Posts Tagged ‘political propaganda’


I am sick of this election season, sick of the political process, and most of all, sick of politicians.

All of them … even the ones I might vote for.

The political season is way too long.  (How about if it starts in June before the November election?)

There’s too much dirty money involved.

And the electoral college is, in my judgment, a joke.  (Reason: the presidential candidates only visit certain select states, never setting foot in North Dakota or Utah or Alaska … while visiting California and Illinois and New York to hold fundraisers so they can spend more cash in a small percentage of battleground states.  Living in California, my vote never counts anymore … but with a national, winner-take-all race, every vote would count … and national candidates would be forced to visit more of this great land than they do now.)

Let me briefly tell you why I’m angrier than ever about politics in 2012:

First, candidates use moral terms like “right” and “wrong” and “good” and “bad” in their speaking and ads.

Of course, they are right and good … and their opponents are wrong and bad.

Give me a break.

If a politician has an economic plan, for example, how do we know it’s right or good?

And how do we know his opponent’s plan is wrong or bad?

Maybe the opposite is actually true.

Can we declare a moratorium on using words describing moral judgments for subjective processes?

It’s like saying, “If the coach goes for a field goal in this situation, it’s wrong.”

No, it’s not … but to state that there is only one position when there are other options is itself wrong.

Second, candidates misrepresent their opponent’s positions.

My wife and I watched all three presidential debates … although the third one was largely preempted in our household by a baseball game.

Every minute or two, I spoke to the TV and said, like a broken record:

“That’s not true … that’s not true … that’s not true.”

It’s one thing to go out on the stump and lie about your opponent’s position … but to do it on national television right in front of him?

What kind of sick, twisted people do we have running for office?

Maybe we should give politicians personality tests and throw out everybody who has narcissistic, anti-social (sociopathy), and paranoid personality disorders.

Of course, that might narrow the field down to … zero.

I agree with the pundit who said that every time a candidate lies, a bell should go off in the background.

Or maybe at the end of a debate, fact checkers could say, “The incumbent misstated facts 37 times, while the challenger misstated facts 24 times … and we’re posting our results on such-and-such a website.”

We have to do something to stop this blatant misrepresentation of another person’s positions.

Third, they claim to speak for us … and for me.

The phrase I detest most starts with a politician claiming to speak for “the American people.”

“The American people don’t want to go down that road.”

But maybe I do.

“The American people know my opponent’s plan won’t work.”

But maybe it’s better than your plan.

Whenever a politician says, “The American people …” the next thing he says will be a lie.

Why?  Because the phrase implies that everybody agrees with the politician … but not all of us do.

It would be more accurate to say, “The majority of the American people want this” … but accuracy and political-speak are oxymorons … with the emphasis on morons.

Please, stop telling me that I am supposed to believe what you want me to believe.  When you do that, you’re manipulating, not motivating.

And I refuse to be manipulated.

Fourth, most politicians treat Americans like children rather than adults.

If a political candidate shot his opponent on national television, the shooter’s spinmeisters would quickly appear to say:

“The gun wasn’t loaded.”

“The bullets from that kind of gun won’t kill a person.”

“He’s just faking … he’s not really dead.”

“71% of the American people agreed with what just happened.”

“This won’t hurt our guy in the polls.”

This is why I like Frank Luntz’ focus groups so much.  Rather than hearing what a politician’s supporters think after a debate, I’d rather they hear what we think instead.

And the commercials … with the spooky voice-overs … the distorted photos of one’s opponent … the implication that the opponent is 100% evil … the leaps in logic … and testimonials from people you don’t know or care to know … insult our intelligence.

How stupid do they think we are?

Finally, crowds applaud nearly everything their candidate says.

If I can, I’d like to attend two political rallies that will take place near my apartment in the next few days before the election.

President Obama will be speaking in Concord, New Hampshire on Sunday … just a 15-minute drive from our place.

Mitt Romney will be holding a rally in downtown Manchester on Monday night … less than 10 minutes from our place.

If I attended one or both rallies, I might hear something like this:

“My plan will produce 234 million new jobs over the next 800 years!”

And people would mindlessly cheer.

“My opponent’s plan will send our country into a massive depression that will result in a hostile takeover of our country by an alliance of Greenland and Iceland.”

And people would still cheer.

Can’t people think?  Do they just feel?

It’s like those teenage girls who hear a song and instantly start dancing to it … even though the lyrics promote all manner of evil.

If only all Americans started listening to the lyrics of their politician’s speeches instead of the tunes …

This is just a sampling of the anger I’ve been feeling since for many months.

Feel free to join in … without naming names.

What has made you angry this political season?

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: