People are excited. In my tenure on this planet, I don't think there has been another election that has spurred so much intense response.
Change is, unequivocally a good thing and much needed. However, I am a bit sad.
Here's why. It seems to me that change is most inspiring in times of dire need.
Take a look at polls from 2004 vs 2008. Yes, while i recognize these polls represent a limited demographic, I do believe they do generally represent prominent thoughts and concerns during both elections. While the job market was certainly slow, gas prices were fluctuating, (yet short term ARM mortgages were quite reasonable) the 2004 election was clouded by fear - terrorism and 9/11 were on everyone's minds. People were torn regarding what issues were most important to them and this was reflected in a relatively close outcome and subsequent continuation of republican leadership. Which, according to some can be correlated with slowed GNP growth (yes an article with just a bit of bias)... read on your own though for more...
In 2008, people were still scared yet more definitive in their concerns as a downward spiral (that started years earlier) had finally caught up. caught up - with them on a personal level as those around were losing jobs, foreclosing on homes and were vulnerable to rising fuel costs impacting not only a credit card balance at the pump, but also food, shipping and travel costs in other forms. anyone who owns a home, drives a car, is employed, or buys their own food can understand these concerns. I have multiple friends with jobs on the line at this very moment and am vulnerable to that same ARM refinancing issue that Obama addresses in his plan.
Here is another thought to consider... McCain certainly screwed himself in his campaign strategy in not fully utilizing the net. An increase of 3.4 million voters under the age of 30 was reported with 66% of those votes going to obama. No that figure alone (probably from facebook!) doesn't represent the 6-7% victory margin. But, perhaps the victory reflected not only fear of dire economic circumstance but also a sound and current communication strategy.
The new plan for the future sounds good. hell, it sounds great but i'm still left with two important questions:
- Why does it take such extreme times to inspire change? Why are we continually fear inspired as opposed to forward thinking?
- Will people i.e. "america" understand that change will not happen in a measly 4 years? And that fiscal regulation alone will not bring better economic standing? if things get better will everyone relax once again ... 4 years down the road, america falls back into the same torn and divided society that was represented 4 and 8 years ago?
.jpg)
3 comments:
Ok, as usual science to the rescue. People only seem to respond to fear b/c evolution programmed it into us. When you have nothing to lose, you're willing to take more risks but when things are fine, you don't b/c you don't want to disrupt the status quo. Thank you social evaluation in lemurs for teaching us more about ourselves.
Honestly, it doesn't matter if the entire world is thrown into another Dark Ages...the sun is going to go supernova one of these days. We can't stop that. Then all of this culture, politics, studying lemurs and society won't matter for shit. Have a nice day.
ok charles... self preservation is right tho. we do what's in our own individual interests first to survive. but check this out - it's related and totally RANDOM ...i can't vouch for the source but this in many ways proves my damn point.
in case you don't want to read below - it's a commentary on a text about how darwin's "scientific theory" is actually so widely read and discussed because of his aggressive marketing scheme! HEH - the irony... my entire point about our entire political system... it's ALL ABOUT MARKETING because most people are not able to think for themselves. they are persuaded - by the masses - who are lead by the few... and through venues like FACEBOOK (how many of those "i voted for obama notes did i get?")... sadly i need to ask a pertinent question - did obama really win because of his internet marketing strategy?
AND speaking of science, there are many other "founding" theories that are attributed to one person when in fact, they really emanated from another yet were PUBLISHED first by that individual.
science to the rescue is right - perhaps... or perhaps... we're all in the wrong field and should seriously consider marketing. in the end, that IS what it all comes down to.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.939/article_detail.asp
One of the most fascinating aspects of Browne's book is the way it demythologizes the so-called "Darwinian revolution." Most of us were taught to see Darwin as an exalted scientific lawgiver who descended from Mt. Sinai—or in this case, the Galapagos Islands—and rescued the masses from the bonds of superstition with his new scientific revelation of evolution by natural selection. This new revelation was then quickly embraced by all thinking people because of its overwhelming evidence. What Browne shows in detail is that the eventual success of Darwinism was due as much to aggressive public relations on the part of Darwin and his friends as it was to any scientific evidence they presented. She notes that "Darwin would emerge as a remarkable tactician" and "a canny and dedicated publicist.... The strategic effort that he put into disseminating his views was intense."
ps - lemme know if you make it back up to SC again! we need to hang. :)
Post a Comment