Speaking Of Racist Advertising...

June 16, 2012 1:25 PM

"I would say that Obama’s first campaign is probably the most successful advertising campaign in the history of the world, which took someone who was relatively unknown for years and turning him two years later into the most powerful person in the world—and no one actually knows exactly really what he stands for."

Hank Willis Thomas, in a Q&A, discusses his work, its relationship to advertising, surviving a voyage on a slave ship, tattooing the Nike logo on your forehead, making depressing art and not making depressing art, Joe Frazier in a bonnet and butter/margarine, Warhol and Richard Prince, the metaphorical power of breakfast cereal, murder, and a lot of other artsy stuff.

Who is this guy? His website and Wikipedia can answer that!

posted by artof.mulata (93 comments total)

And if you don’t it’s cereal. It’s thinly veiled. And also it comments on the fact that politically we get these two choices that are supposed to be radically different, and anybody on either fringe says that they’re basically the same.

Gah. Bush v Gore, Obama v McCain, and (ffs) Biden v Palin. It isn't that close.
posted by Space_Lady at 1:29 PM on June 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

It isn't that close.

It's not as close as, say, Coke v Pepsi, but it's certainly as close as, say, Chex v Cheerios. In the end, they're both extruded grain flour paste that you put into a bowl and eat. The choice offered between the R and the D may contain differences, but the overlap in their approach is pretty huge, and has been for a while.

I'd love to see a political contest which was much further apart, like Cereal v Bacon&Eggs. Or even Bacon&Eggs v Roast Lamb. You know, a contest between things which are actually markedly different.

But then, I'm probably from one of the fringes which Thomas acknowledges sees the current political system as combat between mostly congruent factions.
posted by hippybear at 1:37 PM on June 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

I tried Cheerios the other day and they invaded Iraq
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:40 PM on June 16, 2012 [25 favorites]

It's not as close as, say, Coke v Pepsi, but it's certainly as close as, say, Chex v Cheerios.

It's the difference between horrible mismanagement continuing the Bush "legacy" and a return to basically functional governance. The Bush years showed the Republicans to be the party of incompetence, and we should not forget that. Obama isn't perfect, but at least he seems to be good at being president, as far as that goes when Congress has fought him on EVERYTHING.
posted by JHarris at 1:41 PM on June 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

Bacon & Eggs is totalitarian dictatorship, The World Famous.
posted by juv3nal at 1:41 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did he forget Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004?

I don't totally understand how it happened, but Obama was definitely being groomed for a run at the presidency before 2006 and I think that was apparent to at least the people who vote in presidential primaries. (Anyone got a good memory of the 2004 Illinois senate race? I don't think Obama was even expected to win that primary.)
posted by hoyland at 1:43 PM on June 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Hope & Chex!
posted by chavenet at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

A great quote from the end of the interview, "In a day and age when everything is so ordered—where we have wristwatches, iPhones, iPads, TiVo, all these things that arrange and order our lives—something is just not normal. That’s not how we were created as organic animals. And part of the role of the artist in the 20th and 21st century is to actually do the things that don’t make sense. So it’s okay for somebody to say, "I just mess around with chairs," or "I just look at the color blue because it’s really interesting to me." It opens doors to our minds that are less tapped, less used, because we’re not robots. And societies where art is repressed wind up in fascist societies, and they don’t last as we saw with communism. If you suppress those voices, people freak out and it collapses. Because it’s in our nature to do what we’re not doing right now."
posted by artof.mulata at 1:58 PM on June 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

See and here I want us all to move past BREAKFAST and get to lunch already.
posted by Ron Thanagar at 1:59 PM on June 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Democrats: "Vote for us and we'll do the right thing and ignore all that campaign funding by the special interests."

Republicans: "Vote for us and we'll do the right thing and ignore all that campaign funding by those same special interests."

See the difference?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:05 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

TiVo

Umm, how is time shifting more ordered and arranged than the alternative?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:05 PM on June 16, 2012

Hell, Romney has been running for the presidency and various public offices for god knows how long and people still don't really know for sure what he stands for. Pick an issue and he's been on all three sides of it.
posted by edgeways at 2:05 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

In a day and age when everything is so ordered—where we have wristwatches...

Maybe in a drawer somewhere, wristwatches are almost extinct.
posted by StickyCarpet at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Umm, how is time shifting more ordered and arranged than the alternative?

It's a schedule determined by the individual rather than by external forces. Just as all those other things allow the individual to create their own scheduled reality. It fits in with the larger statement about individual ordering of lives playing against the historical mode of having to go along with what the world around you was doing.
posted by hippybear at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2012

Obama isn't perfect, but at least he seems to be good at being president, as far as that goes when Congress has fought him on EVERYTHING.

His party controlled congress for the first half of his term. I don't understand why people keep forgetting this.
posted by hartez at 2:10 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe in a drawer somewhere, wristwatches are almost extinct.

This may be true in your life, but is not true in society at large.
posted by hippybear at 2:10 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

His party controlled congress for the first half of his term.

No, his party had a majority in Congress, but the Republican minority which held 41 seats in the Senate had control thanks to rules having to do with cloture and such.
posted by hippybear at 2:11 PM on June 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

It's not as close as, say, Coke v Pepsi, but it's certainly as close as, say, Chex v Cheerios.

It’s more like the difference between cow dung and dog shit. Both are generally made of processed animal feed, one based on corn and other grains, and sometimes with necrotized bits of machine separated soon-to-be-cannibalized cow meat; and the other largely made up of mechanically separated cast offs of various animal bits considered unsuitable for human consumption (even worse than pink sludge). But if you look closer, one actually has a lot redeeming value as fuel, fertilizer and even building material. And the other is still just dog shit.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:14 PM on June 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

These's this sort of meme that both sides are equally corrupt, both in the pocket of big business, both acting the same, and so therefore who's president doesn't really matter. It's not true, and it's destructive.

This week, the Obama administration announced plans to stop deporting immigrants who had been brought here as children, effectively fulfilling much of the stalled Dream act. Would John McCain have done this?

The next day, President Obama hosted an LGBT Pride Reception reception at the Whitehouse. Would John McCain have done this? And if he did, would it have been part of a long concerted effort to improve gay rights, including directing the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA and becoming the first president in history to public ally support marriage equality? Would Vice President Palin have helped drive President McCain towards that public support as Biden did?

Would President Romney continue these policies?

There's a difference.
posted by jacobian at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2012 [29 favorites]

Would President Romney continue these policies?

Gary Johnson might.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:25 PM on June 16, 2012

His party controlled congress for the first half of his term. I don't understand why people keep forgetting this.

It had a razor-thin majority that died with Ted Kennedy; Scott Brown was elected to fill that seat in January of 2010, less than a year after Obama had taken office. I don't understand why people keep forgetting this.
posted by anigbrowl at 2:25 PM on June 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

Because "razor thin" also equals a bigger majority than they are likely to have in the next few decades.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:26 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's frankly shocking to me that this meme persists on the left (and pretty much ONLY on the left, which I think says a lot). The election where it was strongest - strong enough to enter the mainstream - was the same election that gave us the worst president since James Buchanan. And yet every four years, people who I regard as political allies spout off with this shit. When will you learn that there is a very substantive difference between the parties, and it doesn't disappear because Obama didn't close Guantanomo or magically pass billions in infrastructural/social spending through an intransigent congress.
posted by mellow seas at 2:28 PM on June 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

And it was a razor thin supermajority, not a razor thin majority.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:31 PM on June 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

These's this sort of meme that both sides are equally corrupt, both in the pocket of big business, both acting the same, and so therefore who's president doesn't really matter. It's not true, and it's destructive.

You guys are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts:

Pharma Election Money Backs Obama (August 19, 2008)
White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost (August 5, 2009)
Obama Was Pushed by Drug Industry, E-Mails Suggest (June 8, 2012)

We saw what happened to the promises of healthcare reform made to the public in one campaign speech after another. I used to say that his election and the Democrat majority in the House and Senate was a once-in-a-generation opportunity that was lost, but now I understand more fully that we never had a chance, because these guys were all bought and paid for before the process even had a chance to start.

Just because Obama says he likes gay people at fundraisers doesn't make him much or any less corrupted by big business than his opponent.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

(and pretty much ONLY on the left, which I think says a lot).

Oh please, they call half their party RINO.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2012

A nice, long interview about an artist and his art and we immediately go into circular firing squad mode over a few paragraphs about Obama. That's framing for you.
posted by charred husk at 2:35 PM on June 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

Let's not forget Obama's stellar civil rights record re domestic surveillance, as noted by the ACLU and EFF. How does an Obama apologist explain that?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:37 PM on June 16, 2012

Because "razor thin" also equals a bigger majority than they are likely to have in the next few decades.

Since the demographic trends are running against the Republicans, I don't find that claim very convincing.

And it was a razor thin supermajority, not a razor thin majority.

That's the only kind that matters in the Senate under current cloture rules.
posted by anigbrowl at 2:38 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

ZenMaster, literally nobody in this thread has defended those policies, or said that there weren't certain areas of policy where the parties are very closely aligned.
posted by mellow seas at 2:40 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I would argue that if your 60 votes include Lieberman, who campaigned for McCain, you don't really have a supermajority. Other Dems, like Baucas, Nelson and Specter weren't much better, either.

And I do feel bad about how this thread has been derailed, but this is the discussion we ended up with.
posted by mellow seas at 2:43 PM on June 16, 2012

Um, yeah. That's why I asked.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:43 PM on June 16, 2012

And I do feel bad about how this thread has been derailed, but this is the discussion we ended up with.

That pull quote at the top pretty much guaranteed the thread would be about Obama.
posted by anigbrowl at 2:48 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Since the demographic trends are running against the Republicans, I don't find that claim very convincing.

You have a pretty lazy understanding then, both of how demographics may change their preferences over time and how parties shift preferences over time.

TDB: To be sure, most Latinos these days vote Democratic. But they also tend to be somewhat culturally conservative. Almost all are at least nominally Christian, and roughly one in four is a member of an evangelical church. They also have been moving to the suburbs for the past decade or more—a trend that is of great concern to city-centric Democratic planners.

A more integrated, suburban, and predominantly English-speaking Latino community could benefit a GOP (assuming it eschews stridently nativist platform). After all, it wasn’t so long ago that upward of 40 percent of Latinos voted for the likes of George W. Bush, who won a majority of Latino Protestants.

TAP: “Latinos seem to be on a similar trajectory as Italians,” he says. “At the turn of the century, the Italians were seen as a stigmatized minority group that could not be assimilated into the American mainstream.” It was common to describe Italians as “dark,” “swarthy,” and—in language that also has characterized African Americans—prone to crime and poverty. But as Italians rose out of working-class professions and joined a burgeoning middle class, they and other “nonwhite” immigrants assimilated. Eventually, the New Deal, along with unions, service in World War II, and the G.I. Bill, brought Italians fully into American life.

The politics of Italian Americans changed with their shifting status. As the party most identified with immigrants, Democrats gained an early lead with Italian Americans; they formed a key part in Franklin Roosevelt’s victorious coalition and proved crucial to Democratic successes through the 1960s. But as Italians became fully assimilated, and Democrats championed the rights of racial minorities and women’s rights, the balance shifted. By the 1980s, Italians would join most white Americans in voting Republican.

So, maybe sometime in the future you can get up to 59-60 again, but it isn't certain. Add in the growing influence of money into the equation and it's kind of hard to believe it's going to get that far out of balance, especially when Republicans can easily obstruct literally anything Democrats want to do in congress even when the Dems do have the thin supermajority. How are you going to do stuff to make Democrats popular when Republicans can block everything?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:50 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

(...wristwatches are almost extinct.) This may be true in your life, but is not true in society at large.
posted by hippybear

Never worn one myself, but two friends of mine have seen their supposed nest-egg collections crash in value.

As a never-watch-wearer I'm always asking people on the street what time it is, and it's been quite a while since they didn't pull out a cell phone in response.
posted by StickyCarpet at 3:02 PM on June 16, 2012

[Bad framing of the FPP is right; I read the pull-quote as an intro to discussing the symbolic/metaphoric aspects of advertising and an inversion on the typicality of the black male body in its clutches. I blew it; too much coffee and Barthes before posting. Oh well, off to watch season 4 of The Wire!]
posted by artof.mulata at 3:04 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

We saw what happened to the promises of healthcare reform made to the public in one campaign speech after another. I used to say that his election and the Democrat majority in the House and Senate was a once-in-a-generation opportunity that was lost, but now I understand more fully that we never had a chance, because these guys were all bought and paid for before the process even had a chance to start.

Almost every major provision of his health plan was in the final bill. The major change was adding the mandate.

Are people really shocked that the businesses being regulated are trying to have a say in their regulation? The kind of things spouted off about this make me think a whole generation came up hating Bush and the war but knowing next to nothing about our political system. Especially in separation of powers. Doesn't anyone pay attention? Congress is the preeminent body in our government. That's how the founders set it up. And the Senate is slow.

More important, the GOP has dominated the legislative branch and the House for the last 20 years. The Republicans have held the Speakership 14 of the last 20 years. The Dems have held the Presidency and the Speakership at the same time for only 4 years during that time.

This means it has been exceedingly hard to get our policies in place. More importantly, the focus has exclusively on Obama. Nobody on our side seems to focus on calling their congressman or how they are voting.

Obama is castigated for doing exactly what he said he would do. I don't get that. Nobody was watching when he said he was going to ramp up in Afghanistan? Nobody paid any attention to the details of the health plan which he followed nearly to the letter? Nobody watched when he said he'd go after bin Laden in Pakistan without telling the Pakistanis? It was in a political debate on national TV and McCain said it was wrong to telegraph our plans.

Instead, people didn't pay attention and saw what they wanted. They wanted Jed Bartlet, while conveniently forgetting that fictional president ordered a targeted killing of a terrorist with zero legal authority on the show.

They also forgot history--and called a relatively close election a "landslide" and Obama a new FDR without actually looking back to see the huge majorities FDR had were far greater, or that those majorities were bought and paid for with continuing federal support for racial segregation.

Most of all, they forgot the inherently human and flawed nature of politics and assumed that with a snap of the fingers and no need for support via calling legislators or voicing support for the general public.

It was all going to be so easy. And Obama would never have to compromise, get the support of business leaders or moderates. It would be done with the snap of a finger.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:05 PM on June 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

Democrat majority

Democratic majority.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:08 PM on June 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

So, maybe sometime in the future you can get up to 59-60 again, but it isn't certain. Add in the growing influence of money into the equation and it's kind of hard to believe it's going to get that far out of balance, especially when Republicans can easily obstruct literally anything Democrats want to do in congress even when the Dems do have the thin supermajority. How are you going to do stuff to make Democrats popular when Republicans can block everything?

You have to stick together in that atmosphere. You have to not stab the guy with power whose closest to your position in the back.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:08 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sticky-Carpet: I'm a hippie, and as such I haven't worn a watch in decades.

but I will tell you, in the blue collar world in which I work, I see people with watched on all the time. Literally everyone else in the warehouse in which I work wears one, most of the places where I deliver stuff when I'm out on route, people are wearing watches. There are regular advertisements for stupidly expensive watches on both The Daily Show / The Colbert Report hour and The Rachel Maddow Show, as well as in many of the magazines I get.

Wristwatches are shockingly commonplace, even today. And I notice them, as I'm not likely to ask people what time it is -- I have a pretty good internal time sense. But I do routinely look around for watches and clocks to verify that I haven't gotten too far off base, and am quite expert at reading the time off of someone else's wrist. And a great many of wrists have opportunities for me to read time.
posted by hippybear at 3:11 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

ZenMaster, literally nobody in this thread has defended those policies, or said that there weren't certain areas of policy where the parties are very closely aligned.

Amen.

Some people seem to have a problem recognizing distinctions once they've found commonalities. Probably a variant of the focus illusion rather than a special cognitive failing.
posted by weston at 3:11 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

You have to stick together in that atmosphere. You have to not stab the guy with power whose closest to your position in the back.

It doesn't matter, the Republicans can still block everything. Your disagreement with me means you are ignorant of politics and think everything works like it does on TV like That's My Bush obviously.

Almost every major provision of his health plan was in the final bill. The major change was adding the mandate.

You accidentally forgot to mention the public option.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:12 PM on June 16, 2012

Maybe in a drawer somewhere, wristwatches are almost extinct.

This may be true in your life, but is not true in society at large.

OK, I am a pretty hirsute dude and I don't understand how so many people wear wristwatches, at least the ones with the metal bands. Those things get stuck in my arm hair every time I try to put them on and it hurts like the dickens!
posted by dhens at 3:13 PM on June 16, 2012

Obama isn't perfect, but at least he seems to be good at being president, as far as that goes when Congress has fought him on EVERYTHING.

His party controlled congress for the first half of his term. I don't understand why people keep forgetting this.

There's a such thing as the filibuster. I don't understand why people keep forgetting this.

They passed a stimulus, pay equality, the first general atonal healthcare program, financial reform, extended unemployment benefits and repealed DADT. I don't understand why people keep forgetting this.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

And it was a razor thin supermajority, not a razor thin majority...
posted by anigbrowl

Those thin watches are the best.

And I do feel bad about how this thread has been derailed, but this is the discussion we ended up with.
posted by mellow seas

Oh.
posted by StickyCarpet at 3:21 PM on June 16, 2012

Can't someone prefer a problematic Obama to the catastrophic potential of a Romney without being an Obama apologist?
posted by Glinn at 3:24 PM on June 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Let's complete the Obama cynic's trifecta by observing that anything good that Obama has done, was done only because the activists held his feet to the fire, and nothing else of value would have ever been accomplished otherwise.
posted by fatbird at 3:26 PM on June 16, 2012

Can't someone prefer a problematic Obama to the catastrophic potential of a Romney without being an Obama apologist?

Absolutely. Some people around here do seem to want it both ways though.

He passed all this amazing progressive legislation Republicans hate! Of course, that stuff you want is impossible to pass because Republicans fillibuster any amazing progressive legislation Republicans hate!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:27 PM on June 16, 2012

Let's complete the Obama cynic's trifecta by observing that anything good that Obama has done, was done only because the activists held his feet to the fire, and nothing else of value would have ever been accomplished otherwise.

Or the opposite, "You activists are totally useless this was all Obama...of course we need your emmense power to help us get him elected again or else his loss is all your fault."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:29 PM on June 16, 2012

You have a pretty lazy understanding then, both of how demographics may change their preferences over time and how parties shift preferences over time.

This from the guy who says he's sure the Democrats are going to be out of power for decades to come. I've been hearing Republicans say that Latinos are conservatives-in-waiting for over a decade now. Somehow I don't think that they'e going to be in a big hurry to support a party that fucked them over for a generation.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:29 PM on June 16, 2012

*immense, damn you Obama why don't you pass the mandatory edit windows on discussion forum bill!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:30 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

This from the guy who says he's sure the Democrats are going to be out of power for decades to come.

You are again confusing supermajorities and majorities. I'm posting too much, take any direct comments to memail, please.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:32 PM on June 16, 2012

Some people seem to have a problem recognizing distinctions once they've found commonalities. Probably a variant of the focus illusion rather than a special cognitive failing.

Oh, dear, yes. My cognitive impairment is legion. That God for your superior insight, and for your gentleness ... without even the slightest whiff of condescension. I bow humbly to your singularly perfect clarity of mind.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:32 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

You accidentally forgot to mention the public option.

Don't remember him running on the public option. That was derailed by Blanche Lincoln anyway, who got up on the floor and said she'd vote with the GOP to filibuster. She was up for reelection that year. The effort to primary her for that failed miserably too.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Politifact: Public option was in Obama's platform
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2012

It doesn't matter, the Republicans can still block everything.

Nonsense. The Republicans are only able to block things because the Democratic party is too feeble and too co-opted by financial/corporate money to fight them. Here's a thought experiment: if the GOP had a president and the same majority the Democrats had, would they have been as stymied as the Obama administration was? Clearly, the answer to that is a resounding no.

Regarding the difference between the parties: yes, they are very different. The GOP is now verging on out-right theocratic fascism; The Democratic Party is neoliberal. So... in the US we go all the way from center-right to hard right in our choices. Does this make a difference for, say, supreme court appointments? It absolutely does, so that's well worth considering.

But will it help us avoid global environmental catastrophe? NO. I no longer believe it will. The time for incremental improvements has passed, I fear. So I am strongly tending toward the belief that we just have to get the collapse over with as soon as possible. Not very optimistic, nor conducive to Democratic party activism (and I say that as a previously very engaged Democrat).
posted by mondo dentro at 3:38 PM on June 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

My sister explained to me at dinner the other day that she didn't know how to read her wristwatch, and wore it purely as a fashion accessory. Us bourgeoisie ain't what we used to be.
posted by mek at 3:39 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

He passed all this amazing progressive legislation Republicans hate! Of course, that stuff you want is impossible to pass because Republicans fillibuster any amazing progressive legislation Republicans hate!

Hello. The 60-vote total existed from July 7, 2009 to April 4, 2010.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:40 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Nonsense. The Republicans are only able to block things because the Democratic party is too feeble and too co-opted by financial/corporate money to fight them. Here's a thought experiment: if the GOP had a president and the same majority the Democrats had, would they have been as stymied as the Obama administration was? Clearly, the answer to that is a resounding no.

Really? Because they've never been able to pass shit worth shit. They got three bills of any consequence passed in 8 years of Bush. Just three.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:43 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hi! You were agreeing with the comment you replied to!

Obama isn't perfect, but at least he seems to be good at being president, as far as that goes when Congress has fought him on EVERYTHING.

His party controlled congress for the first half of his term. I don't understand why people keep forgetting this.

There's a such thing as the filibuster. I don't understand why people keep forgetting this.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:43 PM on June 16, 2012

Sorry, that's February 4, 2010.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:45 PM on June 16, 2012

Really? Because they've never been able to pass shit worth shit. They got three bills of any consequence passed in 8 years of Bush. Just three.

Which three are you referring to? The USA PATRIOT act? The tax cut that destroyed the budget? No Child left Behind? The Windfall for Big Pharma Medicare Act (I don't remember the actual name)? And, don't forget, in the era of the "unitary executive", there are all sorts of things that don't require "bills" to do big damage.

The main point being: the Democrats rolled over like scared puppies any time the GOP said "boo".
posted by mondo dentro at 3:50 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

And most importantly, the Democrats under Obama continue to support those Bush policies.
posted by mek at 3:55 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm posting too much, take any direct comments to memail, please.

Nobody's keeping you here except you.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:56 PM on June 16, 2012

And most importantly, the Democrats under Obama continue to support those Bush policies.

So does the public. That's the problem.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:57 PM on June 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I can't remember if I wanted to take a side in the Obama argument or the wristwatch argument.

I don't understand why I keep forgetting this!
posted by TheRedArmy at 4:02 PM on June 16, 2012

Really? Because they've never been able to pass shit worth shit. They got three bills of any consequence passed in 8 years of Bush. Just three.

Which three are you referring to? The USA PATRIOT act? The tax cut that destroyed the budget? No Child left Behind? The Windfall for Big Pharma Medicare Act (I don't remember the actual name)? And, don't forget, in the era of the "unitary executive", there are all sorts of things that don't require "bills" to do big damage.

The main point being: the Democrats rolled over like scared puppies any time the GOP said "boo".


Those bills had massive support amongst the public. One senator voted against The PATRIOT act.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:03 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I tried Cheerios the other day and they invaded Iraq

It's probably worth remembering that the War on Terror and the ramp-up to the second Iraq war started under a Chex administration.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:03 PM on June 16, 2012

And most importantly, the Democrats under Obama continue to support those Bush policies.

So does the public.

This is correct, public support for policies like the Patriot Act has grown significantly since 2006, even among Democratic voters who were the most opposed. I wonder what changed their mind. Huh, well I'm stumped on that one.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:07 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

And most importantly, the Democrats under Obama continue to support those Bush policies.

So does the public. That's the problem.

Well.... yes and no.

I'm not digging too deeply for all this, but a 2009 poll shows that public opinion about NCLB was mixed, but largely in favor of "it hasn't done shit to improve the schools". A 2011 poll shows that more of the public supports the USA PATRIOT Act than did 5 years previously. And a roundup of opinions from 2010 shows that the public favors the Bush tax cuts, but only for those making under $250,000.
posted by hippybear at 4:08 PM on June 16, 2012

Sooo you're not talking about party mix...
posted by TheRedArmy at 4:08 PM on June 16, 2012

Those bills had massive support amongst the public. One senator voted against The PATRIOT act.

Entirely attributable to the absence of an effective opposition to right-wing thinking. When you have every opinion from right to hard right portrayed in the media 24/7, it's no surprise that the populace takes a rightist position.

Advertising works.
posted by mondo dentro at 4:14 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Those bills had massive support amongst the public. One senator voted against The PATRIOT act.

Entirely attributable to the absence of an effective opposition to right-wing thinking. When you have every opinion from right to hard right portrayed in the media 24/7, it's no surprise that the populace takes a rightist position.

Advertising works.


The viewpoints follow the money. If huge left-wing policies sod, they'd be more on TV.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:25 PM on June 16, 2012

Advertising works.

It's not that simple; if it were, the USSR would still be going strong.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:29 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

They have to be be close according to the median voter theorem.
posted by scunning at 4:35 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Back to the point of the post - the quoted "greatest advertising campaign ever" - that's total bullshit too. Obama was being groomed for the presidency by the Democrats since 2004. Everyone knew he was hot shit and had great potential. He was also extremely lucky - he got the upside of three incredible flame-outs: Clinton, McCain, and the crash.

This quote reeks of the whole "We don't know who this guy is" talking point, which is ridiculous because Obama has gone out of his way to explain himself every chance he gets. He never, ever professed to be some liberal savior. He has always been painfully centrist. Because, as much as I'm sure some people would love a Ralph Nader or Ron Paul for president, those people don't get votes. And if you can name any, ANY actual president who hasn't been a disappointment to his base, I'd be quite surprised.
posted by fungible at 4:43 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

So whose the "giant douche" and who's the "turd sandwich"?

The viewpoints follow the money. If huge left-wing policies sod, they'd be more on TV.

I guess you've never heard of social engineering, incrementalism, or framing.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:54 PM on June 16, 2012

Also, Ironmouth, are ever going to stop repeating the lie that the public option wasn't in Obama's platform? I mean you repeat it every time this comes up and you keep getting shown that your statement is incorrect. Do you read the links? or are you so laser focused on supporting your leader that you don't have the time?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:56 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

If huge left-wing policies sod, they'd be more on TV.

If huge right-wing policies sold, you'd have a Republican president.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:57 PM on June 16, 2012

The Democratic Party is a coalition and people, who are otherwise smart about history and politics, keep forgetting this. They are not even remotely a monolithic entity. Just look at them. Ben Nelson and Dennis Kucinich are both in the same party. Bernie Sanders and fucking Lieberman caucus together.

If thinking in terms of a parliamentary system helps, think of the Democrats as a coalition of Labour, LibDems, a smattering of Greens, plus more than a smattering of Tories who refuse to use the label "Conservative" but, really, they're conservative in all but name.

If a coalition of these wildly arguing individuals and parties could somehow form a government, you wouldn't be surprised at the difficulty of passing legislation more controversial than naming the local post office after a war hero. You'd probably feel sorry for the poor beleaguered PM who has to ride herd on that sorry mess.

So, if you keep this in mind, Obama and the Congress of 09-10 actually accomplished quite a bit.
posted by honestcoyote at 5:04 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

It seems to me that those who tire of hearing how both sides are similar may lack the imagination to conceive of how much more they could be different, in very important ways.
posted by SpacemanStix at 5:15 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I guess you've never heard of social engineering, incrementalism, or framing.

All theories presented by people who can't get votes to explain why they're not getting votes. Its a recipie for totalitarianism--the idea that the voters can't be trusted with the vote because they don't vote as one likes. They are inherently unprovable and prevent the left from trying to actually win.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I've been hearing Republicans say that Latinos are conservatives-in-waiting for over a decade now.

Part of that is that the Miami Cubans are, as a bloc, generally libertarian as the descendents of people whose lives were ruined by a revolution/government. Add that to the fact that, as a bloc, US latinos are generally family-conservative. So the dimwits in the GOP think that means that they'll be the next generation of voters to hoodwink.
posted by gjc at 5:20 PM on June 16, 2012

He was also extremely lucky - he got the upside of three incredible flame-outs: Clinton, McCain, and the crash.

Primarily Jack Ryan, if you count his election to the Senate as the spark that ignited his rise.
posted by gjc at 5:21 PM on June 16, 2012

As for the public option, I never have once seen a pre-election promise for it. Ever. Please, paste a link. But it must say that it will include a government-run plan that will compete directly with the private plans on the exchange and is designed for anyone, not persons with pre-existing conditions or who are self-employed. Because the ACA includes that.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:24 PM on June 16, 2012

Incrementalism as a theory of social change is "a recipe for totalitarianism"... wait, what?
posted by mek at 5:27 PM on June 16, 2012

All theories presented by people who can't get votes to explain why they're not getting votes. Its a recipie for totalitarianism--the idea that the voters can't be trusted with the vote because they don't vote as one likes. They are inherently unprovable and prevent the left from trying to actually win.

Ok now I am sure you don't know what social engineering, incrementalism, and framing are. Really? Whorf couldn't get votes? Popper? Bateson? I don't know who you are even referencing and I don't think you do either.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:28 PM on June 16, 2012

If huge left-wing policies sold, they'd be more on TV.

Oh. My. God. Is this what passes for social analysis these days?

Political leadership is about creating "demand" for ideas, by using narratives, rhetoric, persuasion--together with raw political power. It's not about just passively accepting what "sells" at any given moment in time.
posted by mondo dentro at 5:38 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh, and by the way: the American people strongly do support "liberal" ideas like single payer health care, social security, prosecuting financial criminals, cutting defense spending, increasing taxes on the very wealthy... So, why aren't these reflected by Congressional action? Because the power elites don't want them to be, that's why.

But these things would "sell" very well. Indeed, that's why Obama is suddenly getting more "liberal" now that he needs to get re-elected--all while secretly working on corporatist abominations like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Aren't we all tired of that shit?
posted by mondo dentro at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ok now I am sure you don't know what social engineering, incrementalism, and framing are. Really? Whorf couldn't get votes? Popper? Bateson? I don't know who you are even referencing and I don't think you do either.

The theory that those dumb voters are being manipulated to vote against you? That's what that all is. I know who Karl Popper is.

Really, try persuading voters instead of holding them in contempt.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:58 PM on June 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mod note: This was not originally a general Obama debate thread, and it's a little distressing to see it turning into That Thread again. Can the usual suspects please back off? Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:06 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Mod note: My esteemed colleague's "back off" really means "back off" Take a walk or something and don't turn this thread into the same 2-4 people hollering at each other. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:04 PM on June 16, 2012

This was not originally a general Obama debate thread

Even the OP gave up on the original topic; the quote above the fold virtually guaranteed this outcome. Might as well live with it.
posted by anigbrowl at 7:28 PM on June 16, 2012 [2 favorites]