Do they REALLY believe it? or, Supporters and Fanatics in GD/P

[alcibiades_mystery]

He had the politicians' talent for mouthing cliches without sounding ridiculous. - Vikram Chandra, Sacred Games

Fun and games, friends. Fun and games with consequences. Thus is politics. As people interested in politics, we follow the game and participate in it, analyzing the positions and trying to throw opposing fans off their game: Twelfth Man stuff, we will, we will, rock you. It's a positioning game. You position the other candidate as X, and your only real tools are words. But this game has very little to do with the concrete implementation of policy, much less the actual person of the candidate. And this is what troubles me about DU: some people seem to actually believe the positioning. It's a bit like believing that the opposing pitcher is really, truly, a belly itcher. It's embarrassing.

A few examples. Barack Obama is not really truly a gay-hating, flowery orator with no substance. It's a remarkably effective positioning move to say that he is, a good play in the game. Every Greek schoolchild in antiquity knew that if your opponent is a good orator, you position that person as insubstantial; it's a classical rhetorical trope, and it still works, because we still distrust good oratory. But it's not true; it's just a good move. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is not a corporation-loving warmonger or a backstabbing opportunist. These are just ways to position her in order to peel off a particular constituency. Neither candidate is a bad person. Obama is not arrogant and superior, but that's a good way to position him. Clinton is not inordinately ambitious, but that's a good way to position her.

And you can flip it to the positive as well. Obama isn't some remarkably new power that will change the country for the better. That's a good way to position him, but he will do what most people do when they get into office: try to manage the utter chaos that is the modern nation state in such a way that reduces harm. Clinton isn't some experienced visionary who can return us to a golden age of prosperity. That's a good way to position her, but she will do what most people do when they get into office: try to manage the utter chaos that is the modern nation state in such a way that reduces the most harm.

The difference between a supporter and a fanatic is that the supporter recognizes these as positioning moves in the game, while the fanatic actually believes them. The danger comes when we have more fanatics than supporters.

I like the television show The Wire. It's very good at presenting the double-surface of politics. On the one hand, you have the public statements, the positioning game. On the other, you have the material difficulties of implementing policies, and the distribution and circulation of real power, not "behind the scenes" (also a fanatical belief), but in another scene. They're distinct scenes. The danger lies in taking either scene for the "truth."

The only truth is that perhaps one in every hundred posts in GD/P is about the actual difficulties of policy, that other scene. Moreover, the positioning game is so different and separated from the policy game that to talk about the one almost necessarily excludes talking about the other. Most DUers - to be perfectly blunt - don't know fuck all about policy, even when they're mouthing cliches like "single payer" and "weapons inspectors" and "carbon credits," and other little segments of the policy game that slip into the positioning game. Most people don't, and most DUers don't, and - confession - I don't. That's why you have the positioning game. And here's the important point: the positioning game bears no necessary relation to the policy game. What the candidates are saying now has almost ZERO bearing on how they will actually play the policy game. To believe otherwise is yet another level of fanaticism.

So, do we have more fanatics than supporters? I don't know. I see enough winking self-consciousness in some of our board spammers to believe that they are supporters and not fanatics. But we have plenty of fanatics here. What always strikes me as strange is that they REALLY believe it. All I can do is shake my head. The pitcher, friends, is not REALLY a belly itcher.

[demnan]

1. Absolutely

This post is refreshing in its honesty

[dmallind]

2. All true, and sadly I think we DO have more fanatics. NT

l;kl

[UALRBSofL]

7. I think this article undermines the intelligence of many DU'rs

All we can do is take what the candidates say, read there platforms, look at there voting record, look at there past experiences, look at there character/ethics(does it relate to mine) and with our critical thinking skills make the best choice for whom would make the best leader for me. And personally, I believe we have two candidates that I could vote for. I know Hillary, not personally, I followed her career for 20 years, but, I don't know a lot about Obama and the more I read I'm getting to know him and after the debate I was very pleased with him.

[dmallind]

11. Unfortunately though voices like yours

are all too often drowned out in huge swathes of overheated partisan bickering that either make Hillary out to be a clone of Montgomery Burns while Obama is the new Pericles, or make Obama out to be a naive Panglossean idiot while Hillary is the reincarnation of BOTH Roosevelts.

There are many, and very vocal, people on DU who either really truly believe these Messiah/Satan characterizations or are incredibly consistent and convincing fakers.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

3. And here I thought the fanatics only existed in the OTHER party...

We all should be very careful to not get too caught up!

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. True Believers are Terrifying in any party

:-)

[redqueen]

5. Excellent OP.

:thumbsup:

As for me, I'd like to think we have more supporters than fanatics.

[InvisibleTouch]

6. That's a very interesting analysis...

...and an insightful distinction. I've certainly always taken any smear of our candidates with a large grain of salt; there's often a huge gap between what the observer wants to see or hear, and what actually happened or was said. Just take the thread that posted a picture of a smiling Hillary Clinton - fairly neutral in and of itself, but the responses ran the gamut from "Great picture!" to "She looks so phony her face is about to break." Likewise I don't know whether Barack Obama snubbed Hillary by refusing to shake her hand. Maybe he was just distracted and didn't even notice her. But to one who wants to read vile motives into him, he's now second cousin to the devil. Eye of the beholder.

To a large extent politics is all about positioning: today's campaign promises are made in order to get the candidate into office ("pandering," if you will), from whence they will then do what they want. As a personal advocate of some degree of the ends justifying the means, I think that's quite okay, as long as I trust the person to do more good than harm once they arrive. I do trust both of our remaining candidates in that regard - and I have absolutely no doubt that any rethug would do more harm than good.

[UALRBSofL]

12. I absolutely agree with everything you posted

That said, were down to two candidates and we have to make a choice. Who do I believe can most benefit me and my family, my friends and the list goes on. So, maybe there is some blind faith, but, I have seen my self accepting Obama more then ever before the more I learn about him. I have no problem voting for him if he is our nominee. At one point I thought I might vote 3rd party if Hillary wasn't the nominee but that has changed. Yes, it's politics, and, call it blind faith, but, unless there is a better way to choose a candidate maybe faith is what it takes.

[redqueen]

24. "from whence they will then do what they want"

I'm not so sure that's the case.

Remember Eisenhower's farewell address?

[InvisibleTouch]

29. Re: farewell address

Nope, sorry - before my time. What I mean is, when people get so upset that a candidate said this or that, accuse them of pandering, claim they can never support someone who uttered some key phrase, I tend not to take that so seriously. Myself, I cringe when a candidate feels compelled to drag "god" into the picture, for instance, and wear their religion on their sleeve - but then I say to myself, hey, if it gets them some more votes and puts them in a position where they can actually do some good, I can live with it. The tricky part is knowing when they're "just saying it" vs. when they really mean it. To that end I think we have to judge by a person's past actions, more so than their words.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Yup...I'm an atheist, and I don't give a damn when they get all holy

That's classic positioning. I suspect most politicians are atheists, whatever they say. People who see the raw guts of how power works in the world tend not, in my experience, to believe in fairy tales.

[redqueen]

35. Hell... I think Strauss just came right out and said as much. (nt)

[redqueen]

34. Oh definitely... the pandering is just that...

I was just commenting on their ability to govern as they please after they take office... while true to a large extent, it's a dangerous game at that level.

Eisenhower's farewell address is the one in which he famously said, among other things, this:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

People like me like to to speculate about why he only chose to speak of such things upon his exit from office.

[Skinner]

8. This is a very insightful post. I agree with most of it. But I would like to make one point.

It is impossible to know for certain who actually believes any of what they are saying -- that goes for "real life," but it is especially true in politics, and even moreso on the Internet. I suspect that even the so-called "fanatics" who seem like they have drunk the Kool Ade and believe the things they are saying may not actually believe any of it. The sad reality is that people are more likely to believe what you say if you sound like you believe it. It also helps if you sound like you care deeply about it. This alone goes a long way toward understanding much of what passes for discussion on the Internet.

Or, as a wise DUer once said, only half-joking, "Everyone on the Internet is completely full of sh*t all the time."

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. I agree...the best supporters often sound like fanatics

It really was in the form of a question: Do they REALLY believe it?

My answer, perhaps naively, is "I hope not."

[InvisibleTouch]

16. And some are just instigators...

...who choose their words deliberately, just to see how many hornets they can shake out of the nest. They may or may not be Democrats, they may not even care about anything except having the power to upset people and then be able to sit back and laugh about it. As a displaced veteran of old-time usenet, I would point to one of the first rules: "Don't feed the trolls." I have to remind myself of it sometimes, too.

[redqueen]

25. Indeed...

when delivering a message, one has to consider the target audience... and shape the delivery accordingly.

[GalleryGod]

33. As Ralph Waldo Emerson so succinctly put it...

Every great and commanding movement in the annals of the world is the triumph of enthusiasm
~Emerson~

OR was that Larry Fine !?!

[ginnyinWI]

9. Thank-you so much for this post

Just when I'm convincing myself that it's nothing more than a huge waste of time to come to DU, I find a really good post like yours. If only more people would be true supporters rather than blind fans.

[robbedvoter]

10. Good points. Supporter here.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Hmmmm

[robbedvoter]

23. Oh, yeah, I do remember you mocked my explanation of my decision.(Crappy thing to do, BTW)

You still won't be seeing me defending things I believe are wrong. Issue trumps candidate with me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. I was mocking a type, not your post

However, to be honest, your post - if I remember it correctly - did fit the type.

[NoBorders]

13. Agree! And modern 'electronic' politics increases

the speed, volume and intensity of the positioning game. 24-hour cable news, blogs, forums--all provide new methods to propogate positions (and to refute them).

I'm not sure about the supporters vs. fanatics here. Hopefully more of the former.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I think Mark Twain put it very succinctly.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[whometense]

17. Great post.

Thanks. It's always a relief to read truly thoughtful pieces.

[info being]

19. You are actively describing the status quo in American politics

This is not at all true in other parts of the world. In thriving democracies, people don't have time for politics-as-a-spectator-sport; rather, they are actually talking about and evaluating the tangible things government is or isn't doing.

The problem is, in the US, the government hasn't responded to us for decades...so all we have left is this sort of intellectual masturbation.

[redqueen]

26. Which parts of the world don't do this?

I wanna put 'em on my list of places to consider escaping to someday. :)

[Yossariant]

44. So true. Excellent post. We have become celebrity-obsessed and glitz driven.

Because we really don't feel like we have much of a stake in the government.

[Occam Bandage]

20. This is the best post that has ever been in GDP ever.

[TexasObserver]

21. George Burns on sincerity: When you can fake that ...

... you've got it made.

I am suspicious of those who spam thread after after, alleging supporting for any particular candidate. Anyone who really supports a candidate should never do that if he or she really, sincerely wants to advance their candidate.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so I am dubious of those who constantly try to sell vinegar. It anyone is actually trying the hurt the candidate they purport to represent, it's those who shill too hard, too much.

If you can't say anything nice about the other major candidates, you're not really being a useful party member, IMHO. There are legitimate concerns about each and every candidate, and it is appropriate to discuss those differences. But when I see hits out of bounds or strident, over the top castigations, it turns me off to the poster, not the candidate.

IGNORE is our friend. Hide Threads is our friend. Don't feed the shit slingers.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. That's the game, though

That's how the game works. The penalty for overdoing it is negative results, one of which is the ignore feature. But it is, as the kiddies say, all in the game...

[K Gardner]

22. I've never watched "The Wire", but I think I will after reading this excellent post !

[synesthesia]

27. .

Wonderful post. Agree with everything, except.

Obama is arrogant though. So is Hillary though. You know who's really arrogant, Dennis Kuchinich. All these people are narcissists (not all politicians, but almost all high profile ones). It takes that personality type to get to such a position. You have to be cool with manipulating your environment in a stoic manner. Very hard to do for the typical mind.

But this isn't really a 'bad' thing. Marthin Luther King was a narcissist. So was Gandhi and Jesus Christ (seriously).

Narcissists, are the sparks of 'change' and 'inspiration' throughout history.

Oh, and Hillary is an opportunist. But so is Barack and Edwards. One just has to hope they're opportunists who seek to glorify their ego by doing what ends up as a byproduct helping society.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Well, yeah

There's certainly a type of personality that would even want to do such a thing. But if they ALL have that personality type, and I believe they do, then pointing out the flaw in one or the other in order to draw a contrast is pure positioning, and only a fanatic would think that it applies to the opposing candidate and not one's own.

[synesthesia]

38. yep

I agree, it's absurd when one person calls out Obama as arrogant, or Hillary as opportunistic, when they are all of the same personality type (more or less).

The flaw with Hillary is, she's not really a good politician. Thats why it's so obvious to the masses shes opportunistic. Obama deflects it well. This becomes important in a general election.

People would be wiser to discuss strategy rather than personality types. John F Kennedy was a pretty 'bad guy' in his personal life if you want to be moralistic about things (and I don't). We just didn't have 24 hour news cable. Also people cared less about such trivial things. Now Hillary being a 'bitch' is important. It shouldn't be. Bitchiness can be very useful for a leader, if well concealed.

But yeah, most people here are part fanatic, part supporter. More fanatic than supporter though depending on the candidate (Gore, Obama, Edwards).

I want Obama to win for pragmatic purposes, but Hillary supporters tend to be less fanatic from what I can tell.

[Adelante]

36. I always hope they will put your posts on DU's front page

I am a fan of yours and The Wire.

GOBAMA ;)

[H2O Man]

37. I am hoping that

Skinner will consider making additional changes to DU:GD-P, by adding sub-sections for "Primary-D: Borderline Personality Disorder"; "Primary-D: Histrionic Personality Disorder"; and "Primary-D: Delusional." These rather easily diagnosed posting styles tend to clutter serious discussion on the main forum. I think the fanatics deserve their own special place.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. You can't separate the things

They feed each other. If supporters are doing their jobs, there will always be fanatics mixed in.

[H2O Man]

41. Oh, well.

I thought the idea had promise.

[enigmatic]

40. Best post I've seen on GD: P in well, forever

:thumbsup:

[JAbuchan08]

42. Yeah, but how do we know? Bush was supposed to be a decent person at heart as well

I have only policy to judge by. I will spare you my feelings, but let me just say that the relative political merits of these two have led me to certain conclusions. They are not all nice ones.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. There's policy and then there's policy

Policy in the abstract, and policy in the dirty workings of it. The former usually comes in the flavor of positioning.

As for Bush, unlike many here, I think GOpers really believe that they're doing what's right and best. They're monstrously, disastrously wrong about that, but at bottom, I think they believe it.

[JAbuchan08]

45. The funny thing is that I don't disagree

but that doesn't make them good.

[Laelth]

46. I think they see politics as a game.

A game that they can win. Makes me wonder just what is the end result of characterizing positioning and politics as a game. Does that not merely relieve one of responsibility for the consequences of one's actions? After all, it's only a game, right? Too many people play to win, at all costs. Politics and power are very real and have very real consequences. I want those who participate in politics and wield power to take responsibility for their choices. I, personally, am wary of those who would play games with the lives of millions of people.

-Laelth