Daily Ramblings:
Heartland ...02/23/2005 04:14:05 pm
Right Wing Bob found
himself stranded without access to the internet for a
long President's Day weekend. Aside from the
unspeakable tragedy of missing a "pre-sale
event" on tickets for upcoming Dylan shows in my
neighborhood, it was educational in a variety of
ways. Firstly, I realized that I must never let it
happen again. Under any circumstances. Secondly, I
discovered with a thump that a whole world exists out
there where people don't get their news from the
internet every day (if at all), and indeed only turn
on the TV news to see the weather forecast and,
possibly, the sports news.
Of-course I had already realized, intellectually,
that this world existed, but seeing it actually
manifesting itself before my very eyes was altogether
different. There are actually people who can carry on
their lives completely oblivious to the latest Eason
Jordan or Ward Churchill stories (let alone what Larry Campbell is doing). If you
used a word like the "blogosphere" to them,
you might as well be conversing about some obscure
geological sediments in the Yucatan. It's not just
that it's not relevant to their lives: it is
something which they could never conceive of becoming
relevant. On a scale of 1 to 100 - where a sale on
paper towels at the local megamart might rate a
relevance of 60 - happenings in the blogosphere would
rate perhaps a 0.000001. And this is not a subset of
people defined by a geographic area (though it seems
likely that they are more common in the geographic
heartland) but they can live and move amongst you,
even in urban environments. So it's more of a virtual
heartland, where somehow the latest buzz on Free
Republic, or the latest growing cacophony on Little
Green Footballs, or the most recent outrage from the
Daily Kos - are all equally non-existent.
And more power to them. If everyone cared
intensely about the same things, to the same extent,
there would be bloody riots every day. Check out, for
instance, well, anywhere where there are bloody riots
going on. It happens when some issue becomes of such
overriding importance that ordinary life is set aside
in favor of going to the streets and confronting
those with an opposite point of view on that issue.
Fortunately, that is not happening in the USA in
February 2005. If everyone was as intense on opposite
sides of the political divide as are the political
bloggers, it no doubt would be happening (and I take
comfort from the fact that my side of the argument is
better armed).
It occurred to me that this virtual heartland of
people who don't hang on every scrap of news is
divisible into at least three types, in terms of how
they decide to cast their vote in an election. First,
there are those who simply don't vote. More power to
them too, if they consider that they don't know or
care enough about the issues and are of the opinion
that politicians are not relevant to their lives.
Second, there are those who simply vote based on how
their Daddy voted, or based on prejudices acquired
early in life. Virtually nothing could make them vote
for a member of the other party, no matter how much
the parties may have changed over the years. LESS
power to them - they are a lead weight on the
political process. Though we have to live with them,
we should not continue making registration and voting
increasingly easy and effortless- it only encourages
these types, who are the least motivated voters.
Third, there is the type who helped win the
election for Dubya in 2004, and are probably decisive
in any presidential election. These are people for
whom the news is a background hum at best, and in the
place of rigorous critical analysis of the issues,
they make something more akin to a gut decision at
election time. This is not because they are stupid,
but simply because this is how they prioritize their
daily lives. In the absence of a political issue
actually rolling down their street and flattening
their house, it is not of urgent interest to them.
They figure it's for others to spend their time on
those things. The politicians get paid for it, after
all. Yet, they believe it's important to come to some
decision at election time and cast their vote -
especially during a presidential election. Since they
don't pay attention to every little issue that comes
up, it is all the more important to these people to
elect someone whom they feel they can trust to take
care of whatever it is that might come up. Hence,
their decision is heavily weighted towards issues of
character. And, since they don't spend a whole lot of
time watching long speeches and reading columns,
they're going to judge character based on first
impressions, and then on major impressions over time.
It's not that far different to how they might pick a
mechanic or a doctor. (Who really researches the
background of those individuals, crucial though they
are to the smooth running of your life? The truth is
that you try one, you either feel good about the
experience or not, and you make your decision to
stick with them, or look elsewhere, based on that
impression.)
As much as it infuriates political junkies to hear
politicians repeat things over and over again, this
is the audience they have in mind. If these people
don't have the TV on the first time you say
something, maybe they'll have it on the 30th or 40th
time you say the very same thing.
George W. Bush obviously had this trait down - he
stayed on message, and got his message out to anyone
with ears to hear. However, this alone is not enough.
John Kerry also had a message, and largely stayed on
it. It's no good if these gut-check voters smell a
rat. When it came to Dubya, the mainstream media,
Michael Moore, Dan Rather, were all screaming
"rat!" Countless ads were run questioning
his character, competence, and honesty. He cheated
with the National Guard, he was in bed with the
Saudis, and on and on and on - no need to retread
here. These voters just filed that with the rest of
the background hum, and decided that Dubya was in
fact just what he appeared: a regular and decent man
with the best intentions for the country and the
determination to fulfill his committments.
Now, with the election over, come these secret tapes. The real story with
these tapes is of-course that there is no story.
Talking candidly to a trusted friend, unaware that he
was being recorded, Dubya turns out to be the same
guy - some years younger - as the current occupant of
the Oval Office. The differences between George W.
Bush in private, years ago, and President Bush in
public, now, are at most of tone (off-the-cuff and
unguarded), and not of substance. The
gut-checking-virtual-heartland voters are vindicated
(if it were necessary). Bush is exactly the man they
judged him to be in the short time they devoted to
making up their minds.
Of-course, living their lives as they do, they
will be completely unaware of the story of the tapes,
and so unaware of their vindication. They rush off
contentedly to the mega-mart for the cut-price paper
towels, and just assume they made the right decision
with their vote in November, and that the guy in the
Oval Office is doing his job and is in actuality as
decent as they thought him to be.
For once, they could read RightWingBob.com.
But I guess it's too much to ask ...
You are viewing an individual
item from RightWingBob.com - click here to view the
main page.