Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Obama and the Politics of Crowds
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html

Most important:

It was no accident that the white working class was the last segment of the population to sign up for the Obama journey. Their hesitancy was not about race. They were men and women of practicality; they distrusted oratory, they could see through the falseness of the solidarity offered by this campaign. They did not have much, but believed in the legitimacy of what little they had acquired. They valued work and its rewards. They knew and heard of staggering wealth made by the Masters of the Universe, but held onto their faith in the outcomes that economic life decreed. The economic hurricane that struck America some weeks ago shook them to the core. They now seek protection, the shelter of the state, and the promise of social repair. The bonuses of the wizards who ran the great corporate entities had not bothered them. It was the spectacle of the work of the wizards melting before our eyes that unsettled them.

Emphasis mine, although the whole paragraph is important. People will actually be voting this election out of jealousy. They will cast a ballot for inequality. Inequality that to them seems fair, they may have even tricked themselves to thinking it, but it is not fair. I know a few on this forum who will be voting, and who hold a lot of jealousy and contempt for those better off. To those I say, welcome to America, you have and have had your chance. You make yourself who you are and you are exactly where you deserve to be.

Really? Because I'm a white working class person, and I am royally off that whilst other people are being laid off, the that caused this whole mess are *still* getting sickening bonuses.

I don't hold contempt for those better off, if they have earnt their crust Hell, my Grandad was born into the workhouse (born a bastard child just after the 1st World War. Not a great start) and has clawed his way up to a position of great success. Not jealous or envious of that in anyway.

But what I do despise are massive bonuses and salaries that are simply not deserved, especially when the house of cards built to provide them has just blown over.

Go on. Justify it. Justify why one of the conditions laid down to Barclay's when they bought bits of Lehman Brothers, was that a very, very high percentage of the Billion Dollar deal was earmarked for bonuses for the people who brought the banking world to it's knees.

Oh, sorry. You can't. Can you.

PanamaG wrote: To those I say, welcome to America, you have and have had your chance. You make yourself who you are and you are exactly where you deserve to be.

Which only works if it is a fair chance, which it frequently isn't.

I fail to see why people voting as they desire a change is or woould be any worse than people voting to maintain a status quo as they have benefitted from the current situation.

The redistribution agenda that runs through Mr. Obama's vision is anathema to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and the hedge-fund managers now smitten with him.

Yeah as people like Bill gates et al don't give anything to charity or come out in favour of inheritence tax etc etc.

And people don't associate marches and crowds with American politics ? Really ? The marches you have undertaken are quite famous.

N.B. Regarding having your chance....

How do already established, large national and multinational chains give any chance to the local business? WalMart moves to town, annihilates the competition by offering prices the wee man can't. Sure, thats the free market right there, and it is a matter of consumer choice. But how can anyone now start another Walmart without having extreme financial backing already? Can you answer that at the same time please? Or do you just repeat propaganda and hope everyone else is as blindly faithful as yourself?

Don't feed the Troll.

That not a Troll, just someone with a different viewpoint Valhallan. Now here's a troll

No, thats a Cylon. And not the hot blonde one either.

Fraz, I'd agree with you if the majority of his posts weren't political in nature.

It'd be the same as me just joining the forum, posting a few pics of my marines, and then shoving anti-McCain tracts down your throat ad-nausem.

72% of his posts have been political. Last time I checked, this was a forum for wargames discussion with an offtopic board, not vise versa.

Dem's fightin words Scottie!





Now here's a right and proper troll

Valhallan42nd wrote:Fraz, I'd agree with you if the majority of his posts weren't political in nature.

It'd be the same as me just joining the forum, posting a few pics of my marines, and then shoving anti-McCain tracts down your throat ad-nausem.

72% of his posts have been political. Last time I checked, this was a forum for wargames discussion with an offtopic board, not vise versa.

Respectfully, most of the posters in this dark underbellyb of dakka are political poster junkies. I mean look at Ragnar getting ready to push send on another posting. You can't get more political than that

Valhallan42nd wrote:Fraz, I'd agree with you if the majority of his posts weren't political in nature.

It'd be the same as me just joining the forum, posting a few pics of my marines, and then shoving anti-McCain tracts down your throat ad-nausem.

72% of his posts have been political. Last time I checked, this was a forum for wargames discussion with an offtopic board, not vise versa.

To be fair, it should be noted that this is the pre-election time in the US so a high proportion of political posts can be expected. PanamaG is a fairly new user and hasn't built up a big stock of wargame posts. This doesn;t mean he is trolling.

Also, as you said this is a wargames forum -- that means it's not the place to come and troll about politics.

In short, whilst I disagree with PanamaG's views, I don't believe he is trolling and as long as he sticks to the forum posting rules there is no reason to take issue with it.

It's more the post and leg it approach he takes.

IMO, that article is borderline racist specifically attributing to white people the quality of "value(-ing) work and its rewards." Does that mean Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians don't? Why does it attribute only to whites the ability to "see through the falseness of the solidarity offered by this campaign"?

I don't think the line "white working class" is so much an insinuation that non-whites are not hard working and such that it goes on to say, but a pre-emptive clarification, as the whole "people won't vote for him because they are racist" idea is heavily over-attributed. There WILL be people voting for or against him based on race, but I think the author of this article is working from the idea that the reader will have assumed race is a much larger issue with people that it actually is.

PanamaG wrote:People will actually be voting this election out of jealousy.

Brilliant, really truly brilliant. Most hard right nutburgers are happy just quoting the Wall Street Journal. But that isn't enough for PanamaG. You need to misquote the Journal to get it as nutburgery as you. And that's a point where you really know you've reached a special place in politics... when you have to misquote the WSJ to get it as far right as you.

For what's its worth, the article was interesting... it's points on movement politics were interesting. The article was also nutty in its own way (a war of choice in Iraq - what does that even mean?). Then PanamaG's summary... was a lot more nutty, and nutty in a way that few others can manage. Let's just say the WSJ article didn't touch on jealousy as an issue at all, and why PanamaG read that into the article could be the course of many polisci and psych courses.

To sample a couple of the article author's points:

People turning out in tens of thousands to see a candidate means they’re uneasy, not that they’re inspired.
Has he actually tried talking to any of them?

Obama’s agenda is anathema to people who are smitten with him.
Huh?

White working class people got excited about Obama later because they’re practical, distrustful of oratory, and “see through the falseness of solidarity”.
I see. Solidarity was good enough to get us things like a weekend, and overtime, and vacation time, but it's false now. Got it.

His points about charisma not being a substitute for action, and that people can’t just rely on a savior to fix all their problems, are legitimate. But he’s got some pretty smelly stuff mixed in with his (not particularly insightful) valid observations.

People will actually be voting this election out of jealousy. They will cast a ballot for inequality. Inequality that to them seems fair, they may have even tricked themselves to thinking it, but it is not fair. I know a few on this forum who will be voting, and who hold a lot of jealousy and contempt for those better off.

Interesting. I can think of someone who might find such emotions among his motivations. Someone who definitely displays at least the latter impulse towards the man he chooses to make his avatar.

To those I say, welcome to America, you have and have had your chance. You make yourself who you are and you are exactly where you deserve to be.

Welcome to America. A country whose wealth and consumption are unrivaled, but whose overall quality of health care is barely in the top 40 in the world. A country where we saw the failures of unregulated greed in the stock market wipe out ordinary people’s fortunes, and we agreed as a society that our elderly need a safety net and some guaranteed income. At the time some people called it socialism, but the majority saw it as a worthwhile endeavor, and a necessary redistribution of wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Creation:_The_Social_Security_Act

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://allcountries.org/health/usa_health_care_2008_nyt.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

Railguns wrote:I don't think the line "white working class" is so much an insinuation that non-whites are not hard working and such that it goes on to say, but a pre-emptive clarification, as the whole "people won't vote for him because they are racist" idea is heavily over-attributed. There WILL be people voting for or against him based on race, but I think the author of this article is working from the idea that the reader will have assumed race is a much larger issue with people that it actually is.

No, I call B.S. The author claims that whites were late to the table not because of race, but because of certain values and qualities. The clear implication is that other ethnic groups don't share them.

It's straight out of central casting -- white working class people are the simple, hard-working, God-fearing folks who don't trust fast-talkers and like to look you in the eyes when they shake your hand, etc. Other ethnicities are impractical people more easily seduced by the silver tongue and more willing to look for government handouts, etc. It's all pretty ironic, actually. He's trying to disprove the existence of prejudice based on some fairly prejudiced and racist notions.

It's ugly, but we should all be prepared for more ugliness in the aftermath of the election, no matter who wins.

Yeah, we have to trust that we won't have this election stolen by republican cheating again, or screwed up beyond all hope of figuring out by the voting machines, and even then, after a president, house and congress are seated, there's the army of lobbyists to fear. It's as if the people are in a war against the corporate interests, but we're not legally or financially capable of fighting back. PanamaG is obviously on the side of the corporate weasels.
There, if that was what you're 'trolling' for, you got it.

PanamaG wrote:
Emphasis mine, although the whole paragraph is important. People will actually be voting this election out of jealousy. They will cast a ballot for inequality. Inequality that to them seems fair, they may have even tricked themselves to thinking it, but it is not fair. I know a few on this forum who will be voting, and who hold a lot of jealousy and contempt for those better off. To those I say, welcome to America, you have and have had your chance.

Why isn't it fair, PanamaG? More to the point, what is fair? Who decides that? And what might the ramifications of that fairness be?

PanamaG wrote:
You make yourself who you are and you are exactly where you deserve to be.

Ah, I see it now. You aren't a Republican. You're a Feudalist.

I guess I'm not savvy to racist implications? I don't know. I just started tuning it out because it never mattered to me, my family, or any of our friends, regardless of where they were from or who they were.

But I am a bit worried about race riots, should Obama lose. Even if he legitimately loses, I know, for a fact, that certain individuals I know will go absolutely insane and claim (see note) "dem damn Republicans done stole our election again!"

(Note:That isn't racism, by the way. Thats really how many of the more vocal Obama supporters speak around here. I'm not kidding. Nothing against them, but for all you out there that are going to try and pin racism on me you should know where I'm coming from.)

Edited for superfluos smilies where I didn't want them

dogma wrote:

PanamaG wrote:
Emphasis mine, although the whole paragraph is important. People will actually be voting this election out of jealousy. They will cast a ballot for inequality. Inequality that to them seems fair, they may have even tricked themselves to thinking it, but it is not fair. I know a few on this forum who will be voting, and who hold a lot of jealousy and contempt for those better off. To those I say, welcome to America, you have and have had your chance.

Why isn't it fair, PanamaG? More to the point, what is fair? Who decides that? And what might the ramifications of that fairness be?

PanamaG wrote:
You make yourself who you are and you are exactly where you deserve to be.

Ah, I see it now. You aren't a Republican. You're a Feudalist.

Thats not quite fair. While I frequently disagree with PanamaG and I don't think all of his posts are original and eloquent, there may be a point here. I never could stand a populist, I've always felt that the politics of the masses were simultaneously weak yet dangerous. I've always been attracted to exclusive rather than inclusive organizations and concepts. However, I surely hope that PanamaG applies that same reasoning to Mrs. Palin, who I believe to be a populist of the first order.

Edit:spelling

So, in order to garner the vote of the man in the street, the Politician *shouldn't* attempt to come up with policies which will please said mook?

Of course Politicians are populists. Thats how you get elected.

It's not quite that simple. There's a difference between appealing to the common voter as opposed to gaining popularity by stirring a mob to fear or anger against a hated group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism