Motivating Voters

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Motivating Voters

***

Pondering

There is a lot of chatter about low voter turnout and what would improve it.

I think voter engagement beyond voting is the problem.

I read this a few days ago and it stuck with me. It's easy to be dismissive of such a person but this woman is not stupid or lazy.

I'm an ordinary citizen. I'm 36, almost 37, I've got three kids, a small business, I earn a living, take piano lessons and literature classes and I watch cat videos on Facebook. I write a little, as a hobby. Like right now.

She didn't vote because she is disillusioned by politics.

I'm fed up with the ambient corruption of politics and, since no party on offer corresponded to my values, I left all the circles on the ballot empty.

She wasn't impressed by Trudeau's platform which she had read, but also said she wouldn't recognize him in the street. How is that even possible? Seems like the MSM isn't impacting people all that much.

There's the pot thing, which I don't really agree with. And then, a member of your team was caught in that lobbying story. That's mostly why I didn't pay much more attention to you. I don't think I would recognize you in the street.

And finally:

You looked like my family, but better looking, better dressed. Your wife had nicer hair, but generally speaking,you looked like us.

If I had a second chance to vote today, Justin, believe me, I would cast it for you.

That night, in bed, I looked at pictures of your victory. I was obsessed. For once in my life, politics looked like me, physically. It no longer was a thing filled with old men making decisions belonging to the previous century.

But I'm realistic and thought I had been had by your image campaign. I was another of its victims.....

Then, the next day, my first as a Liberal, I saw you shaking hands at Jarry metro. Then I heard about your call to Barack. Even worse, I saw that video where you're talking about journalists with a supporter.

Damn, Justin, you really want to make me feel bad for not voting for you? OK, I give up. I regret not voting for you. I'm borderline shameful.

It's easy to put down such a voter, to disrespect her, but I don't think she is an anomaly. To many people politics is a bunch of old men making decisions and it makes little difference which old men it is.

Apparently Trudeau's win is due to first time voters. How many were like this woman? Saw someone they could relate to? Is this what pundits and polls refer to as "shared values"? How effective is the MSM if she wouldn't have even recognized Trudeau on the street?

I'm fed up with the ambient corruption of politics and, since no party on offer corresponded to my values.....

I think values is the wrong word, I think "interests" is more accurate. In Trudeau and his family she sees a reflection of her own, so thinks he will share her priorities and opinions.

Pondering

This person is a university student writing for the studen paper, so also someone we can expect to be reasonably informed.

http://thestrand.ca/this-just-in-round-two-of-trudeaumania/

But Justin wanted young people to vote. In interviews, he admitted that as much as he would appreciate support for the Liberal Party, he was happy to see more youth becoming politically conscious and engaged.

It seems that Justin is sincere when he says he cares about young people in Canada and the need to accurately represent those living in our country—in fact, he’s pledging to do more for young people than his father did. After selecting the most diverse cabinet in Canada’s history and taking on the unprecedented responsibilities of Minister of Youth and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he also hosted a Google Chat hangout answering questions from children from five different Canadian elementary and middle schools.

Like Pierre, Justin Trudeau is for the people.

It's easy to disrespect and lament the simplistic approach to politics but it is one that many if not most voters share. Many, if not most, will tell you they are not into politics. Even those who read the papers and watch the news are far less informed than I imagined in the past.

Neoliberal thinktanks figured out how to sway the thinking of the average person that is preoccupied with their own lives and goals to go against their own self-interests, to believe the way things are is the best we can do.

Understandably this board has focused on the recent election and now what the NDP needs to do to win the next as well as holding the Liberal government to account and other current events such as pipelines and the attacks in Paris.

Nothing wrong with that, but no one seems to be focused on how to sway people who are not accessible through long progressive arguments or passionate manifestos. Focusing on injustice sways people to give to charity. Personal self-interest which includes family and friends, is a stronger motivator which is what neoliberal marketing targeted. "People should get to keep the money they earn" who can argue with that? "Government is corrupt" plays right into the hands of neoliberals because if government is corrupt then shrinking government is good.

Activists seem trapped in a bubble unable to see the forest for the trees, focused on conversion through moral argument and grand inspiration, treating self-interest as selfish, something to be looked down on, rather than a powerful motivator.

In my opinion progressive ideals would benefit the 99%. Medicare benefits the 99%. Fully funded education benefits the 99%. Environmental protection benefits the 99%.  Basic income benefits the 99%. A 6 hour work day or four day work week benefits the 99%. Curtailing corporate power benefits the 99%.  Even so few of these ideas can be sold because people are convinced we can't afford them. If medicare did not exist today it would be a much harder sell.

People need to be deprogrammed, neoliberal conditioning needs to be underminded but it will not happen through long explanations or righteous manifestos. 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think we have to stop calling political thought that opposes Capitalism 'manifestos.'  It's right wing verbage for anything they don't like.

I always thought it was Italian for "we have all the answers right here, if you're not too brainwashed to agree with them".

Debater

Alice Funke (Pundit's Guide) posted some interesting Election turnout numbers today:

Q. Where did #LPC #elxn42 votes come from?

A. a) 1.6M prev abstainers,

b) 1.04M prev NDP,

c) 1.26M newly eligible voters,

d) 221K prev CPC

https://twitter.com/punditsguide/status/666286377693134848

Slumberjack

The Fraser Institute stuff is never called a manifesto when the MSM prints it up.

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
It's easy to disrespect and lament the simplistic approach to politics but it is one that many if not most voters share. Many, if not most, will tell you they are not into politics. Even those who read the papers and watch the news are far less informed than I imagined in the past.

Unfortunately, our media outlets are not designed to inform anyone as to what is actually going on in this country or in the world.  Neither is our education system.  However, lest anyone betray a haughty sense enlightenment and accomplishment for being politically active, I give you babble's slate of election related threads to behold.  Very clearly there's much to be said for remaining blissfully ignorant of the goings on.

Quote:
"Government is corrupt" plays right into the hands of neoliberals because if government is corrupt then shrinking government is good.

Under the circumstances it wouldn't really matter would it?  A shrunken government that had previously been corrupt would likely remain so.

Quote:
Activists seem trapped in a bubble unable to see the forest for the trees, focused on conversion through moral argument and grand inspiration, treating self-interest as selfish, something to be looked down on, rather than a powerful motivator.

I do think rational politics needs to move away from the status of benefit cheque/local satisfaction politics to something that is contingent on a broader lens.  If they promise to maintain this or that social program, but say nothing about curtailing investment in a belligerent foreign policy, then this kind of activism should be seen for what it is.  It is the flip side of the right wing activist complaining about having more tax money siphoned off.

Quote:
People need to be deprogrammed, neoliberal conditioning needs to be underminded but it will not happen through long explanations or righteous manifestos. 

I think we have to stop calling political thought that opposes Capitalism 'manifestos.'  It's right wing verbage for anything they don't like.  What is required are political representatives that will add their voices against the presiding neoliberal agenda and order, which undermines itself in its daily functioning.  That is what the so called democratic voter lacks in the daily barrages of useless information they receive.  Voices actually opposing this state of affairs at the representative level.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The Fraser Institute stuff is never called a manifesto when the MSM prints it up.

Does the Fraser Institute call it a manifesto?

Slumberjack

I think they'd balk at the mere suggestion.  That shouldn't deter the MSM from assessing it as such in the form of a disclaimer to their readers.  Except that in our society, Fraser Institute reports are presented as a respectable form of analysis judging by the exposure they often receive in the corporate media.  There's generally no disclaimer stating that what you are about to read is a capitalist inspired manifesto.  Use of the word 'manifesto' is generally reserved as a slur toward 'non-capitalist' contexts.

Debater

True.

The Fraser Institute is a right-wing policy think-tank.  And there are lots of others.  They should be presented by the press as having a known pro-conservative bias.

Chambers of Commerce are also usually afflicted with a right-wing bias.  And they are rarely independent & non-partisan.

I remember in 2012 when Sen. Scott Brown of Massachussetts touted his endorsement by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a debate with Elizabeth Warren.  He tried to claim it was a non-partisan organization, even though it had a record of supporting Republicans around 90% of the time.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Use of the word 'manifesto' is generally reserved as a slur toward 'non-capitalist' contexts.

If some group wants to publicize their ideas, called "Our Ideas", and then the MSM refers to it as a "manifesto" then I'd agree that's a slur.

But if that group publishes it as "Our Manifesto" then why am I supposed to blame the MSM for referring to it as a "manifesto"??

Radical types seem to like the term for some reason.  If it's a problem for them, what if they just stop using it?

Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
If some group wants to publicize their ideas, called "Our Ideas", and then the MSM refers to it as a "manifesto" then I'd agree that's a slur.

THis is what our conversation is about.  Logically we're not in the business of denying anyone use of the term who has their heart set on it.

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
If some group wants to publicize their ideas, called "Our Ideas", and then the MSM refers to it as a "manifesto" then I'd agree that's a slur.

THis is what our conversation is about.  Logically we're not in the business of denying anyone use of the term who has their heart set on it.

I'm not sure what your conversation is about. "The Leap Manifesto" was not named by the right wing press and the Fraser Institute doesn't release manifestos.

The right does a great job of drumming up the support of the majority. The left does not and putting it down to the right wing press is a cop out because most people aren't paying that much attention to the press anyway.

The right found a way to successfully sell their ideas and the left has not.

As I recall you don't want voters to be motivated to vote and this thread is about what motivates voters to vote on the premise that we do want people to vote.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

The right does a great job of drumming up the support of the majority. The left does not and putting it down to the right wing press is a cop out because most people aren't paying that much attention to the press anyway.

The right found a way to successfully sell their ideas and the left has not.

The problem is that the secret of right wing success is being willing to lie without limits. Global warming is a hoax, tax cut for the rich create jobs, and on and on. The left are much more constrained, by the nature of their beliefs, to stay in the general neighbourhood of reality. That is a huge disadvantage.

terrytowel

Reading twitter today many many Conservatives are now tweeting saying that Trudeau can't govern because 60% of voters voted AGAINST him. Some are even musing openly about going to court to get him recalled!

Which is kind of rich & hypocritical. Because when the shoe was on the other foot (Harper winning with only 40% of the vote) those same Conservatives said Harper winning with just 40% of the vote was what democracy is all about!

mark_alfred

terrytowel wrote:

Reading twitter today many many Conservatives are now tweeting saying that Trudeau can't govern because 60% of voters voted AGAINST him. Some are even musing openly about going to court to get him recalled!

Which is kind of rich & hypocritical. Because when the shoe was on the other foot (Harper winning with only 40% of the vote) those same Conservatives said Harper winning with just 40% of the vote was what democracy is all about!

Hypocritical or not, if they're now giving serious consideration to proportional representation, then that's good.

mark_alfred

Why are you posting this Con garbage here, tt?

quizzical

is this supposed to motivate voters?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Reading twitter today many many Conservatives are now tweeting saying that Trudeau can't govern because 60% of voters voted AGAINST him. Some are even musing openly about going to court to get him recalled!

That's just silliness.  We don't vote "against" anyone.

If I say that my favourite flavour of ice cream is chocolate, that just means I prefer chocolate out of all the options.  I'm not "voting AGAINST vanilla".

mark_alfred

Recall vanilla.

Webgear

Vanilla Ice?

 

Ice Ice Baby.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Conservatives are just sore losers. Suckers.

terrytowel

N/A

 

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The right does a great job of drumming up the support of the majority. The left does not and putting it down to the right wing press is a cop out because most people aren't paying that much attention to the press anyway.

The right found a way to successfully sell their ideas and the left has not.

The problem is that the secret of right wing success is being willing to lie without limits. Global warming is a hoax, tax cut for the rich create jobs, and on and on. The left are much more constrained, by the nature of their beliefs, to stay in the general neighbourhood of reality. That is a huge disadvantage.

It's easier to sell the truth than a lie. The secret to neoliberal success has been message simplification, feeding and playing on fear and convincing people they are being wronged by someone coupled with a relentless marketing campaign and manipulation of the public into seeing themselves as taxpayers and consumers and little else.

Progressives need to learn how to sell their message with the same and other techniques but to reveal the truth not conceal it.

There is real reason to fear. the 99% is being wronged by someone(s). People yearn to see themselves as more than just taxpayers and consumers.

Slumberjack

Media is an integral part of this enemy system we're living under.  Anyone failing to recognize that,...well I don't know what would account for an oversight like that.  Corporate media for instance can make it appear that the hand wringing of a few bloviating corporate political shills and a handful of stupefied constituents regarding a lack of vigor when it comes to fighting terrorism, or supporting Israeli and US crimes against humanity, etc, is representative of wider opinion.  On the other side of that coin, only those politicians that tow a particular line as it's laid down by corporate media, with slight, inconsequential deviations allowed for here and there to maintain the facade of difference and choice for the average voter, can hope to be elected to office.  Anyone else not on an approved and vetted list of candidates has no hope of influencing anything.  People are likely to be drawn in to this theatre of the absurd purely for entertainment, as we've witnessed occurring here in the Election forum.  It's also likely why, when a person looks around at the political scene and begins to come to terms with what there is to work with in the form of an electorate, that something like Objectivism begins to make inroads, as in, why should someone put themselves on the line for pack of lemmings heading toward a cliff. It's where the impulse that says 'look to oneself' begins to sound practical for some people, especially if they're in charge of things.  Under the circumstances, motivating more voters for the next time around seems like the wrong thing to be doing entirely. Helping to unplug them seems like a better use of time.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

It's easier to sell the truth than a lie.

Do you have any evidence for that? I have watched politicians who tried to sell the truth fail egregiously for the last 50 years. What examples of the truth winning out over lies in politics do you have to put forward?

Cody87

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's easier to sell the truth than a lie.

Do you have any evidence for that? I have watched politicians who tried to sell the truth fail egregiously for the last 50 years. What examples of the truth winning out over lies in politics do you have to put forward?

I'm not saying Trudeau is completely honest, but he's definitely more honest than Mulcair and Harper are. So...election 2015?

ETA: I'm not exactly agreeing with Pondering that it's easier to sell truth than lies, but I know first hand that it's easier to sell something you believe in than something you don't. People can tell.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Cody87 wrote:

ETA: I'm not exactly agreeing with Pondering that it's easier to sell truth than lies, but I know first hand that it's easier to sell something you believe in than something you don't. People can tell.

Yes, an ability to believe nonsense when that is advantageous is an important characteristic of successful politicians and other charlatans.

Sean in Ottawa

It is easier to sell a simple message than a complicated message. No matter which is the truth or which is the lie.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's easier to sell the truth than a lie.

Do you have any evidence for that? I have watched politicians who tried to sell the truth fail egregiously for the last 50 years. What examples of the truth winning out over lies in politics do you have to put forward?

I'd say the opposite is true. Justin proved you an lie through your teeth and people will beleive you everytiime; he and Obama have that in common. Run left, govern right. Here we go again.

Cody87

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's easier to sell the truth than a lie.

Do you have any evidence for that? I have watched politicians who tried to sell the truth fail egregiously for the last 50 years. What examples of the truth winning out over lies in politics do you have to put forward?

I'd say the opposite is true. Justin proved you an lie through your teeth and people will beleive you everytiime; he and Obama have that in common. Run left, govern right. Here we go again.

Are you a time traveller?

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's easier to sell the truth than a lie.

Do you have any evidence for that? I have watched politicians who tried to sell the truth fail egregiously for the last 50 years. What examples of the truth winning out over lies in politics do you have to put forward?

I'd say the opposite is true. Justin proved you an lie through your teeth and people will beleive you everytiime; he and Obama have that in common. Run left, govern right. Here we go again.

It remains a little early to see if he will run from the right. We do not have to trust him but we ought to at least let them have their throne speech and budget before declaring that they are shifting to the right here.

Premature arguments are weak arguments lacking enough data. There is time -- why not slow down on the judgment and let there be more data for us to see? Pre-judgment does not build credibility. I suspect there will be a good number of things to praise and to criticize. Let's wait for at least a few of these.

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:
Media is an integral part of this enemy system we're living under.  Anyone failing to recognize that,...well I don't know what would account for an oversight like that.  

Audiences are no longer captive. Newspapers are desperate because fewer and fewer people read them. People are also disconnecting from cable. More and more people use services like netflix. The news is not on during prime time for a reason. Home improvement shows are probably more popular. 

Social media has more influence than mass media. The holy grail is to get something to go viral. Harper ignored the press and bought advertising, especially during sports events, but ratings are dropping for games too. 

We are living during a massive democratization of information and communications. We can communicate instantly worldwide to one or many. We have access to mass media.

Slumberjack wrote:
  Corporate media for instance can make it appear that the hand wringing of a few bloviating corporate political shills and a handful of stupefied constituents regarding a lack of vigor when it comes to fighting terrorism, or supporting Israeli and US crimes against humanity, etc, is representative of wider opinion. 

Yeah they can, but the truth is the majority follow international news even less than local news. Everyone knows about the Paris attacks and many probably watched the news a bit more. It will increase support for C-51. Police in France have been picking up all kinds of weaponry through warrantless searches done under the War Measures Act. 

This is making refugees scarier in France and here rather than leading to a more indepth understanding of the causes of violence in the mid-east. 

I think the most common opinion is that it is all too complicated and it is best left in the hands of politicians and experts. 

Slumberjack wrote:
  On the other side of that coin, only those politicians that tow a particular line as it's laid down by corporate media, with slight, inconsequential deviations allowed for here and there to maintain the facade of difference and choice for the average voter, can hope to be elected to office. 

Left wing parties around the world have won against a hostile media and big money. There is power in the vote. The failure is in convincing people that it is in the best interests to elect a radically different party and reject the neoliberal philosophy.  

Slumberjack wrote:
  Anyone else not on an approved and vetted list of candidates has no hope of influencing anything.  People are likely to be drawn in to this theatre of the absurd purely for entertainment, as we've witnessed occurring here in the Election forum.  It's also likely why, when a person looks around at the political scene and begins to come to terms with what there is to work with in the form of an electorate, that something like Objectivism begins to make inroads, as in, why should someone put themselves on the line for pack of lemmings heading toward a cliff. 

That is so disrespectful of people. Maybe sometimes this board is a theatre of the absurd but it is because people care passionately about the things we discuss. People have different priorities based on their experience of the world. The "problem" does not lie in the electorate. The "problem" lies in seeing the electorate as a problem, even as the enemy at times. The "problem" is an inability to communicate. Activists and the average person speak a different language. 

Slumberjack wrote:
 It's where the impulse that says 'look to oneself' begins to sound practical for some people, especially if they're in charge of things.  Under the circumstances, motivating more voters for the next time around seems like the wrong thing to be doing entirely. Helping to unplug them seems like a better use of time.

Neither voting nor not voting is likely to lead to any deviation from the neoliberal philosophy that is generally accepted wisdom. I would still rather live under Trudeau than Harper any day. The unmuzzling of scientists is important. That was scary and even scarier how easily it was accepted and surrendered to by the public. 

Voting does not preclude other forms of activism. The environmental movement has won battle after battle against a determined right wing party willing to break all the rules to force their will on the people and against the most powerful oil corporations. Not a single pipeline has been built during Harper's entire reign. 

It can be done. Citizens in a democracy can force government to its will. I'm not suggesting it's easy. I'm just saying it can be done. 

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's easier to sell the truth than a lie.

Do you have any evidence for that? I have watched politicians who tried to sell the truth fail egregiously for the last 50 years. What examples of the truth winning out over lies in politics do you have to put forward?

The environmental movement, marijuana legalization, drinking and driving, anti-smoking, seatbelt laws and I am sure there are many more examples. 

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is easier to sell a simple message than a complicated message. No matter which is the truth or which is the lie.

The first part is true, not the second. Lies only work when the truth is unknown. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is easier to sell a simple message than a complicated message. No matter which is the truth or which is the lie.

The first part is true, not the second. Lies only work when the truth is unknown. 

What I said is true and so is what you say here. Your logic is faulty again.

A complicated message does not get through easily and therefore the truth is not known to many individuals and therefore the lie persists even though if you look further the truth may be there.

Most myths exist because people do not have the truth but that does not mean that the truth is not known or available -- but the myth may be framed in a simpler, more accessible and popular way.

Truths can be known but that does not make them known to everyone. Lies are not intended -- usually  -- to convince everyone -- just enough people, or the right people, to be effective.

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
Audiences are no longer captive. Newspapers are desperate because fewer and fewer people read them. People are also disconnecting from cable. More and more people use services like netflix. The news is not on during prime time for a reason. Home improvement shows are probably more popular. Social media has more influence than mass media. The holy grail is to get something to go viral. Harper ignored the press and bought advertising, especially during sports events, but ratings are dropping for games too. We are living during a massive democratization of information and communications. We can communicate instantly worldwide to one or many. We have access to mass media.

Online, alternative media can engage a broader critical mass of dissenters, simply because online is where people are.  Occasionally this engagement can be useful as a collector point for agile, collective activism, making the work of organizing a bit easier.  The issue is that despite all of these new, interactive advantages that have been bequeathed to us, it's become more difficult than ever to convince a system so set in its authoritarian ways as Capitalism.  Activism becomes dicier still if it involves entrusting that social media generated collective power into the care of political parties, or at least such as we've come to know them.

Quote:
....the truth is the majority follow international news even less than local news.

I think a problem occurs when the little information that people do get inside the materialist bubble is considered as authoratative, like the trusting voice above it all, while as we know from MSM reporting on foreign policy events, if the stuff is afforded the status of half truth or as little as a grain of truth, it's often more than it deserves. 

Quote:
I think the most common opinion is that it is all too complicated and it is best left in the hands of politicians and experts.

Agreed.  The result of this indifference is that it gives rise to all sorts of individual and popular enfranchisement, activism, responses, etc.  It's almost as if, through the general public's indifference, certain licences are given to others who struggle in their own battle for survival, in common or otherwise. After that though, shouldn't any intervention by the general public to denounce various reactions against the system be considered inappropriate, out of line?  I guess it would depend on the circumstances. 

Quote:
Left wing parties around the world have won against a hostile media and big money. There is power in the vote.

You know sometimes you just have to give it over, because doesn't everyone like happy thoughts?

Quote:
That is so disrespectful of people.

What?  Attempting either a diagnosis or a motive is giving respect.  It's more a sign of concern that asks if anything can be done, once the problem has been determined.  At worst, discussing whether it is important to try and convince people of something for their own good, and determining at last to respect their final wishes and just let them go, does in fact give that mass of individuals more respect than you'll ever see in return.  That doesn't prevent someone from seeking a second opinion, or having a different one.  How that gets articulated is less important imo.

Quote:
The "problem" does not lie in the electorate. The "problem" lies in seeing the electorate as a problem, even as the enemy at times.

There are very often many parts to a problem.  I maintain that the electorate at present, the voter, is certainly a key part of the problem, starting with the fact that they would care to be called that.

Quote:
Citizens in a democracy can force government to its will. I'm not suggesting it's easy. I'm just saying it can be done.

I agree that we shouldn't withhold from activism it's due.  People are within their right to struggle against the conditions of their environment.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

"Live" TV will get audiences during events such as sports or something in the news.
Because I now have 130 channels to choose from instead of 13, it does not mean my access to the media has become any more 'democratized'. It broadcasts, and I listen or view.  The owner of it is still the same.
We have community cable channels however they are not really set up to help us mobilize the people. 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

A complicated message does not get through easily and therefore the truth is not known to many individuals and therefore the lie persists even though if you look further the truth may be there.

Most myths exist because people do not have the truth but that does not mean that the truth is not known or available -- but the myth may be framed in a simpler, more accessible and popular way.

Truths can be known but that does not make them known to everyone. Lies are not intended -- usually  -- to convince everyone -- just enough people, or the right people, to be effective.

The truth also only has to convince just enough people, or the right people, to be effective. 

The truth can be framed in a simpler, more accessible and popular way. Long ago the education system realized that children learn better when they are engaged and interested, even having fun. A lot of people were getting their news from Stephen Colbert. 

http://globalnews.ca/news/2341808/after-the-paris-attacks-two-friends-st...

MONTREAL – If you were too busy looking at your phone or reading the paper as you passed through Berri-UQAM metro Monday morning, you may have missed it: A show of solidarity by three young men with a message.

New Yorker Matt Dajer standing tall, hand in hand with his two roommates, Ammar Kandil from Egypt and Thomas Brag, from France.

“We’re roommates and best friends and we wanted to show support for all cultures suffering at the hands of terrorism,” Dajer told Global News.

They stood with a sign that read, “He is my roommate and best friend. These are my brothers. They cannot separate us.”

Their act was a simple one, but their message was strong.

3 young men with no budget and no marketing team were able to make the news. Going viral can be more effective than a multi-million dollar ad campaign and it's not necessary to make the news. 

Progressives need to pare down the message and determine the minimum a person has to know and understand to rebel and support activists. More activists is always good, but more followers than leaders are needed. There are plenty of people who have the solutions, everything from renewable clear power sources to urban gardening to alternative local currencies to co-op businesses. 

Pondering

The following is about American politics but we have an echo here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-the-demagogues-are-winni...

The ruling classes on both sides of the Atlantic are in shock. They’re losing ground to absurd figures who used to be jokes, rabble-rousers, fringe players on the margins of political life. Who would have thought, a year ago, that serious people would be in such a panic over how to stop the likes of Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump?

......

It’s fashionable to write off the people who respond to Mr. Trump and Ms. Le Pen as ignorant lowbrows, who can’t adjust to modernity, to progress and to newcomers. That has been the standard response of the pundits and political elites. And that is a big part of the problem. The triumph of two of them has less to do with the baser instincts of the voters than with the incompetence of the current leadership. “[Le Pen’s] success is due to the failures and vacuum of the centre right, the weak conservatism of the Socialist Party, and the inability of the EU to respond to serious European challenges,” The New York Times’s Steven Erlanger told Carnegie Europe. Similarly, Mr. Trump’s success is in large part due to the Republicans’ inability to craft an appealing alternative to the Democrats. In both countries, many people don’t see much difference among the old ruling parties. They’re all part of the same old gang, and only a new outsider can bust them up.

and

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/11/459274277/4-reasons-trumps-supporters-aren...

1. Trump supporters don't trust the establishment. At All.

2. He's self-funding.-And he's spent less than $250,000 on advertising —compared with $33 million by Jeb Bush's campaign and superPAC.

3. They believe what he says.

Trump supporters are predisposed to believe him and not the mainstream media, which has no credibility with these voters.

4. Trump supporters are not ordinary Republicans.

It's hard to overstate how deeply alienated Trump supporters are from mainstream politics. They are viscerally anti-establishment.

The right has used the left's promotion of distrust of the government and the mainstream media to build their movement. That is not an accident. Right wing think tanks have outsmarted left leaning activists but the left still keeps walking straight into the trap.

Down with the elite!

(This was in response to post 267 and 268 here http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/public-paying-trudeau-nannies?...)

 

Pondering

Harper appealed to the common man through anti-elitist and republican rhetoric against big government and interference in the lives of ordinary people, taxes as theft from the hard-working man. A man from outside the political class.

Rob Ford and Trump also presented themselves as anti-politicians. Rough but honest to a fault. Men ready to stand up for the little guy against the political elite.

Trudeau turned this equation on its head. His goal is to restore faith in government as a positive force in society. He "proved" his honesty through "gaffes" and transparency including candid glimpses of his personal life and inpromptu human moments.

The opposition failed to paint Trudeau as an elite because he has been branding himself his entire life and he is instinctively respectful and caring.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/12/trudeau-heart-to-heart_n_8796426...

Trudeau Sits Down For Heart-To-Heart With Boy Who Had A Tough Day

 

The lesson, people feel alienated from politicians. Creating a personal connection and sense of authenticity is important.

Slumberjack

Yes, getting the theatre just right for those 'I feel your pain' moments is sure to engender that all important sense of authenticity. Obviously 'the spectacle' is capable of adjusting it's tone depending on the situation and public mood.

JKR

According to recent polls, Trudeau is now almost as popular as Mulcair amongst NDP supporters.

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

Yes, getting the theatre just right for those 'I feel your pain' moments is sure to engender that all important sense of authenticity. Obviously 'the spectacle' is capable of adjusting it's tone depending on the situation and public mood.

I think Trudeau does have the knack of being genuinely authentic in public. He is what is often called a "people person".  His opponents paint him as either vacuous or stupid but he is neither. His enormous confidence comes from knowing that he is a decent person so he need not fear just being himself in public. He was taught to ignore vapid criticism and to focus on his goals. He has no need of artifice and he knows it. He is the quintessential modern family man in his prime. Loving husband and father, yoga practitioner and boxer, feminist, handsome, 6'2" and has a sense of humour. He never feared "gaffes" because he knew whatever gaffes he makes won't be serious and won't be held against him. He definitely has the potential to surpass his father in popularity. He is a born politician.

Trudeau is winning the populous vote through emotions like inspiration, pride, and hope coupled with a trustworthy persona. He has an appealing optimism and idealism. He inspires and evokes mythical Canada through his promotion of multiculturalism and talks of being united by our values.

This is something that we are able to do in this country because we define a Canadian not by a skin colour or a language or a religion or a background. But by a shared set of values, aspirations, hopes and dreams that not just Canadians but people around the world share.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/syrian-refugees-justin-trudeau-rem...

Trudeau is the anti-Trump and has a much broader appeal but both tap into and direct emotions to motivate voters.

 

Pondering

On who Trump motivates:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/13/why-americans-support-donal...

The voters who have propelled the race-baiting billionaire to the top of the Republican presidential primary aren’t arch-conservative party loyalists. They’re right-leaning people, mostly lower-income whites, who believe they have been betrayed by both sides of a political system rigged for the benefit of rich campaign contributors.

They sometimes sound like the left-leaning people who support Democratic socialistBernie Sanders.

“The Republicans in control of the party now are all under obligations to their donors,” says Roy Sousley, a disabled 60-year-old in Missouri. “The thought of a president who’s not obligated scares them to death.”

“I think they’re all crooked,” says Bobby Steele, 52, a Marine veteran who works at a Tennessee supermarket. “I’m not that much of a religious man, but every day I hope that Trump gets elected. If nothing else, just to tear up the system.”

It’s impossible to ignore the role of bigotry in Trump’s rise. It’s foolish to dismiss the importance of political dysfunction and economic upheaval. Trump, seemingly too wealthy to be bought, is promising to “make America great again” for a white working class that feels it is being treated as an irrelevant underclass.

“It’s been a terrible seven years for the middle class, it’s been a good seven years for the rich,” says Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. “In many ways, Obama is sort of a stereotypical Republican president: the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and the middle class is doing worse. You have a big angry electorate, and they’re going to have a lot of angry opinions.”

Trump does best with men age 45 to 64, with a high school diploma or less, making less than $50,000 per year. These are the very same people hurt worst by the global recession, slowest to experience the recovery, and most vulnerable to wage competition from unauthorized workers.

Aren't these the very people progressive parties seek to represent?

It isn't just Trump that is succeeding through appealing to the disenfranchised.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/14/the-guardian-view-o...

The great division in French politics, she said after the results, is no longer between left and right but between “patriots and globalisers”. There is of course a split of this kind in every European country, indeed in every country in the world. Mainstream parties live, uneasily, with the split; new parties, outsider parties and protest parties exploit it. Voters, buffeted by unemployment, dismayed by immigration, scared of terrorism, and angry at growing inequality, crave the alleged certainties of a past where the strong nation state was a rampart for its citizens. But restoring the nation state in its old form is an illusion. Leading a nation in a globalised world is a balancing act that requires skill and luck and a citizenry that recognises the limits of the possible.

Nicolas Sarkozy, hyperactive and changeable, was not the best of presidents, while his successor, François Hollande, has often seemed hapless. Nor were their parties dynamos of reform. Into the void came the FN. Had it been a new movement, like Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain, that would have been upset enough. But it comes with a quasi-fascist, antisemitic and anti-Muslim background. That makes France’s problem peculiarly difficult, and presents its mainstream parties with a challenge that all Europe must pray they can meet.

I am grateful that in Canada Trudeau stepped into the void and that we are overall far more moderate than either the US or France but still no party is willing to represent the 99%.

Sean in Ottawa

Some of this might change as early as income tax time as people start to see who really gets the so-called middle income tax cut which misses most of the middle yet manages to help people all the way up into the 1% (1% starts around $190k while the middle income tax cut benefit reduces taxes up to $215,000 per year -- and more if you consider the tax dodges available for people in that range).

Of course there are significant promises that if kept Trudeau will get credit for -- but if theya re not kept things can sour quickly.

quizzical

what promises have been kept so far beides none?

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

what promises have been kept so far beides none?

So far the tone and appearance of listening. This has them a lot of goodwill. It will go away if it is not followed with a lot of specific action to match the rhetoric.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Some of this might change as early as income tax time as people start to see who really gets the so-called middle income tax cut which misses most of the middle yet manages to help people all the way up into the 1% (1% starts around $190k while the middle income tax cut benefit reduces taxes up to $215,000 per year -- and more if you consider the tax dodges available for people in that range).

Of course there are significant promises that if kept Trudeau will get credit for -- but if theya re not kept things can sour quickly.

Do you seriously think so? The child tax credit will help most families and none will be worse off. The people haven't fussed over the radical decreases to corporate taxes. If this were going to motivate voters it would have been in 2015. By 2019 I don't think it will factor in at all.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Some of this might change as early as income tax time as people start to see who really gets the so-called middle income tax cut which misses most of the middle yet manages to help people all the way up into the 1% (1% starts around $190k while the middle income tax cut benefit reduces taxes up to $215,000 per year -- and more if you consider the tax dodges available for people in that range).

Of course there are significant promises that if kept Trudeau will get credit for -- but if theya re not kept things can sour quickly.

Do you seriously think so? The child tax credit will help most families and none will be worse off. The people haven't fussed over the radical decreases to corporate taxes. If this were going to motivate voters it would have been in 2015. By 2019 I don't think it will factor in at all.

The middle class is expecting a tax cut. When many realize they are not getting one, getting very little of one, or that people all the way up to those included in the 1% are getting a tax cut they are likely to sour on this promise.

It was sold as a middle class tax cut but it is missing much of the middle class and certainly many who are near the median or  average income earner.

I thjink it will make some people quite unhappy.

People like me (I will get $75 or so) may become quite unhappy that people earning almost 4 times my income will get almost ten times as much. Yes people tend to get pissed whent heyar e mislead AND treated unfairly. A tax cut for the middle class that gives most to people who are in the top 1%. What's not to like???

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The middle class is expecting a tax cut. When many realize they are not getting one, getting very little of one, or that people all the way up to those included in the 1% are getting a tax cut they are likely to sour on this promise.

It was sold as a middle class tax cut but it is missing much of the middle class and certainly many who are near the median or  average income earner.

I thjink it will make some people quite unhappy.

People like me (I will get $75 or so) may become quite unhappy that people earning almost 4 times my income will get almost ten times as much. Yes people tend to get pissed whent heyar e mislead AND treated unfairly. A tax cut for the middle class that gives most to people who are in the top 1%. What's not to like???

But you are not someone who voted for Trudeau in the first place. I don't think anyone thought they were going to get lots of money from the tax break. Had it been important people would have calculated it beforehand as I am guessing you did. People voted for Trudeau the man and the Liberal party as a governing institution. They voted for generational change and a positive attitude. The two most important financial policy items are the infrastructure spending and the child tax credit which was/is calculable on the Liberal website.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Some of this might change as early as income tax time as people start to see who really gets the so-called middle income tax cut which misses most of the middle yet manages to help people all the way up into the 1% (1% starts around $190k while the middle income tax cut benefit reduces taxes up to $215,000 per year -- and more if you consider the tax dodges available for people in that range).

Of course there are significant promises that if kept Trudeau will get credit for -- but if theya re not kept things can sour quickly.

But there's also the enhanced child benefit.  So, it's all about promoting cash payouts by government rather than services by government.  As they're giving out these cash payouts, they'll be closing hospitals (they'll trumpet some minor enhancements in home care, but overall health services will be cut), laying off public servants, etc.

Pages