Successful politicking is a theatre designed to enrapture the electorate.

[Gravitycollapse]

The supposed expressed personal and political views of politicians are a actually a reflection of constituency sentiment. In other words, I do not doubt for a second that Barack Obama covertly held gay marriage to very high regard long before he ran for public office. And I very highly doubt that while in office he legitimately believed gay marriage to be immoral. His relatively new support for gay marriage was not born of revelation on gay marriage but instead revelation on public opinion. This is commonly referred to as opportunism and is fundamental to popular politics.

The reason why people like Barack Obama fail to publicly express their true personal beliefs is that they are catering to the lowest common denominator. In other words, they are attempting to wrangle with the stupidity and brutality of the general public. Until the general public comes around, has true revelation, intelligent politicians will continue to support stupid ideas and social injustice.

You may see this as cynicism. Or you may see it as affirmation that Obama never needed to "evolve" on issues like gay marriage and pot because he was always in favor of their legalization. I hope we can see both sides are true. That truly popular politicians are as insincere as many suspect on many issues but that a method of politicking exists whereby true change does happen.

What's really important, however, is that we recognize how much power exists in the hands of the public. We often talk about the puppetry of the political world. However, I think we focus too often on how politicians manipulate the electorate while ignoring an equally dangerous fact that the electorate manipulates intelligent, good-willed individuals to obscure their true beliefs.

We can blame politicians like President Obama for insincerity and to a certain extent I agree. However, we should not be so quick to dismiss the responsibility of the public in fostering a political atmosphere that not only encourages insincerity, it absolutely demands it.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. I'm going to bump this once.

[1000words]

2. Your contempt for those below you is duly noted

I'm assuming you don't include yourself as "the lowest common denominator."

You apologize for the status quo like you might be, though.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. You've misinterpreted my post. I'm not apologizing for anything.

I'm making an argument for something that is rarely ever brought up. Which is that it is self-serving and ultimately dangerous to attempt to entirely cast off the inherently insincere and corrupt nature of our government on politicians when we as citizens bear a great deal of responsibility for fostering an environment that demands such theatre.

As far as the lowest common denominator, no I am not one. I am intelligent and politically and socially informed. But I cannot say the same for a large proportion of the American population. Which is evidenced in such things as the fact that approximately just less than half of the country doesn't support gay marriage. Only a few years ago, we had a majority opinion against gay marriage. And we wonder why it has taken so long for gay marriage bans to be thrown out.

[Ron Green]

3. Mass citizenship may not be possible.

Mass consumership is very possible, even guaranteed. But not so with being a critical-thinking, engaged participant in self-government.

So the politicians sell themselves to voters as a brand, a commodity, rather than as a representative who will lead, follow, AND tell the truth.

I don't see how there'll be a shift in public awareness. Stupid is just so easy to maintain.

[joshcryer]

5. Not controversial enough.

That's why no one is responding.

Of course more DUers aren't braindead and they know that Obama the person is very likely different from Obama the politician.

They just can't stomach that he's not being himself, because quite literally, he ran on a campaign that he was someone who wore their ideology on their sleeve.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. I think a lot of us were thrown a curve ball after President Obama was elected.

It was the first election I ever voted in and to a great extent I was young and naive and overly hopeful. When he failed to live up to expectation, I had to somehow reconcile my continued belief in his intelligence and personal accomplishment with his often ineffectual administration.

When such politicians fail to live up to expectation I think we tend to push them into a dichotomy between good and evil. Those who wish to see him as totally good will do whatever is in their power to cast off the politicians failures on the opposition. Those who wish to see him as evil have little more to do than bask in the schadenfreude.

Neither side seems willing to admit that the electorate still bears responsibility for the decisions of the administration even after the election. We are deluded if we are unwilling to admit that public opinion has a massive and often catastrophic effect on the decision making of our political leaders. Both the politician and the voter share responsibility for political decisions even when it's not an election year.