I hate... hate... HATE the word "likeable"

[Goldmund]

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

This is just another example of the power structures making people into robots through their buddies in the media.

Excuse me, but "liking" someone doesn't just depend on the object of the affection, but also the subject; in other words, if you excuse the banality, one person can be liked by someone and not liked by someone else.

The word "likable", as used in "Candidate X is not likable" directly implies that, basically, everybody likes the same thing and find the same characteristics "likeable".

The kicker is, and the really sad part, that this is mostly true in the factual sense. Most people do end up looking for similar things in a candidate (or a public persona in general, for that matter). The criteria change over time: for example, a "strong woman" would never have been viewed favorably in the 1950s (or before that, really -- in fairy tales, for example, strong women are always witches and evil Queens and bitchy stepmothers), while today it is conceivable that such a "strong woman" could win the Presidency. As long as she's, ahem, "likeable"... Though these criteria, again, change over time (which alone proves they are not intrinsic), at a certain historical moment there is always a definite general idea of what "likeable" is to most people.

But this fact is a consequence of the propaganda, and not the other way around; this "likeability" bullshit is being forced down our throats -- along with the assumpion that it actually matters whether one "likes" a political candidate or not -- for a reason.

Once people buy into the idea of universal likeability, the blend-in-with-your-surroundings instinct kicks in and everybody wants to like what everybody else likes -- as it works with music, or fashion. So, then we all like the "likeable" candidate.

And then all they need to do is tell us is who the "likeable" one is, and voila: they've just bought themselves more votes than Diebold could ever give them.

[Maple]

1. Maybe so

but if you're not 'likeable' you won't get elected. Even if you're the most brilliant person that ever lived, and can actually walk on water.

If you ARE 'likeable' you can screw up time after time, and people will still forgive you. You can literally get away with murder.

[Goldmund]

2. As I said, unfortunately, that's true

But I also think that it is not inherently so, but a consequence of the fact that we are being force-fed the idea that there IS such a thing as "likeable" at all, in the universal sense of that word.

People in general aren't trusting themselves to decide whom they like, but instead are liking whomever they hear is "likeable" -- ie, everybody else likes them.

And a cursory glance at pop culture will tell you that people tend to like what they think everyone else likes.

Of course, there are MANY exceptions, but the majority clearly acts that way.

[Maple]

5. The usual test

is 'could I see myself having a beer with that person'?

'Likeable'...no one has to force feed it to you. You just have to relate to them. Even if you don't like beer. Somebody who seems an average Joe.

I don't want to elect 'an average Joe'. I'd prefer a candidate who thinks and has some ideas, and can actually lead, not a bar buddy...but that's just me.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Sir Winston Churchill

[inthebrain]

3. "electable" drives me nutz as well

I never understood the thinking of those that say "we should nominate the most electable candidate".

Drives me up the wall.

It really harkens to electing someone because they have a pretty smile or slick hair. Really screws the people out who really deserve to be nominated.

[Goldmund]

4. YES!!!!

[Maple]

6. But if they're not 'electable'

You will spend the rest of your life on the outside looking in.

Idealism vs practicality.

[Goldmund]

7. "electable"

is someone who could be elected.

And not every election is the same, and not every candidate wins for the same reasons, or has the same positive characteristics.

In an ideal world, that is.

In ours, the media creates the concept of universal "electability" -- which always means the same thing: moderate, pro-tax cuts, pro-military (whatever that means), the ability to speak without saying anything and put a shit-eating grin on while doing it.

And analogously to "likeability", people buy into this illusion and gravitate toward this media-created ghost image.

[inthebrain]

8. Your being completely ridiculous

Who is more of a democrat to you?

Kerry or Kucinich?

Now ask yourself which one you see as being more electable.

Fact of the matter is that practicality doesnt win elections. If it was a matter of practicality, Democrats wouldnt be losing to the most extreme right wing candidates this country has seen in 40 years. Take a good look at the people you are running against?

By the definition, there is nothing electable abour Bush or Giulliani and Pataki. Fact is that two of those GOPers happened to bag two seats in a blue state.

Elections are a rift. You dont send a poodle into a fight againt a bulldog.

[Maple]

9. What??

Neither were electable as it turned out.

Those who WERE elected were seen as more likeable. :shrug:

This isn't about ideology, it's about electability.

I don't make the rules or the choices. The voters do.

Find someone THEY like.

[Goldmund]

10. No, the voters don't

Da Man decides that for them.

[Maple]

11. I think that's

being more than a little paranoid.

[inthebrain]

12. Let me guess

You're a moderate?

[Maple]

14. Of course I'm a moderate

I'm a Canadian. We built Canada on moderation.

Nobody elects extremists...from either wing.

Unless......there are only two wings to choose from, and one is more 'likeable' than the other.

People still have to relate to other people. No one votes solely on policy, and certainly not on ideology.

[inthebrain]

18. That explains a lot

American politics are EXTREMELY different.

In this country "moderate" means, "I bend to the far right in order not to piss anyone off".

Sorry, but it just doesnt work in this country. At least for now.

Moderates are the one that brought us;

NAFTA

CAFTA

WTO

TAFT HARTLY

Welfare Reform

and more of the such. I highly doubt welfare reform as it stands in this country, would go down without a fight in Canada.

[Maple]

20. How do you know?

Have you ever tried being mainstream and moderate...and dumping the leftwing ideology?

Because it obviously isn't working anymore.

[Goldmund]

21. Anymore?!?!?!?!?!

When was it tried in a candidate, exactly???? :rofl:

[Maple]

23. Almost every candidate

you've ever backed has gone with this idea.

And except for Clinton, who was actually very 'rightwing' according to your strict ideology...you aren't getting anywhere.

[Goldmund]

26. Excuse me?

Who's this "you" you speak of?

[Maple]

31. YOU are you

An American Democrat.

[Goldmund]

33. Issue code 239322-AD23WQ-55

[Maple]

35. The crow flies at midnight

I'm sorry, I don't speak code

[Goldmund]

38. ...

Um, I was just chuckling at your absurd assumption that you think that "American Democrats" are a homogenous enough group that you can actually speak to one as if you knew him.

[Maple]

42. Oh you are all conformists

in your non-conformity.

And as such, you have a very recognizable image.

Ask any American. They can tell you exactly what Democrats are like, and what they stand for.

No matter what individual characteristics individuals think they have.

Will Rogers...who was a long time ago...said 'I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat'

And the audience laughed in recognition.

[Goldmund]

46. "Ask any American"???

Well, Democrats are a third of America...

Then there is a third who are entirely apolitical...

And then, there are the Republicans, and of those the most vocal on their perception of "Democrats" are Dittoheads.

And that's the image you're apparently alluding to.

Glad to see that they are the ones whom you choose to cite as "every American".

[Maple]

48. Yes, any American

and whether Dem/Repub/apathetic...they can tell you exactly what Dems are.

And what Repubs are for that matter.

You guys have made your images so crystal clear, so black vs white, that anyone can tell you apart.

Hell Romanians could tell you apart.

[Goldmund]

50. Dude, don't "you guys" me, it pisses me off.

[Maple]

53. THAT is a problem for you??

I would think that your national leadership...not my phrases...are the concern here.

[inthebrain]

24. The liberal ideology

I hate to break it to you, is the mainstream ideology. If you had an inkling of an idea about media and political polarization, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. As well as the person who created this thread.

Kerry and Dems are losong because they behave like moderates. There is very little that is liberal about them.

We also havent had a left wing candidate run as a Dem since Roosevelt. Last I checked, he didnt do too shabby. For crying out loud, Nixon would be considered left wing in todays political climate.

Your Canadien friends are viewed as Marxist extremists by these people. Perhaps you havent figured that out yet.

[Maple]

28. I know....because I'm liberal

but liberal is not left wing. It's middle of the road.

Mainstream.

Roosevelt was not leftwing...he was moderate. He did what was practical...pragmatic, under the circumstances.

Only freepers consider Canadians Marxists...we have a Marxist party in Canada. They've never won a seat. We consider them nutbars

The NDP is our 'left wing'...and very moderate compared to Marxists.

The NDP have been trying to be govt for 60 plus years and haven't made it.

You guys are too much into black vs white.

Life isn't like that.

The average person doesn't give a rat's patoot about ideology. They want to know how it will affect their daily lives

Practical answers to everyday problems. No ideology. Reasonable solutions.

[Goldmund]

29. "Practical answers to everyday problems"

That's what an ideology is. :)

[Maple]

34. No that's not what an ideology is

An ideology is an entire philosophy, that applies it's solutions to everything...whether they are suitable or not.

It's a belief-system.

EITHER socialism or capitalism

EITHER/OR

i·de·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

[Goldmund]

41. No valid ideology applies its solutions irrespective on what it's applying

...them to.

[Maple]

44. Sure they do

Valid or not, that's exactly what both your parties do.

And so no one occupies the middle ground...practical solutions to everyday problems.

Where the mainstream is.

[Goldmund]

49. Do you actually mean to tell me that...

...GOP and the Dems are based on ideologies and rabid adherence to them?

What absurdity.

[Maple]

54. Yes, they are

In spite of all the balloons and hoopla and media blitzes...the nut never falls far from the ideological tree.

[inthebrain]

37. there is no such a thing

as being a moderate and a liberal at the same time.

LIBERAL IS NOT MODERATE. Those that run around calling themselves that are what we regard as FAKE LEFT!!!!!

Moderates calling themselves liberals is very much what conservatives want. It allows them to move that bar in the center evermore to the right. You do more to win them elections than you could ever know. The fact that you think the media has nothing to do with it goes to show that they are playing you like a fiddle.

And yes, Roosevelt was a liberal. He was by no stretch of the imagination a moderate.

I'm sure you make right wing Rephlicans very proud of you though. Roosevelt won elections because he thrived on being hated by the right people. He loved making fools out of them and he did a lot of things that affected real peoples lives.

Roosevelt was a man that once said, "judge me by my enemies."

[Maple]

43. Well we Canucks have run on it

for over 80% of our history.

So deny it all you like.

But it works.

[inthebrain]

52. Rooster to chickenhawk!!!!

THis is not Canada!!!!

America is home to people like Eugene V Debs, Emma Goldman, Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth. It also home to Martin Luther King, Helen Keller and Malcom X.

These are people that are not moderates and are bold figures in our history. They didnt enact needed social change for society by acting as moderates!!!!

These were all radicals in thier day who fought for what was right. Many of them paid for it with their lives. Ask yourself this.

Who inspires you?

A)Bill Clinton?

B)George Bush?

c)John Kerry?

D) Sojourner Truth?

In this country you have to scrap and claw your way to acheive social change and get politicians to do the right thing!!!

Playing moderate on issues like Welfare Reform, Health Care Reform, and Free Trade doenst get you anywhere!!!!

[Maple]

56. Gosh....I know that

did you think after nearly 10,000 posts I mistook this for a Canadian forum??

Dunno what the phrase 'rooster to chickenhawk' means though.

But no, none of those people inspire me...whyever would they?

And how would you know what middle of the road...radical centrists...would do?

You've never tried it.

But perhaps if you spoke to people's lives...as in 'it's the economy stupid'....and reined in the foreign wars fantasies...you might reach more people

[inthebrain]

58. Sound like it to me

What works in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan doesnt work in places like NYC.

And Guess what, I do speak to peoples lives and "its the economy stupid" doesnt really ring with a lot of people. Just like in the roaring twenties and in the nineties, if you walk up to most people a told how great the economy is/was, most people will look at you and shrug.

Most of it never transferred to real people and mainly effected rich people. Tell the guy who's job was outsourced that the nineties economy was great and he'll laugh at you and walk away. He'll tell you what a great guy moderate Clinton was. This is the same guy, "MR moderate" who made it easier for coorprations, in times of record profits to lay off thousands of workers.

You tell those people, "MODERATE IS THE WAY TO GO"!!!!

You'll also figure out why Clinton never won with over fifty percent of the electorate. You'll also find out that less than fifty percent f eligable voters decided not to vote in those elections.

Dems have been losing like crazy over the last thirty years because they run nothing BUT Moderates!!!!

?
Radical Centrist?

I also think its funny that Sojourner Truth does nothing to inspire you. That just affirms the fact that nobody should ever listen to you.

[Maple]

59. You don't give voters any choice

They either have to be leftwing or rightwing...and in your fighting you've both become more extreme.

There is no third choice with you..a rational, reasonable, calm, and common sense third choice...something in the middle. No wings.

I'm not in Saskatoon, nor would I compare a small town in the US with NY city, so I fail to see why you'd compare a prairie town with it either.

We do have big cities ya know...but Saskatoon isn't one of them. And the world has far bigger cities than NY for that matter.

And why would Sojourner Truth inspire me?? We didn't have slavery.

'It's the economy, stupid' worked just fine for Clinton. No foreign wars, no empire building...just the everyday economy of the US.

He got two terms out of it by being likeable and moderate. A little left, a little right...whatever was reasonable at the time and for the situation.

Becoming more extreme..on this left/right kick, which is a leftover from the Cold War, won't accomplish anything.

[Goldmund]

13. Well, it's the point of my OP

The propaganda that there is such a thing as universally "likeable" or "electable" makes people gravitate toward whomever is presented as "likeable".

Why do you think people tend to like similar music at a certain moment, or wear similar clothes? Because they want to like what everyone else likes. "Fashion" is the science of what everyone else likes.

Do you think trends in clothing are spontaneous oscillations in the public's taste?

Or do you think they are imposed by fashion designers and the media?

Same here: present a candidate as "likeable" before the campaign even starts and keep shoving that down people's throats, and it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Maple]

15. Likeability is universal

And has nothing to do with fashion fads, or conformity.

Nor does the media make as much difference as you think.

Kerry wasn't much different than Bush, but Bush was more 'folksy'

It certainly wasn't because of his brilliant decisions.

Nor was it some kind of media brainwashing.

[Goldmund]

16. I know, you said already that's what you think

But I specifically adressed why I think what I think -- do you have a response to that?

[Maple]

17. You're making excuses?

[Goldmund]

19. Ah, I see

You put it into that mental category and didn't actually try to read what I said.

[Maple]

22. Oh I read it

I just don't agree with it.

I see it as an excuse for not winning...it's all the fault of 'da man'...no 'the media'...no, 'fashion'...no brainwashing...

Anything but the fact that people didn't vote for you because they didn't find you either likeable or credible.

Because that would mean you'd have to change, and we can't have that!

[Goldmund]

25. You absolutely missed it

I see it as a systemic fault, not the fault of the GOP.

Democrats are as guilty of this as the Republicans. The real entity behind the design of cultural propaganda is the big corporate interests, not a particular political party.

So, I'm lamenting the fact that in this country we cannot have a real political candidate on the presidential level, nor an honest political campaign -- and haven't had one for as long as I can remember. In either party. Yes, of course I would have preferred Kerry to Bush. But I also wish I lived in a country where I had the luxury to reject someone like Kerry or something like the absurd campaign he ran (as is generally every other political campaign in America). The reasons for that are many, and one of them is this propaganda of "likeability".

It is simply how candidates are installed by the ruling circles. Yes, we have a democracy, technically (forgetting about voting fraud issues for now), but only technically -- the power structures spend billions of dollars each year in order to mold and shape public opinion and decieve the public about their interests which are inherently incompatible with the public interest.

This is simply a small part of the way they mold and shape that public opinion.

[Maple]

30. Well then you might as well give up

because you've left yourself no way out.

[Goldmund]

32. I'm simply making an observation.

That's all.

I'm not giving up. But in addition to having an "ideology" -- or an idea of what my personal utopia would be like -- I also observe reality. And this is what I see as reality.

[Maple]

36. 'If you want to

keep on getting what you're getting...then keep on doing what you're doing'

[Goldmund]

39. You sound like a broken record

It has nothing to do with the discussion.

[Maple]

45. Well I'm repeating a verbal message

You're repeating an ideology.

Mine is just remarks on a chatsite.

Yours is losing elections.

[Goldmund]

47. I don't think I'm repeating anything

And I don't think that my observation about "likeability" is inherently liberal or conservative.

[Maple]

51. Excuses....?

And no, 'likeability' isn't either liberal or conservative.

It's a winning image...and if you don't use it...you won't get elected.

So stop picking earnest nuanced 100% ideologically approved types. Pick someone likeable, someone people can identify with...and therefore electable.

[Goldmund]

55. Alright, I'm off to bed

You're not getting what I'm saying and I'm tired coming up with different ways to say it. You've decided that you want to argue with some stereotype from your imaginary mental world and that's what you want to do, so cool.

Oh, and newsflash: I didn't pick Kerry.

Nor did I share much of his ideology. I'm actually a liberal. And the reason he was picked is precisely because of bullshit ideas like the one you just stated. The DLC and Co. presented him as "electable", and people voted in droves for the "electable" one over ones whom they agreed with more -- out of the meager choices given.

[Maple]

57. Kay...nite nite

Hey..you're the one that thinks all Americans are brainwashed. I don't.

The DLC might have considered Kerry electable. No one else did.

[mixedview]

27. it's just a political.. and human reality

When selecting an individual to go before the public, all PR firms, ad agencies, organizations, movements, revolutions - whatever - pick the most charismatic, best looking, well spoken individuals to make their case - the type of person who was the "popular guy/girl" in high school, because that is the type of person who has the most sway/convincing power. They are salespeople, in a way.

And contrary to popular belief, the traits of popularity have more to do with genetics than culture, i.e. people who are popular will be popular almost anywhere, because they are more outgoing and personable - they have socially dominant qualities.

[Maple]

40. Agreed

An election is a popularity contest to a great degree.

So you pick someone who is likely to be seen as popular.

Friendly, outgoing, able to speak in soundbites, able to be seen as down to earth and 'likeable'

You don't pick cranks, grumps, nerds, mumblers, shy types, stiff types etc...it's just common sense.

[Goldmund]

62. "people who are popular will be popular almost anywhere"

Absurd.

Let's take an extreme example.

Germany, 1933. Hitler's screaming is seen as strength, passion and conviction: the louder and more outrageous, the better.

America, 2004. The "Dean Scream" sinks a candidate who is then presented as unstable and loony.

[mogster]

60. Well, you're not very likeable, so that's perfectly understandable n/t

[Goldmund]

61. Have you ever thought of a career in standup?