help me vote for obama

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:44 pm

When the direction of politics shifts

By Charles M. Madigan
October 20, 2008

The earth may be about to shift under American politics.

The pieces are in place for realignment. There is a simple way to understand what that means by looking at presidents associated with realignments.

Try these: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

Who you are determines whether this is good or bad news. The most important thing to remember is that no one will be able to say on Nov. 5 whether a realignment has happened or not, although certainly a number of people will say it has.

It takes a long time to measure realignment. Political scientists are still arguing about whether there was a realignment under McKinley.

A lot of people are disturbed by the possibility of realignment, largely because realignments change the direction of politics and government so completely that what comes after one bears little resemblance to what happened before.

It would be nice to think that it's just one politician who is responsible for all of this. If that were the case, it would not be Sen. Barack Obama. It would be President George W. Bush.

Why?

Realignments need a series of components, with an important one being a flash point. They also tend to follow cycles. The other parts include changes in voting behavior, usually the arrival of a new bloc of voters (young people this time around) and, over a longer period of time, changes in attitude toward government.

Lincoln had emancipation and the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt had reform. Franklin Roosevelt had the Great Depression. Reagan had the Iranian hostage crisis and the sense that Jimmy Carter had become powerless.

The next president, Obama or not, will have Bush, who has presented at least four realignment-level disasters: The U.S. knew Osama bin Laden was threatening an attack and could not stop it; the wars in Iraq (early on) and Afghanistan (later and now); the pathetic inability of the federal government to respond to the damage of Hurricane Katrina; and, now, the collapse of the economy.

One would have been enough.

Put the four together and they create an undeniable swelling statistical wave. Four of every five people don't like the direction the nation has taken. That's all the fuel anyone needs for change.

If this theory about the election is correct, Nov. 4 may open an era of civic engagement, a change that will replace what we have had since the era that began with Reagan's election to the White House, an era defined by ideals.

"Ideals" is not a good or a bad word in this context. It is just a description. It's better to use examples to show the differences in these eras.

The era of civic engagement under Lincoln led to emancipation of black people and the salvation of the Union. Under Teddy Roosevelt, it led to crackdowns and regulation of the robber barons whose excess had defined the end of the 19th Century. Franklin Roosevelt's civic era delivered the Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security and an assumption that government was responsible for helping people.

By contrast, prayer in school, anti-abortion legislation, prohibitions aimed at gay behaviors and lifestyles and arguments that government should have less influence on people's lives are some of the earmarks of ideals eras.

Charles M. Madigan, a professor at Roosevelt University, is writing a book about the presidential campaign.

silverlulu · Post by **silverlulu** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:25 pm

it doesn't matter who you vote for, the same people run the country from the shadows. don't waste your time.

obama will get in, as this was meant to happen. if mccain was supposed to get in, then it would have been orchestrated towards him.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2wLd6JGoAQ

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:50 pm

ah, i love the conspiracy theorists. yes, the man rigged it for carter, then clinton, then O, realizing they'd just be putty in the hands of etc. enjoy voting for nader (that is, if you vote).

silverlulu · Post by **silverlulu** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:52 pm

some might say that conspiracy theorists are naive. they are normally the same people that have done no research in to it at all, but naively believe everything they hear on the news and everything that politicians say.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:25 pm

not guilty. i can guarantee you i'm at least as educated, as least as well traveled, and at least as well informed as you are (notice, didn't say more so, just in same ballpark). and i disagree that its all up to the man in his pants deciding who will be king (generally, the conspiracy theorists think it's rigged to favor the right, rigging things to elect a black man named barrack hussein obama seems pretty progressive for the man and his cronies, but i'm sure there's some subtle play here i'm ignoring).

silverlulu · Post by **silverlulu** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:27 pm

yes it SEEMS progressive. it is meant to seem progressive. but it is only a tiny fragment of a much bigger picture.

education and travel have nothing to do with knowing the truth. you can be educated to the highest degree and not know the truth. or you can leave school at 6 and know the truth.

watch this...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2wLd6JGoAQ

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:49 pm

my point is more meta -- if people as smart, educated, and informed as you don't agree with you, you likely should reconsider how certain you should be in your beliefs (as should they). i remain skeptical about just about all my beliefs because the premise of my theory is almost always true (there's pretty much always a nobel prize winner or the equivalent on the other side of any belief). so i'm always entertained by folk who seem to think they have some particular insight into what's going on that others don't share. what possible basis could there be for being so blessed if it's not greater intelligence, education, or information? dumb luck?

elxicano · Post by **elxicano** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:33 pm

I just had to add that I cast my ballot today. That's one vote for Obama and I hope it gets counted.

@Silverlulu... sometimes the easiest theory is the right explanation and sometimes it doesn't even scratch the surface.

silverlulu · Post by **silverlulu** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:51 pm

dj superflat wrote:my point is more meta -- if people as smart, educated, and informed as you don't agree with you, you likely should reconsider how certain you should be in your beliefs (as should they). i remain skeptical about just about all my beliefs because the premise of my theory is almost always true (there's pretty much always a nobel prize winner or the equivalent on the other side of any belief). so i'm always entertained by folk who seem to think they have some particular insight into what's going on that others don't share. what possible basis could there be for being so blessed if it's not greater intelligence, education, or information? dumb luck?

why dont you just watch the link and get back to me after you watch it all the way through?

forge · Post by **forge** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:58 am

silverlulu wrote:it doesn't matter who you vote for, the same people run the country from the shadows. don't waste your time.

obama will get in, as this was meant to happen. if mccain was supposed to get in, then it would have been orchestrated towards him.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2wLd6JGoAQ

maybe you should watch this link from the last page:

mdk wrote:this might help you decide :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpNzDoH1II

Noam Chomsky the man

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:05 am

no, thanks, i don't have that much free time, and i can pretty much guarantee you it's not something that hasn't been aired before (it's not like there's really much new info on anything, people just ignore what doesn't fit with what they've already decided).

silverlulu · Post by **silverlulu** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:35 pm

well i guess for you ignorance is bliss. take care.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:34 pm

you mistakenly assume i'm ignorant. i'm not insulting you, so why insult me? get over yourself and this supposedly awesome knowledge you're privy to, get out of your mom's basement and live a little, maybe you'll realize you're not the only one in the know.

silverlulu · Post by **silverlulu** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:06 pm

well i think that is slightly more insulting than what i said but still.

1) if you think that a vote counts then you are not privy to the information i know
2) if you are as well educated as you say you are, you should MAKE TIME to watch the link, because as an educated person you would enjoy it, and you may learn new things you didn't know before. thus making you even more educated than the person you were before we started our debate.
3) i haven't lived with my parents since i was 18. i am now 26. they don't even have a basement.
4) i get out in to the real world if and when i feel like doing so. i don't need to you to remind me to do that.

there is no need for us to trade blows over this. but if you are not willing to pay attention to the information i present when disagreeing with your point of you, i find that to be ignorant. the fact that i stated that doesn't mean i live with my parents, or that i'm a loser, or anything which you are trying to slur me with. it's just a wild sweeping generalised insult with no basis whatsoever.

anyway, say your piece but i won't be replying to this thread any more.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:09 pm

i don't think my vote counts, because i believe in the law of large numbers. but i take it that's not your point.

as for the implicit claim that i should review anything anyone claims is (i) relevant and (ii) something i don't already know, are you really going to read (e.g.) all the WSJ articles i might send you in response?

why can't you just admit that many of us have the same amount of info (and intelligence and exposure), but come to different conclusions? isn't that the reasonable explanation, rather than secret knowledge or people operating in bad faith? people disagree on policy because the questions are hard, often by definition indeterminate (you can't rerun history the other way). so people should often just agree to disagree, rather than mistakenly believe if they just share that one last critical bit of info it will open the others eyes and they'll fall into step.

really, this is all just political theatre, as people try to shore up their identity, prove their bona fides, by stridently taking positions on issues that are not subject to objective proof (if they were, we wouldn't ever have these discussions, we'd all just agree). enjoy.