It's one of the oddest things about modern politics. The paradigm imposed, usually by a particular media view, completely disorients the proper analysis. I used to smile at the way the Obama/McCain election of 2008 was framed: Barack was the man of vision, John the old political hack. One seemed to call America to a new future, the other seemed a stale relic of the past. This was a paradigm that determined the mood and defined the election."
"Actually, it was John who was articulating a foreign policy that could be called wildly idealistic for the cause of freedom. Barack was the supreme master of communicating a brilliant vision, but he was a practitioner of realism, advocating a cautious approach based on reaching out, arriving at compromises and striking deals to reduce tension. For these purposes, leave alone who is right. It's just a really interesting feature of modern politics that the mood trumps the policy every time."
Assertion: The media disorients the proper analysis of politics.
Mr Blair has a buried argument that the media manipulates the public, and his use of the word "mood" highlights the use of pathos in order to capitalize on modes of communication. His assertion definitely expresses the futility of trying to get accuracy into an analysis, if it runs counter to the decisions made by the media, whoever that might prove to be. He illustrates his idea with the general labeling of Obama and McCain. Mr Blair is probably advocating a correcting analysis by someone to contrast with the ideas promulgated by media sources.
Assertion: The paradigm used by the media defined the election (of Obama).
Mr Blair views the election of Barak Obama as the end effect of the American media to have him elected. The voting public was cued to vote for Obama.
Assertion: The mood trumps the policy every time.
The media follows a predictable path in the 2008 American election. This "mood" called the results of the election, in the face of reality. Mr Blair sees a twisting of the real Obama, the idealist, and McCain, the realist. Does this mean that reality stands superior to idealism? Blair has not really state which side he has chosen, but it seems to favor McCain's position. This "mood" has taken the preference in the political paradigm?
My observations:
I still believe that the election of a Democrat in 2008 occurred more from a reaction than as an ideological shift in American voting. Americans had grown so weary of the Bush era communications apparatus, that any change looked like an improvement. Would this fit in with Blair's assertions" Did the media decide we were tired of Bush and get the US to follow their lead? If 2012 serves as a continuance of this paradigm, does it portend that the media has chosen Obama over Romney over similar biases and decisions. How does Fox News fit in with this criticism?
I have grown quite skeptical of politics. I find it difficult to accept credible sources for reference. All too often the greatest messages of reality come from the third party candidates that have long had a hard time assuming any credibility, and who suffer permanent damage for even suggesting a need for alternative voices. Has the public seriously considered Perot, Gritz, Paul, Jackson, Johnson, Anderson, and a host of othe?
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Obama on Changing Washington
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-biggest-failure-immigration-reform-change-washington-univision-2012-9
"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."
"That's how I got elected. That's how the big accomplishments like health care got done — because we mobilized the American people to speak out. That's how we were able to cut middle-class taxes. So, something I'd really like to be able to concentrate on in my second term is being in a much more constant conversation with the American people, so that they can put pressure on Congress to move some of these issues forward."
Assertion: You can only change Washington from the outside.
This is the gaffe line, at least according to some Republican commentators. They retort--then he can change it from outside. What Obama actually meant, according to himself--it will take pressure outside Washington to force a change, namely the people. This latter statement appears as a very credible observation, for both parties, and has been so for many years. Reagan used a connection on several occasions to get the population to pressure elected officials. Clinton also used this force effectively.
Assertion: We mobilized the American people to speak out (and got health care).
This one needs some proof. The ACA passed along partisan lines, a majority ramming it through against the fury of the sizable minority. Even now the public does not seem to have a loyalty to ACA, mostly because there is no reason to feel such a passion except for a couple notable exceptions--pre-existing conditions, and coverage until age 26. I don't buy the assertion.
Assertion: The American people can put pressure on Congress to move issues forward.
Probably an accurate observation. The pressure could work; however, the public has as many reservations and partisan positions as does the Congress.
My reflections:
I believe the President is seeking for an effective way to govern. If reelected, he may very well go public for some of his most wanted items. To succeed he will need to garner a great deal of energy from the public. Although possible, Obama has no proof that it will work. If the method works, why hasn't he already done this.
"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."
"That's how I got elected. That's how the big accomplishments like health care got done — because we mobilized the American people to speak out. That's how we were able to cut middle-class taxes. So, something I'd really like to be able to concentrate on in my second term is being in a much more constant conversation with the American people, so that they can put pressure on Congress to move some of these issues forward."
Assertion: You can only change Washington from the outside.
This is the gaffe line, at least according to some Republican commentators. They retort--then he can change it from outside. What Obama actually meant, according to himself--it will take pressure outside Washington to force a change, namely the people. This latter statement appears as a very credible observation, for both parties, and has been so for many years. Reagan used a connection on several occasions to get the population to pressure elected officials. Clinton also used this force effectively.
Assertion: We mobilized the American people to speak out (and got health care).
This one needs some proof. The ACA passed along partisan lines, a majority ramming it through against the fury of the sizable minority. Even now the public does not seem to have a loyalty to ACA, mostly because there is no reason to feel such a passion except for a couple notable exceptions--pre-existing conditions, and coverage until age 26. I don't buy the assertion.
Assertion: The American people can put pressure on Congress to move issues forward.
Probably an accurate observation. The pressure could work; however, the public has as many reservations and partisan positions as does the Congress.
My reflections:
I believe the President is seeking for an effective way to govern. If reelected, he may very well go public for some of his most wanted items. To succeed he will need to garner a great deal of energy from the public. Although possible, Obama has no proof that it will work. If the method works, why hasn't he already done this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)