Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

Wouldn't the intrinsic demands were the fear of embarrassment and the craving to fit in be liked?

Naturally the general fear is there but the specific fear of having bad breath was (probably) an invention of the marketing campaign.

[Winstonm]

Naturally the general fear is there but the specific fear of having bad breath was (probably) an invention of the marketing campaign.

 

Still, I would consider the demand intrinsic - the specific product to me is a subset of that demand.

[Winstonm]

Not to mention tax reductions for the wealthy.

 

Yes, and those tax cuts are tied directly to the Reagan-era supply-side belief that wealthy individuals were the job creators rather than increased demand.

[barmar]

Still, I would consider the demand intrinsic - the specific product to me is a subset of that demand.

It seems like a circular argument. If people have an intrinsic desire to follow the herd, then marketing is just a way of convincing them that the herd is buying that product, and thus create demand for that specific product.

 

So they didn't actually have a desire for the product until the marketers told them they should.

[barmar]

I don't think you can really draw a hard line in this demand vs. marketing issue.

 

For instance, there's a general demand for stylish clothes. But if styles didn't change, people would wear the same clothing for many years, until it wears out. But styles do change, so people buy new clothes to meet the current style.

 

But why do styles change? Some of it is natural -- new generations and cliques (e.g. hippies, goths, grunges) like to distinguish themselves from previous trends. But marketing also has a big hand in it -- they get celebrities to wear a new style, and people like to emulate them.

[Winstonm]

I don't think you can really draw a hard line in this demand vs. marketing issue.

 

For instance, there's a general demand for stylish clothes. But if styles didn't change, people would wear the same clothing for many years, until it wears out. But styles do change, so people buy new clothes to meet the current style.

 

But why do styles change? Some of it is natural -- new generations and cliques (e.g. hippies, goths, grunges) like to distinguish themselves from previous trends. But marketing also has a big hand in it -- they get celebrities to wear a new style, and people like to emulate them.

 

I see your example as variations of intrinsic desires. If the question is: does marketing work? Then the answer is yes. But there is a distinct difference between preferences within the category of clothing and the intrinsic demand for being warm and dry.

 

I think demand can really be traced back to a few basic human wants: food, shelter, clothing, knowledge, information, safety, etc. What we buy to fulfill that demand is more akin to variations within species I should think.

 

The point being that supply-side works best as a response.

[kenberg]

I should probably resist getting involved with the intrinsic desires issue, but here goes.

 

I have been pulling some dandelions out of the lawn. Dandelions are at least somewhat attractive when they have their bright yellow bloom, and my understanding is that they are very good for bees. The bees around here definitely like dandelions. I imagine bees are impervious to marketing strategies, but how about me? When I pull dandelions, am I driven by marketing forces or by intrinsic desire? Am I just like a bee, only my intrinsic desires conflict with the intrinsic desires of the bees, or have I been conned by marketing forces into removing a lovely plant that benefits a dwindling bee population? This must be resolved today.

 

A friend of my wife's was over the other day and commented on how much she liked that the back part of our yard is natural. Uh huh. It does need a little weeding and mowing back there but I have been busy.

[y66]

From Gail Collins column today:

 

And it came to pass, barely seconds after he became the near-inevitable Republican presidential nominee, that Donald Trump began a gender war.

 

“Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the women’s card,” Trump said in the aftermath of his five-state primary sweep on Tuesday. “And the beautiful thing is, women don’t like her.”

 

Observers felt they discerned a distinct eye roll on the part of Chris Christie’s wife, Mary Pat, who was standing onstage behind the triumphant Trump. Her husband maintained his now-traditional demeanor of a partially brainwashed cult member.

 

People, why in the world do you think Trump went there?

 

A) He analyzed Clinton’s entire public career and decided her weakest point was the possibility of being the first woman president.

 

B) He felt his unimpeachable record on feminist issues gave him the gravitas to bring the matter up early.

 

C) The remarks were a self-censored version of an initial impulse to comment on her bra size.

 

Maybe all of the above. The man evolves.

Or

 

D) Intrinsic demand of Trump supporters for anti-Hillary rhetoric.

 

E) Marketing strategy, i.e., define your opponent early as he was able to do with low-E JB.

[barmar]

I see your example as variations of intrinsic desires. If the question is: does marketing work? Then the answer is yes. But there is a distinct difference between preferences within the category of clothing and the intrinsic demand for being warm and dry.

 

I think demand can really be traced back to a few basic human wants: food, shelter, clothing, knowledge, information, safety, etc. What we buy to fulfill that demand is more akin to variations within species I should think.

 

The point being that supply-side works best as a response.

This tangent began in reference to products like the iPhone and ESPN. We already had phones and sports reporting, so the basic needs were being fulfilled, and the question raised is whether people were clamoring for the additional features they provided, or did marketing convince us that we needed them.

 

It didn't convince me -- I don't have a smartphone, and I don't watch sports news (although I frequently listen to "Only a Game", public radio's weekly sports show -- it tends to be more about the sociological and historical aspects, not who won and lost).

[kenberg]

From Gail Collins column today:

 

 

Or

 

D) Intrinsic demand of Trump supporters for anti-Hillary rhetoric.

 

E) Marketing strategy, i.e., define your opponent early as he was able to do with low-E JB.

 

I think the Hillary forces need to think this through. Her response (summarized from what I saw) was to list some women's issues, sensible ones, that she supports. I would far have preferred her to say: "Woman card? I would be most happy to hold a public debate tomorrow with Mr. Trump on foreign policy. Brazil? China? ISIS? You name the topic, the time, the location for the debate, I'll be there."

 

Most people, I believe, are long past caring whether a candidate is male or female. What has s/he done, what is his/her understanding of and his/her approach to the issues?

 

 

DT says something shocking and everyone plays their role. "Oh. How shocking. Isn't he awful. "

Ok. he is a jerk. Got that. Long ago I said that if DT agreed with everything I thought about everything I still couldn't vote for him. But the best response to his provocations is a calm "When you are done calling me names, I am ready to discuss the issues".

 

I think this is important. As long as everyone is talking about how shocking his insults are, the larger point of how bad a president he would be gets ignored.

[mike777]

Abortion is such a huge issue.

 

 

As long as we see pro abortion voting up issues...the rest do not matter in this thread

 

Please see upvotes just in this thread

 

 

everyone is so cute on other issues...let us just start one one simple one

 

1) vote no for abortion

2) vote yes but still open and willing to vote other

 

IN America abortion is still after many many years a one issue vote

[Zelandakh]

I think the Hillary forces need to think this through. Her response (summarized from what I saw) was to list some women's issues, sensible ones, that she supports. I would far have preferred her to say: "Woman card? I would be most happy to hold a public debate tomorrow with Mr. Trump on foreign policy. Brazil? China? ISIS? You name the topic, the time, the location for the debate, I'll be there."

I think that would be a mistake at this time Ken. The number and formats for the debates can have a major bearing on the final outcome. If Hillary is well ahead she is better off shutting down opportunities for direct debate with Trump, who would in that scenario surely throw everything at her. She and her team probably feel she can handle him but why open yourself to the risks that that could entail? Better at this stage in the campaign to play the short game so as not to get backed into an uncomfortable spot later on. She has amply chance to challenge him to debate later if that seems advantageous and her advantage there is that it would hurt Trump's image more to duck her than the other way around.

[kenberg]

I think that would be a mistake at this time Ken. The number and formats for the debates can have a major bearing on the final outcome. If Hillary is well ahead she is better off shutting down opportunities for direct debate with Trump, who would in that scenario surely throw everything at her. She and her team probably feel she can handle him but why open yourself to the risks that that could entail? Better at this stage in the campaign to play the short game so as not to get backed into an uncomfortable spot later on. She has amply chance to challenge him to debate later if that seems advantageous and her advantage there is that it would hurt Trump's image more to duck her than the other way around.

 

I agree that my suggestion should not be taken literally. Let me draw it out a little. Trump's attack about the women's card was an accusation of identity politics. Here in Maryland there have recently been several unsuccessful attempts to appeal to racial or gender identity as part of a campaign. Eight years ago the Obama campaign handled it wisely, a strong slogan being "Race doesn't matter". Otherwise put "Yes, I'm black. So what?" The campaign must decide. Is she to run on the historical nature of becoming the first woman president or is she to take the approach of "Yes, I am a woman, so what?" She cannot do both.

 

 

She has a long record in politics. A long record always has accomplishments and failures, but I hope she chooses to run on it. Mostly I think she has. But "historical nature" can be tempting. A mistake, I think.

 

So construe my hasty suggestion not as an exact recommendation. Rather it was that she respond on the order of "Look, I am running on the issues and on my record. If Mr. Trump wants to talk about the women's card and who has the most attractive spouse, that's his choice. I am prepared to talk about foreign policy, about the economy, about cybersecurity, about wealth and educational inequality, and yes, as part of my campaign I will address some issues that may be of particular importance to women, or to African-Americans, or Latinos, or, for that matter, some issues of importance to white working class men. I will not be criticizing Mr. Trump for being male, I will be setting out clear reasons why I would make a better president than he would".

 

Trump has been very successful. I don't really understand it. But back when I made some effort to become decent at tennis I recall the advice "The answer to spin is power". Something like that is what I have in mind.

[Phil]

Trump was in Orange County last night at the fairgrounds. There was a riot that involved some protesters but I seriously doubt any of the instigators were from here.

 

The most excited people get about anything is deciding between the carnitas and carne asada.

[Al_U_Card]

Was there ever a time when elections were not about appealing to the specific interests of the electorate? (Somehow, rational, intellectual and philosophical argumentation just never seems to make it to the fore...)

 

Democracy has not been trumped by politicians, because they are all jokers. The occasional wild card can expose the hands being played, but for the most part, the number of tricks involved has more to do with finessing the spectators than end-playing the opponents. ;)

[Zelandakh]

She has a long record in politics. A long record always has accomplishments and failures, but I hope she chooses to run on it. Mostly I think she has. But "historical nature" can be tempting. A mistake, I think.

I would tend to agree with you broadly but she has to be careful here too. It is a natural for her to position herself as the candidate with the experience to do the job but that leads to the obvious counter that she has experience only of Washington and is essentially the establishment figure, whereas Trump can sell himself as having a broader range of experiences untainted by Washington failures. It is this combination that seems to me to be the one that makes him dangerous, so voluntarily making the argument stronger is a potentially risky strategy. In the end it is not really something she can easily avoid though, so better for her to lead the debate than waiting for the attacks to come and playing catch-up.

 

Running on being the first female president would be bad I think. Sure she should acknowledge that "it would an honour to be the first female president" but add that she wants people to elect her because she is the best person for the job and thereby talk about her vision/plans/record. She can use this formulation to move the debate into areas that suit her and are more difficult for Trump, giving her a tactical advantage. She has a very strong and experienced team behind her though. I doubt we will see the same mistakes made by her campaign that have been made by the other Republican candidates. My expectation is still that she will win it in the end but that her lack of basic charisma and popularity will make it a reasonably close race.

[kenberg]

Was there ever a time when elections were not about appealing to the specific interests of the electorate? (Somehow, rational, intellectual and philosophical argumentation just never seems to make it to the fore...)

 

Democracy has not been trumped by politicians, because they are all jokers. The occasional wild card can expose the hands being played, but for the most part, the number of tricks involved has more to do with finessing the spectators than end-playing the opponents. ;)

 

Don't forget the cleverly chosen false card. Occasionally useful at bridge but of fundamental importance to politicians.

[Al_U_Card]

It is the intention behind the false card that does the heavy lifting. If, by intention, we infer politically that it is the influences behind the candidate that will dictate the type, extent and efficacy of the misdirection, which of the candidates appears the most nefarious?

 

DT is fairly obviously in tight with the plutocratic society that he exists within. The extent of his subterfuges and mendacity is pretty much WYSIWYG.

 

Hil, OTOH, is a real nest of vipers. From Whitewater through Benghazi to GS subsidized speaking tours, it brings to mind the old adage "Get thee behind me Satan!" but stay close for when I need you... :( Just what price are you willing to pay?

[kenberg]

It is the intention behind the false card that does the heavy lifting. If, by intention, we infer politically that it is the influences behind the candidate that will dictate the type, extent and efficacy of the misdirection, which of the candidates appears the most nefarious?

 

DT is fairly obviously in tight with the plutocratic society that he exists within. The extent of his subterfuges and mendacity is pretty much WYSIWYG.

 

Hil, OTOH, is a real nest of vipers. From Whitewater through Benghazi to GS subsidized speaking tours, it brings to mind the old adage "Get thee behind me Satan!" but stay close for when I need you... :( Just what price are you willing to pay?

 

I would hate to have my life depend on the veracity of either of them. There are two very large problems for me with Trump.

 

1. I really can't stand the guy.

 

2. It is said that in negotiations it is sometimes useful to project the image of being a little crazy. As in: Maybe he really would use the nukes. Yes, perhaps there is such an advantage. The problem is that he has convinced me that it is no act.

 

I saw Breakfast at Tiffany's the other night for the first time in ages. There is this hotshot Hollywood guy who describes Holly Golightly "She's a phony, but she is a real phony". I'm not sure just what that means but it comes to mind when i think of Trump.

[Al_U_Card]

I agree. DT is as reprehensible (openly) as I expect most politicians are actually.

Could you stand Milhous?

How 'bout Dubya?

Slick Willie?

Despite the potential "lesser of two evils" choice. Aren't you most likely to vote your sentimental, habitual affiliation (Dem or Rep) than the candidate in question, since they are both (all) pretty evil?

[kenberg]

 

Aren't you most likely to vote your sentimental, habitual affiliation (Dem or Rep) than the candidate in question, since they are both (all) pretty evil?

 

Most people are and that probably includes me. [i mean that most people are likely to vote for their habitual affiliation, I don't mean that most people are evil, I thought I had better clear up the ambiguity here.]

 

But there are big swings. Goldwater-Johnson in 64, McGovern-Nixon in 68. This time around I cannot really predict. Not that my crystal ball works all that well even in simpler times. I was prepared to vote for McCain 8 years ago but he talked me out of it, even before Sara Palin got stirred into the pot. . I voted for Kennedy in 60, but at the time this did not seem obvious to me. I supported Stevenson, to the extent a 13 year old supports anyone, in 52, but I thought Ike was a pretty good president.

 

The Republicans now seem determined to make it impossible for me to vote for them. I was not that big an Obama fan, I often react badly to people who give highly praised speeches before they have actually done much. But Trump?? No.

 

It's ok to be rich, really it is, I could have voted for Nelson Rockefeller.

 

Hillary has a lot of baggage but I think she wants very much to be a good president. She will assemble a good team, she will listen, she will do her best. I think it is possible, I would not bet heavily but I think it possible, that once she actually gets the job she might surprise me and do very well indeed.

 

In the nineteenth century this country expanded westward, Manifest Destiny and all that. Remember the Alamo. In the first half of the twentieth century we were isolationist. Japan had to bomb Pearl Harbor to get us into the war. Since the end of WW II I would describe us as confused. Or maybe it's just me that's confused.

 

For someone my age, the most astonishing thing is to hear the Republican establishment lament about how they are now losing the vote of the white working class to Trump. Hey. They were never supposed to be there in the Republican camp at all. But they are, and have been. I was back in Minnesota in 68 and someone who grew up across the street from me was wearing a Nixon button. His father belonged to a union, as did my father. This was not natural Republican territory. Or so I thought. It was disorienting.

 

Ok, I ramble. I'm old, I get to.

[PassedOut]

One of the problems with US education is the influence of idiots in the writing of textbooks: A Texan who called Obama a gay prostitute may soon control what goes in children’s textbooks

 

Members of the state board of education wield considerable influence over Texas curriculums. The board changed the state’s social studies standards in 2010 after it decided that the previous standards had a liberal slant, but even these revisions have earned a D rating from the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

 

“The document distorts or suppresses less triumphal or more nuanced aspects of our past that the Board found politically unacceptable (slavery and segregation are all but ignored, while religious influences are grossly exaggerated),” read the institute’s review of Texas standards. “Complex historical issues are obscured with blatant politicizing.”

 

These curriculum guidelines dictate how publishers write textbooks for Texas schools. And as the state has an outsize market, the content of those textbooks can influence materials nationwide.

...

 

As recently as last October, Bruner declared in a post that President Obama used to be a gay prostitute:

 

Obama has a soft spot for homosexuals because of the years he spent as a male prostitute in his twenties. That is how he paid for his drugs…Since he supports gay marriage, he should be proud of his background as a homosexual/bisexual. He is against everything else Christians stand for, he might as well be for infidelity.

Speaking to Breitbart last month about these statements, she said, “I don’t intend to apologize for my opinions because I still believe my statements are accurate.”

 

Bruner holds a Masters of Education degree from East Texas State University and worked as a teacher and counselor in Texas public schools for 36 years. Her campaign website states that if she is elected, she will “advocate for a return to traditional education,” “promote conservative curriculum standards aligned with Texas values” and “protect the children’s textbook fund from lobbyists.”

Texas values...

[Winstonm]

One of the problems with US education is the influence of idiots in the writing of textbooks: A Texan who called Obama a gay prostitute may soon control what goes in children’s textbooks

 

 

Texas values...

 

The question to me is: how is this thinking combated?

 

Mike777 hit upon a theme earlier that I didn't think was accurate, but upon observing the world around me I think he is right, after all, that there are many people who are one-issue voters, abortion being toward the top of that list.

 

I read the other day that new studies have found that people with anxiety disorders have brains that are hardwired to think it a certain fashion; perhaps this applies to other types of personalities with stress and anxiety.

 

Regardless, I think it is imperative we turn this thinking around to adopt positions where truth and accuracy are paramount to "winning" the argument.

[hrothgar]

One of the problems with US education is the influence of idiots in the writing of textbooks:

Texas values...

 

I've long felt that that any textbook that is approved for use in Texas should automatically be deemed unsuitable for use anywhere...

[barmar]

I've long felt that that any textbook that is approved for use in Texas should automatically be deemed unsuitable for use anywhere...

Unfortunately, Texas isn't alone in crap like this. Didn't another southern state try to get their textbooks to teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate alternative to Natural Selection?