4 ms·

I'm being serious when I ask this: how did you not see stuff like this coming? Especially the second time around? I mean no offense by this, but I may never un

I'm being serious when I ask this: how did you not see stuff like this coming? Especially the second time around? I mean no offense by this, but I may never understand how so many intelligent, thoughtful people managed to become so fully convinced of such a naive narrative.

prawn 12y ago
Wouldn't this be one of those things poked through by either side? We have the same TPP secrecy and issues with copyright in Australia under a conservative government. I'd expect the situation to be largely similar whichever of the major parties were in power.
- HopeyChangey 12y ago
  Oh, yes, absolutely. I don't believe for a second that had 2008 or 2012 turned out differently, commercial forces would have any less influence on those who write the laws, ratify the laws, or he who signs them. It's the nature of the beast. But that isn't what I was getting at. There was this mass euphoria surrounding one candidate, in which his supporters seemed to believe–despite all evidence to the contrary–that their candidate would somehow represent a kind of messianic deliverance from the status quo–at long last!–as if he would somehow be magically exempt from the forces that created the status quo in the first place. I understand how people could bring themselves to believe such a thing once, but how they largely came back for more in the reelection, and are now shocked–shocked!–to discover there is gambling going on in this establishment, is beyond me. Registering disappointment this late in the game says more about the voter than it does the politician, frankly. I just want to understand how people who aren't lacking in intelligence came to, for lack of a better term, fall for it. The thinking of lot of highly rational people became more emotionally-driven than I've ever seen.
  - krapp 12y ago
    Do you think Mitt Romney would have been any better on this issue? Because that is essentially what that choice boiled down to, Kang or Kodos.
    - HopeyChangey 12y ago
      Please forgive me if this sounds rude, but did you read my comment before replying to it? First paragraph: "I don't believe for a second that had 2008 or 2012 turned out differently, commercial forces would have any less influence on those who write the laws, ratify the laws, or he who signs them. It's the nature of the beast." Anyway, there was virtually no lesser-of-two-evils narrative in '08 or '12 from the American left, or at least as little as there's ever been in recent history. From either side, really.
      - WildUtah 12y ago
        "virtually no lesser-of-two-evils narrative in '08 or '12 from the American left" Maybe not at rallies, but if you read lefty commentary or conversation sites it was nothing but lesser-of-two-evils in '08 and '12. Likewise on the right. Thoughtful people always know the score and Obama has been as hopey and changey as anyone could reasonably hope for -- specifically, he has been a little better than the one before him.
        x0x0 12y ago
        Claiming Obama is only a little better than Bush is a little silly. We have obamacare; for all it's flaws, we've both massively reduced the number of uninsured in the United States and slowed the growth of health costs. It's a huge win, and while I would have loved single payer -- hmos and all health insurers are nothing but parasites -- the fact is he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama did as well as possible. I'm pretty confident that in the 20 year timeframe we'll have something pretty close to single payer, whether it's true single payer or strong caps on how much resources insurers can suck. Obamacare is also a massive gift to anyone who would like to start a company, both for the original founders and for early employees. We have many fewer troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I wish Obama were much better, those are two big differences from Bush.
      - krapp 12y ago
        I'm not too worried about rudeness given your obviously trollish temporary username, but yes, I did read your comment. I was only trying to suggest that there was something more pragmatic than wide-eyed naiveté at work when people voted for Obama the second time. There were plenty of Democrats who were tired of Obama and were ready to jump ship if only the Republicans had met them halfway and presented a candidate who wasn't contemptible.
  - prawn 12y ago
    I think it's definitely true that the vast majority of people (even intelligent) don't realise how little influence they truly have. And that naiveté is present in the GP. But, fall for what really? This was the best chance at hope-and-change amidst the reality of 'commercial forces', twice. As another respondent said, the alternatives were clearly worse. I'd rather have a hopeful-of-change person in charge constrained by "the beast" than a status quo option also constrained by the beast. At least the former can apply some pressure via public support. Even those that realise the beast is largely in control of proceedings had to reach that at some point; I didn't realise the extent of it until I was 35.

prawn 12y ago

Wouldn't this be one of those things poked through by either side? We have the same TPP secrecy and issues with copyright in Australia under a conservative government. I'd expect the situation to be largely similar whichever of the major parties were in power.

HopeyChangey 12y ago
Oh, yes, absolutely. I don't believe for a second that had 2008 or 2012 turned out differently, commercial forces would have any less influence on those who write the laws, ratify the laws, or he who signs them. It's the nature of the beast. But that isn't what I was getting at. There was this mass euphoria surrounding one candidate, in which his supporters seemed to believe–despite all evidence to the contrary–that their candidate would somehow represent a kind of messianic deliverance from the status quo–at long last!–as if he would somehow be magically exempt from the forces that created the status quo in the first place. I understand how people could bring themselves to believe such a thing once, but how they largely came back for more in the reelection, and are now shocked–shocked!–to discover there is gambling going on in this establishment, is beyond me. Registering disappointment this late in the game says more about the voter than it does the politician, frankly. I just want to understand how people who aren't lacking in intelligence came to, for lack of a better term, fall for it. The thinking of lot of highly rational people became more emotionally-driven than I've ever seen.
- krapp 12y ago
  Do you think Mitt Romney would have been any better on this issue? Because that is essentially what that choice boiled down to, Kang or Kodos.
  - HopeyChangey 12y ago
    Please forgive me if this sounds rude, but did you read my comment before replying to it? First paragraph: "I don't believe for a second that had 2008 or 2012 turned out differently, commercial forces would have any less influence on those who write the laws, ratify the laws, or he who signs them. It's the nature of the beast." Anyway, there was virtually no lesser-of-two-evils narrative in '08 or '12 from the American left, or at least as little as there's ever been in recent history. From either side, really.
    - WildUtah 12y ago
      "virtually no lesser-of-two-evils narrative in '08 or '12 from the American left" Maybe not at rallies, but if you read lefty commentary or conversation sites it was nothing but lesser-of-two-evils in '08 and '12. Likewise on the right. Thoughtful people always know the score and Obama has been as hopey and changey as anyone could reasonably hope for -- specifically, he has been a little better than the one before him.
      - x0x0 12y ago
        Claiming Obama is only a little better than Bush is a little silly. We have obamacare; for all it's flaws, we've both massively reduced the number of uninsured in the United States and slowed the growth of health costs. It's a huge win, and while I would have loved single payer -- hmos and all health insurers are nothing but parasites -- the fact is he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama did as well as possible. I'm pretty confident that in the 20 year timeframe we'll have something pretty close to single payer, whether it's true single payer or strong caps on how much resources insurers can suck. Obamacare is also a massive gift to anyone who would like to start a company, both for the original founders and for early employees. We have many fewer troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I wish Obama were much better, those are two big differences from Bush.
    - krapp 12y ago
      I'm not too worried about rudeness given your obviously trollish temporary username, but yes, I did read your comment. I was only trying to suggest that there was something more pragmatic than wide-eyed naiveté at work when people voted for Obama the second time. There were plenty of Democrats who were tired of Obama and were ready to jump ship if only the Republicans had met them halfway and presented a candidate who wasn't contemptible.
- prawn 12y ago
  I think it's definitely true that the vast majority of people (even intelligent) don't realise how little influence they truly have. And that naiveté is present in the GP. But, fall for what really? This was the best chance at hope-and-change amidst the reality of 'commercial forces', twice. As another respondent said, the alternatives were clearly worse. I'd rather have a hopeful-of-change person in charge constrained by "the beast" than a status quo option also constrained by the beast. At least the former can apply some pressure via public support. Even those that realise the beast is largely in control of proceedings had to reach that at some point; I didn't realise the extent of it until I was 35.