The Opiate of Exceptionalism
This is an intriguing article aobut how candidates fail to truly address the serious shortcomings of the American system. Candidates act more as "cheerleaders" for the country, and to deny America's 'superiority' would be un-American and incredibly damaging politically, as we saw in Jimmy Carter. Politicians instead, while they concede that there are problems that need to be addressed, then add that they have the solution in order to keep the US on top. This type of nationalism is often counterproductive because serious, longstanding issues cannot be discussed becuase they are diminuitive to American pride and not what the public wants to hear about.
I guess to some degree, I also fall into this category of those who overzealously believe in American exceptionalism, in that I think that while the USA is not as exceptional as it should be, there are things we can do to improve this, but ultimately it is a reflection of the people. Areas like education and personal health, that have a great deal of impact on quality of life on a daily basis, are hard for government to effectively legislate in, and consequently, America cannot be exceptional without the concerted effort of a majority of people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found this article to be interesting and relevant. The article discussed what would happen should politicians be frank about the state of our nation. I do find that politicians often tell voters what they need to hear, be it about the current state of our nation or other things. This is not unique to America though. I don't have the solution to improving the quality of our nation compared to other nations, but the fault should not be placed solely on the people or the government. Both have affected the state of America, and it will take both to improve upon it. A nice start would be dealing with gridlock in Washington. The people vote for our leaders, which determines a lot. Then, these leaders need to learn how to work together to strengthen America.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be nice if candidates would actually create advertising that shows the American public how their policies, plans, etc. are better than the other candidate's instead of bashing on each candidate? They should save that much for the debates. Let's face it. Granted, there are many people that watch the debates and criticize either candidate's words, policies, etc. However, there still are many uninformed or misinformed people who rely solely on advertisements and propaganda. If a candidate could at least make one ad showing why their plan will work (in a nutshell. Obviously explaining the plan would take too long), with specifics, then it could influence any voter to lean towards their party.
ReplyDeleteSure it would be wonderful if politicians were brutally honest about their feelings and plans for the country, but I find it highly unlikely that any politician would ever try it to an extended degree and I think it's even less likely that if any politicians did this while running for high office they would be elected
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jeff on this. As we learned in chapter 9 a candidate needs to appeal to the radical delegates of their own seperate parties during the primaries, but when it comes to the electoral election they have to shift back to the center to appeal to the moderate American public. This makes it almost impossible for specifics about their programs.
DeleteIt isn't likely that politicians would ever blatantly state the truth of plans or problems in America because the population does not responds as well to such. Obviously politicians need the support of the population so they reign in on their answers to a more modest phrasing.
ReplyDeleteThis article relates to what we are learning. Since there is a two party system, neither candidate wants to share their policy plans. Both candidate are trying to win the moderate vote, therefore they are unable to share their proposals for the country.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting. Politicians will not publicly choose to take a clearer stand on certain policies because it will deter the moderate electorate's votes.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably one of the major problems that we America has. If we can't handle the truth, then how are we going to deal with it when it comes up? Candidates can't try to tackle actual problems if we don't let them talk about them. It's honestly slightly embarrassing. I'm not even talking about the lack of detail in their ads.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even know about the child mortality rate thing or the child poverty thing. Probably because candidates can't mention them.
people would rather avoid the problem, and politicians should definitely address these crucial domestic policy issues. we should be worried more about our own country than that of a few nations halfway across the world.
DeleteSure everyone says they want politicians to being blatantly honest, but when they give us the hard truth people tend to react poorly to it. If a politician wishes to be elected, their safest bet tends to be to glaze over things. I think first the people have to change the way they think so that we can handle the trust appropriately.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people can't bear to hear the truth from our government. It is foreign to some people in the U.S. to discover that we don't rank #1 in the world on the lists that we would want to be on such as education. Also, certain generations distrust the government more than others (so the studies show), which may contribute to the fluctuation of trust of the government over time.
DeleteI thought that this article was very interesting and relevant to what we were learning in class. Both parties are trying to win the moderate winners in the middle and they are swaying their way.
ReplyDeleteAs Sara and Shannon pointed out it does pair nicely with what we are learning about. Both parites will have to target the moderates because many of the voters who are undecided are moderates.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, a question that may come to mind is: Is deception justified in this circumstance? In other words, is it acceptable for candidates to tiptoe around serious issues? Well, it depends on what people support. A connection to the current chapter in our government and politics class, since discussing issues that Americans do not want to hear about may decrease political support, this may decrease voter turnout as well. So, would people rather have less voter turnout than there already is, or would they rather accept the candidates' deceptions?
ReplyDeleteAs Sara pointed out, this article is very relevant to our current chapters in class. Both parties must fight for the moderate vote while also maintaining the views of their more prominent, reliable voters. Because of the fight for the moderate without risking the loss of any major party members the candidates are unable to share their true feelings or plans. I would much rather hear a candidate be straight forward and honest with the public even if i disagree.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most that this is very relevant to what we just learned. The parties aren't saying many of their policy plans because they want to appeal more to the moderates. Most of their plans would appeal to the more hardcore activists, and they already have their votes secured.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that the politicians will never be extreme or express their views if they do not appeal to the moderates. As we've learned in class, many people are independents instead of selecting a liberal or conservative side. The more extreme the candidates views are, the more unlikely it is that they will have a strong following. When watching the recent debates, it is clear to see that neither candidate likes to answer the question, let alone be different from his counterpart. One comment I agree heavily with is when Sam said it WOULD be nice if candidates would actually create advertising that shows the American public how their policies and plans are better than the their counterparts, but as of now that doesn't seem like it will happen
ReplyDelete