Do you think that the oppositional beliefs espoused, and promoted perniciously and incessantly by the Republicans, have had no role in limiting progress in education, finance reform, wealth disparity, stagnant wages, etc.???
I don't know Tim, is that what they were shifting in The Overton Window?
So what you're saying is the GOP has espoused the benefits of low wages and crappy education?
What have the GOP been promoting that would combat these basic ideas?
And how hard was it for the Dems to overcome such perniciously skilled narratives Tim?
Go ahead Tim...
Ever heard of Trickle Down Economics? Ever heard that all of our ills are because of too much government and too much taxes? Ever heard that AGW is a hoax and that shifting to renewable energies will destroy the economy? Ever heard that raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs? Ever heard that America's ills are due to its declining morality? They don't get their ideas across by suggesting they are "crappy". They get people to believe them by making them sound matter-of-fact-ly reasonable. They broadcast this stuff, and much worse, across America's radio airwaves, virtually unopposed. They are taking over more and more of the TV "news" spaces as well. Their constituency is comprised of mostly religious people, and religious people are, obviously, primed to believe things that should not be believable. The other part of their constituency has much of the purse strings, who fund think tanks that can serve to maintain these myths and can hire legions of people to promote these ideas, and can fund their choice of candidates in cheap local elections across the country. So how hard is it to overcome this? It ain't as easy as you seem to think it should be.
It ain't as easy as you seem to think it should be.
Yes it is Tim. Like I said, if 85% of the population would be highly receptive to most of these ideas and issues, it should be a walk in the park.
We're not a poor country. There's enough energy and potential to have these goals realized...20 years ago.
The truth is they suck! They are mostly careerists who don't care one way or another.
And they are bought up by big money interests just like the GOP.
Which is exactly what I said initially, they are just as bad as the GOP. Worse.
It is that simple. We have been going backwards for 35 years.
If you have a party, and you have the money, and you have 85% of the people ready, willing and able to improve, then what's the problem?
Ever heard of Trickle Down Economics? Ever heard that all of our ills are because of too much government and too much taxes? Ever heard that AGW is a hoax and that shifting to renewable energies will destroy the economy? Ever heard that raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs? Ever heard that America's ills are due to its declining morality? They don't get their ideas across by suggesting they are "crappy". They get people to believe them by making them sound matter-of-fact-ly reasonable.
Oh I'm fully aware of all their techniques Tim.
This still doesn't answer the question.
How hard could that have been to combat? Especially when say only 50% of the people bought it?
And 85% of the people want the real solutions? Are amenable to real solutions.
If I sold you a pair of shoes that were too tight, but I sold them to you saying they'll break in, and that is a sign of quality, you'll wear them for awhile.
But then what if someone came along and said, "no no, take those off, here try these on." And they fit better and lasted longer.
Where was the person with the better shoes? The "shoes" supposedly the Dems sell? An easy sale if there ever was one.
Reform is nothing new to this country...we've put new shoes on many times before in the past.
Why not in the past 35 years? That's a long stretch. That's too long. That's negligent by any past standard of American History. No matter what way the reform went.
Ever heard of Trickle Down Economics? Ever heard that all of our ills are because of too much government and too much taxes? Ever heard that AGW is a hoax and that shifting to renewable energies will destroy the economy? Ever heard that raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs? Ever heard that America's ills are due to its declining morality? They don't get their ideas across by suggesting they are "crappy". They get people to believe them by making them sound matter-of-fact-ly reasonable.
Oh I'm fully aware of all their techniques Tim.
This still doesn't answer the question.
How hard could that have been to combat? Especially when say only 50% of the people bought it?
And 85% of the people want the real solutions? Are amenable to real solutions.
If I sold you a pair of shoes that were too tight, but I sold them to you saying they'll break in, and that is a sign of quality, you'll wear them for awhile.
But then what if someone came along and said, "no no, take those off, here try these on." And they fit better and lasted longer.
Where was the person with the better shoes? The "shoes" supposedly the Dems sell? An easy sale if there ever was one.
Reform is nothing new to this country...we've put new shoes on many times before in the past.
Why not in the past 35 years? That's a long stretch. That's too long. That's negligent by any past standard of American History. No matter what way the reform went.
I don't know where you get your 85%. (Why wouldn't 100% of rational people want, as you put it, "real solutions"?) But clearly "85%" of the people don't collectively agree upon what the "real solutions" are. A charismatic huckster can get a substantial number of people to believe nonsense. Rampant religiosity can get people to believe complete nonsense. Women believing that they are more glamorous wearing high heels (which are uncomfortable and unhealthy) gets them to buy those shoes, rather than more comfortable, healthy ones.) Marketing can get people to feel that they need to buy things that are essentially trash.
You seem to highly underestimate the capacity of humans to be duped by the irrational.
Rampant religiosity can get people to believe complete nonsense. Women believing that they are more glamorous wearing high heels (which are uncomfortable and unhealthy) gets them to buy those shoes, rather than more comfortable, healthy ones.) Marketing can get people to feel that they need to buy things that are essentially trash.
Rampant religiosity doesn't get every person to believe complete nonsense. I don't know where you get that from.
Secondly most women don't where high heels all the time Tim. I don't know which planet you live on.
Just because people can buy products that have been marketed to them doesn't mean the stuff is trash either.
You have to get your analogies straight.
Rampant religiosity can get people to believe complete nonsense. Women believing that they are more glamorous wearing high heels (which are uncomfortable and unhealthy) gets them to buy those shoes, rather than more comfortable, healthy ones.) Marketing can get people to feel that they need to buy things that are essentially trash.
Rampant religiosity doesn't get every person to believe complete nonsense. I don't know where you get that from.
Secondly most women don't where high heels all the time Tim. I don't know which planet you live on.
Just because people can buy products that have been marketed to them doesn't mean the stuff is trash either.
You have to get your analogies straight.
Now you're just arguing by saying that I said some things that I did not say. I did not say that everyperson is affected by rampant religiosity, or that women wear high heels all the time, or that everything that a person buys due to marketing is trash. I was simply giving obvious examples, that can (and do) occur, commonly, that exemplify how common it is for people to act or believe things that is not reality based, or is even, sometimes, not in their own best interest.
BTW, It is not I, but you, who needs to get my analogies straight, and the planet that I live on is called Earth. You may be familiar with it.
Now you're just arguing by saying that I said some things that I did not say. I did not say that everyperson is affected by rampant religiosity, or that women wear high heels all the time, or that everything that a person buys due to marketing is trash. I was simply giving obvious examples, that can (and do) occur, commonly, that exemplify how common it is for people to act or believe things that is not reality based, or is even, sometimes, not in their own best interest.
BTW, It is not I, but you, who needs to get my analogies straight, and the planet that I live on is called Earth. You may be familiar with it.
Actually, I was just giving you a dose of your own medicine. I didn't think you would pick up on that.
I purposefully constructed that last post to be....ah...like your responses sometimes.
Take that with however many grains of salt you wish.
Intentional smiley: :-)
Now you're just arguing by saying that I said some things that I did not say. I did not say that everyperson is affected by rampant religiosity, or that women wear high heels all the time, or that everything that a person buys due to marketing is trash. I was simply giving obvious examples, that can (and do) occur, commonly, that exemplify how common it is for people to act or believe things that is not reality based, or is even, sometimes, not in their own best interest.
BTW, It is not I, but you, who needs to get my analogies straight, and the planet that I live on is called Earth. You may be familiar with it.
Actually, I was just giving you a dose of your own medicine. I didn't think you would pick up on that.
I purposefully constructed that last post to be....ah...like your responses sometimes.
Take that with however many grains of salt you wish.
Intentional smiley: :-)
If I am a dick sometimes, in my posts, please feel free to point it out directly.
If I am a dick sometimes, in my posts, please feel free to point it out directly.
:lol: No, no, no. It's not that.
I don't think you focused on the relevant areas of my argument to counter effectively.
That's just my opinion. An excuse here would be ideological opposition. I don't think that's the case in this particular topic.
I'm stating that the Dems have nothing meaningful in 35 years to reflect any organized platform, any actual coherent drive towards reform.
IMHO you've offered nothing but sophistry to counter that..with all due respect. :-)
If I am a dick sometimes, in my posts, please feel free to point it out directly.
:lol: No, no, no. It's not that.
I don't think you focused on the relevant areas of my argument to counter effectively.
That's just my opinion. An excuse here would be ideological opposition. I don't think that's the case in this particular topic.
I'm stating that the Dems have nothing meaningful in 35 years to reflect any organized platform, any actual coherent drive towards reform.
IMHO you've offered nothing but sophistry to counter that..with all due respect. :-)
What happened 35 years ago? Did Ronald Reagan, perhaps, shift the Overton Window, of the time, with his idea of "Trickle Down Economics", and did the legacy of that belief not sustain itself across the population, until relatively recently? The idea made sense to a lot of people, for a long time, and it promised a rising tide on which all boats would float higher, economically. Only after decades has it become painfully obvious to more people that it was wrong. And a significant number of Repubs still believe it.
So if your point is that the Dems have been deficient in coming up with and getting people to believe an alternate narrative, then you are correct. My counter point is that it is a lot more difficult to present a narrative that is based on facts than it is to present a narrative that sounds comforting, and promises great results, and seems to fit with common sense even though it is actually bullshit. I am suggesting that Repub constituents tend to prefer the latter, and Dem constituents tend to prefer the former.
So with close to half of the population inclined to think and believe in a certain way, and close to half of the other part of the population inclined to think and believe in a not very compatible way, it takes a strong narrative, bullshit or not, to make a difference. And/or it takes (a) well organized method/s for getting that particular narrative into the public's psyche.
So basically I agree that the Dems have failed to a great degree. I have suggested part of why that could be. I don't think that it is simply that they are only concerned about getting into and remaining in office, solely, for the sake of their own personal careers. Should they have learned from and more effectively countered the techniques that have been working for the Repubs? I think that they should have.
So if your point is that the Dems have been deficient in coming up with and getting people to believe an alternate narrative, then you are correct. My counter point is that it is a lot more difficult to present a narrative that is based on facts than it is to present a narrative that sounds comforting, and promises great results, and seems to fit with common sense even though it is actually bullshit. I am suggesting that Repub constituents tend to prefer the latter, and Dem constituents tend to prefer the former.
This is the kernel here that I am stressing. Thank you.
And I am not arguing at this point. You seem to basically agree.
However I completely disagree that it is far more difficult to present a narrative based on facts than it is one of comfort.
In any case, the supposed DEM narrative based on facts should run concurrently with a narrative of comfort to begin with!!
That should be a double whammy. A home run. Especially when your narrative target is 85%-99% of the pop.
But a narrative of facts alone should win out in 35 years(a somewhat arbitrary number FYI)of declining values, fortunes, and standards.
This I'm stating as fact. So why has it not won out?
Yes in the face of GOP obfuscation!! Which is part of the paradigm, not an external magic force holding back DEM progress.
That's where you're having a disconnect. The opposing GOP narrative is nothing more than one more hurdle that the DEMs should have overcome by now.
That's the whole point. Your Overton Window.
With all of these basic, obvious, indisputable, demographics The DEMS should have stolen the show years ago and never looked back.
Now we only have to ask ourselves why they haven't?
The answers are simple.
The Dems are in the main bought out by Corporate interests just like the GOP.
The Dems are careerists.
The Dems have no overarching plan or organization. They are reactionary...which is a huge fault in a party that is supposed to be progressive.
So if your point is that the Dems have been deficient in coming up with and getting people to believe an alternate narrative, then you are correct. My counter point is that it is a lot more difficult to present a narrative that is based on facts than it is to present a narrative that sounds comforting, and promises great results, and seems to fit with common sense even though it is actually bullshit. I am suggesting that Repub constituents tend to prefer the latter, and Dem constituents tend to prefer the former.
...However I completely disagree that it is far more difficult to present a narrative based on facts than it is one of comfort.
In any case, the supposed DEM narrative based on facts should run concurrently with a narrative of comfort to begin with!!
That should be a double whammy. A home run. Especially when your narrative target is 85%-99% of the pop.
But a narrative of facts alone should win out in 35 years(a somewhat arbitrary number FYI)of declining values, fortunes, and standards.
This I'm stating as fact. So why has it not won out? ...
The answers are simple.
(#1) The Dems are in the main bought out by Corporate interests just like the GOP.
(#2) The Dems are careerists.
(#3) The Dems have no overarching plan or organization. They are reactionary...which is a huge fault in a party that is supposed to be progressive.
(parenthetical #'s, above, inserted by me)
Re; the 3 answers you give:
#1 - I would think that this applies to both parties, but much moreso, to the Repubs.
#2 - This probably applies equally.
#3 - The Dems have been deficient, there.
But, again, you are ignoring some of the reasons for the relative deficiency. Money for one. Money that is strategically used for lobbyists, for think tanks that discover the most effective ways of getting the conservative messages to be believed, for getting local officials elected all over the country, for establishing media enterprises that broadcast their messages continuously.
And the other major factor, I think, that explains the relative deficiency of the Dems getting their message to be believed (and that you refuse to consider) is that many, if not most, people are, more essentially, irrational than rational, when it comes to belief. (Perhaps you are projecting your own rationality onto 85% of the rest of humankind.) Rational plus comfort is not, as you say, a double whammy, when the irrational can be sold as rational, while being even more comfortable, to a substantial part of the population.
And the other major factor, I think, that explains the relative deficiency of the Dems getting their message to be believed (and that you refuse to consider) is that many, if not most, people are, more essentially, irrational than rational, when it comes to belief.
:lol: Are you joking?
We are not talking about beliefs here. Rational or irrational.
We only have 2 parties. The people engaging in this nation's citizenry under this 2 party government actually live here and can see with their eyes and hear with their ears.
I don't want to go on much further here with this but one indicator could be the Mid Term voter turnout. It was the lowest since WWII.
That's not a reflection of beliefs.That's a clear indication of complete disenchantment. That means that people don't believe(if you really want that word...) either party.
The fact that you are correlating political mechanics with believing things is still not seeing the forest for the trees as far as my point goes anyways.
There's countless examples of Political Parties getting people to"believe" their platforms in this and many other countries. Overwhelmingly or by narrow margins, with strong voter turnouts.
My whole point is that the social/economic fabric(reference my incomplete list of basic grievances earlier in this thread.)of the US is such, that any party that would proclaim a
platform of reform based on the needs and wants of the majority should have had a cake walk by now.
The very fact that this party has failed to get the people to "believe" in and of itself, is an utter failure.
That's about the third time I've reiterated that now for you. You're placing the onus on the people's failure to believe rationally.
Voter turnout in Mid Term elections, for example, is a clear indicator that it is not based on the ability to "believe" rationally or irrationally.
And the other major factor, I think, that explains the relative deficiency of the Dems getting their message to be believed (and that you refuse to consider) is that many, if not most, people are, more essentially, irrational than rational, when it comes to belief.
:lol: Are you joking?
We are not talking about beliefs here. Rational or irrational.
We only have 2 parties. The people engaging in this nation's citizenry under this 2 party government actually live here and can see with their eyes and hear with their ears.
I don't want to go on much further here with this but one indicator could be the Mid Term voter turnout. It was the lowest since WWII.
That's not a reflection of beliefs.That's a clear indication of complete disenchantment. That means that people don't believe(if you really want that word...) either party.
The fact that you are correlating political mechanics with believing things is still not seeing the forest for the trees as far as my point goes anyways.
There's countless examples of Political Parties getting people to"believe" their platforms in this and many other countries. Overwhelmingly or by narrow margins, with strong voter turnouts.
My whole point is that the social/economic fabric(reference my incomplete list of basic grievances earlier in this thread.)of the US is such, that any party that would proclaim a
platform of reform based on the needs and wants of the majority should have had a cake walk by now.
The very fact that this party has failed to get the people to "believe" in and of itself, is an utter failure.
That's about the third time I've reiterated that now for you. You're placing the onus on the people's failure to believe rationally.
Voter turnout in Mid Term elections, for example, is a clear indicator that it is not based on the ability to "believe" rationally or irrationally.
Of course I am not joking. Belief and disenchantment (a loss of a previously held belief) are two sides of the same coin. And this is maybe the 3rd or so time that I have reiterated to you that I am not arguing with your assertion that the Dem Party has failed to a great degree to get enough people believing in their message, or even has failed in providing a clear coherent over-riding message that inspires belief, but I am providing explanations as to why that may be.
Your "whole point", "that any party that would proclaim a platform of reform based on the needs and wants of the majority should have had a cake walk by now" is, I think, an erroneous assumption. But this is obviously a belief that you hold that is important to you. So you ignore the reality that BOTH parties do this or, at least, pretend to do this, in their own ways. Their messages tend to over-ride each other's, hence there is no "cake-walk" and there is a lot of disenchantment.
Of course I am not joking. Belief and disenchantment (a loss of a previously held belief) are two sides of the same coin.
Yes ok Tim, whatever we have to do to make your point fit....that works.
Really, you resort to condescension via thinly veiled sarcasm? Where is that Vyazma fire? Show me how it would be a "cake walk" to get 85% of Americans to agree on the solutions to the societal problems that are of most concern to you.