The general decline in standards today

[LizzieMaine]

Just going to try to keep this within the context of an historical observation. I don't see it so much as a matter of corruption- except that the amount of money thrown into campaigns has really gotten out of hand. In "the era" and later, I think that there was a consensus among both major parties that business, labor, and agriculture were all necessary for the economy, and that all of their interests needed to be respected.

One of my favorite campaigns was the 1948 Truman- Dewey contest. If you study it, you'll see that both sides offered support for what they felt were legitimate concerns of the small businessman, the farmer, and the union worker. None were demonized- but it was pointed out that excesses could occur and would be addressed. There was a passionate partisanship, but civility could be maintained. In fact, some deemed Mr. Dewey as too civil... but I with that were a concern among all today.

There was certainly a fringe element in the Era that heaped the invective -- during the 1936 election, this element centered around the Hearst-McCormick press and right-wing extremists of the Liberty League type, as well as so-called populists like the Coughlinites, and FDR took note of it in one of his most famous speeches that campaign, declaring that "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred!" But the actual Republican candidate, Gov. Landon, positioned himself above that part of the fray, and came across as a reasonable, amiable fellow in his own speeches. It may be that he felt that to be the best strategy, given that he had Colonel McCormick standing by to be his attack dog, but nevertheless you didn't get the personal candidate-to-candidate invective you get today.

It was much the same situation in 1940. The actual Republican Party ran a pretty bland campaign, and Wendell Willkie, who personally liked and admired the President, ran on what many called a "me-too" platform. But the extremists were out in force under the banner of the America First movement -- and this extremism got vicious, hateful, and baldly anti-Semitic by charging that FDR was in league with shadowy "Jewish financiers" in plotting to bring the US into a "needless war." Some of the Firsters were sincere, but there were also a great many opportunistic fanatics in their ranks. The Firsters alienated a great many thinking voters with all this, and Willkie himself couldn't stand them and tried to distance himself from their support.

I think the big difference between then and now is the way the media covers the campaigns, the whole political party as sports team thing. There are strong parallels between watching political coverage on any of the cable news channels and watching "SportCenter" on ESPN, and the parallels between political talk radio and sports talk radio are even stronger. There's a "storyline" that has to be followed, the parties are viewed more as competing teams than as civic institutions, and the individual candidates are matched up and evaluated like competitors in a boxing match. The coverage is about "winners and losers," not about serious and sober consideration of candidate positions.

I'm not just pulling this out of my backside. I've listened extensively to radio coverage of political campaigns going back to 1932, and have watched archived extensive television coverage of every election back to 1960. The changes I'm talking about took place gradually, but as recently as the 1980s the manner of coverage had much more in common with the serious-minded approach taken in the Era than it does with that of today. The big change happened in the 1990s, following the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, with the advent of the modern approach to cable news and the rise of partisan political talk radio and the internet, and it's gotten progressively worse every election since. Far from standing above this sort of coverage, the parties have embraced it and play to the yawping yahoos who make up the bulk of the audiences for such coverage. They call it "energizing the base," in the same way sports teams whoop up the crowd at a ballgame by playing "Charge!" over the loudspeakers.

We are in big trouble as a nation, and we're just sitting by and letting it happen because we find it "entertaining." *WE* are to blame for this. We tolerate it, we encourage it, we pay good money for it, and we're getting exactly what we deserve. Keep dancing around that golden calf, folks, Moses ain't coming back.

 

[Hat Dandy]

We are in big trouble as a nation, and we're just sitting by and letting it happen because we find it "entertaining." *WE* are to blame for this. We tolerate it, we encourage it, we pay good money for it, and we're getting exactly what we deserve. Keep dancing around that golden calf, folks, Moses ain't coming back.

I agree entirely with your sentiment. We have only ourselves to blame for the present condition of our contemporary attitudes.

 

[Fading Fast]

I basically agree with the above analysis of how our politics has degraded into sports competition, but I wonder about the "we" being at fault as there are many who aren't responsible, who don't engage in that type of behavior, who do what they can (in large or small ways) to stop it. I am always uncomfortable with collective guilt as I am with collective praise - shouldn't each individual be judge by his or her own actions?

If I am word picking - and using "we" was not intended to be interpreted as I have, then, I sincerely apologize (I hate when that is done to me), but if the idea is that by being a citizen of this country, a person is then responsible for the decline in political civility, I wonder if that is fair?

 

[LizzieMaine]

A handful of individuals, comparatively speaking, doesn't mean a whole lot in the face of hundreds of millions. This type of coverage, and the type of politics that it generates, isn't being done as a public service -- it's a billion-dollar industry. Commerical sponsors flood it with cash. They wouldn't do that if it didn't have a vast audience. The AM radio dial has been given over almost entirely to this type of political yawping - scan the dial any day of the week and count how many political squawkers you hear, and then count the commercials. It's not about idealism, it's about money.

The *we* I talk about is the American people in toto. If we don't like this kind of stuff, what are *we* doing about it? Are we, not just tuning it out, but actively boycotting the sponsors of it? Are we refusing to support candidates who buy into it? Are we *actively* fighting back? Just saying "I don't support this" isn't enough, and individual action isn't enough. *We* need a mass, collective, bipartisan movement to reject not just the talk show hosts or websites or whatever that we don't personally like, but the whole *concept* of this kind of media-driven politics. And if *we,* as a people, aren't willing to lay aside our political differences and do that, then, yes, *we*, as a people, are entirely to blame for what we have. And *we* are joining in that dance around the Golden Calf.

 

[ChiTownScion]

The AM radio dial has been given over almost entirely to this type of political yawping - scan the dial any day of the week and count how many political squawkers you hear, and then count the commercials. It's not about idealism, it's about money.

It was always about money, but there were restraints- both internal and external. We did ourselves a great disservice by allowing Ronald Reagan to abolish the FCC Fairness Doctrine, which was unanimously ruled as constitutional (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367, 1969). When responsible parties were allowed the opportunity to voice opposing viewpoints within the same forum, utilizing the airwaves that we all own and which are not the exclusive resource of corporate America, the dialogue was a lot more civil and constructive.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It was always about money, but there were restraints- both internal and external. We did ourselves a great disservice by allowing Ronald Reagan to abolish the FCC Fairness Doctrine, which was unanimously ruled as constitutional (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367, 1969). When responsible parties were allowed the opportunity to voice opposing viewpoints on the same forum, utilizing the airwaves that we all own and are not the resource of corporate America, the dialogue was a lot more civil and constructive.

If we had a mass movement I would submit the very first demand we should make would be reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and find a way to extend it to cable and internet broadcasting as well. "But you're just trying to silence Rush/Bill/Shaun/Glenn/Rachel/Keith!" people will scream, depending on their point of view. Well, yes, yes I am. They are all part of the problem and they all need to just shut the hell up.

It's fascinating to listen to political coverage from the Era, because individual stations and the networks took seriously their obligation to present all sides of all debates dispassionately and equally. In the 1940 race, you didn't just hear speeches from Roosevelt and Willkie. You heard every other point of view as well, from Burton K. Wheeler to Charles Lindbergh to Norman Thomas to Earl Browder, and not in confrontational interviews but in their own words and in their own manner. That was a far, far more productive approach than the personality-driven yahoo nonsense that passes for "political talk" today.

Here's what I'd like to see happen. What if, in 2016, every American who's as sick and tired of the modern approach to campaign politics as I am went to the polls and, regardless of their personal political views, or the particular merits of the nominees, wrote in NONE OF THE ABOVE. What if not just a few of us, but hundreds of millions of people laid aside their political differences and said "enough already, you people need to start representing us and not The Money, NONE OF THE ABOVE." Ah, you say, "that wouldn't work, all that would happen is such-and-such-candidate-I-oppose would win." Well, there you go. Your personal politics are more important than making a real difference, than sending a real message that we're mad as hell and we aren't gonna take it any more. If that's how it is for any one individual, that individual is part of the problem.

Never forget, you can stick up one finger all you want at the evils of the modern world, but one finger is easily broken. It's only when all the fingers unite to form a fist that things start to get accomplished.

 

[ChiTownScion]

If we had a mass movement I would submit the very first demand we should make would be reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and find a way to extend it to cable and internet broadcasting as well. "But you're just trying to silence Rush/Bill/Shaun/Glenn/Rachel/Keith!" people will scream, depending on their point of view. Well, yes, yes I am. They are all part of the problem and they all need to just shut the hell up.

I'm not trying to silence anyone. But they all can learn to put on their big boy/ big girl pants and learn to deal with different viewpoints, and the likelihood of being held up to ridicule- if they deserve it- before their constituent audiences.

As I said: the airwaves are a public resource. And just like the water of the Great Lakes or the National Parks, they are subject to public (and that means government) regulation. That is who we designate as trustees in a free society to act as our fiduciaries- and as far as I'm concerned, the breach of that fiduciary trust is as egregious a breach as a trustee squandering the capital of a disabled individual or a minor's trust fund.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As I said: the airwaves are a public resource. And just like the water of the Great Lakes or the National Parks, they are subject to public (and that means government) regulation. That is who we designate as trustees in a free society to act as our fiduciaries- and as far as I'm concerned, the breach of that fiduciary trust is as egregious a breach as a trustee squandering the capital of a disabled individual or a minor's trust fund.

Entirely and 100 percent agreed. It's time to bring back "the public interest, convenience, and necessity," and to make it *stick.* Take a good look at the radio stations in your town, and at who owns them. Follow the money.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Ah, you say, "that wouldn't work, all that would happen is such-and-such-candidate-I-oppose would win." Well, there you go. Your personal politics are more important than making a real difference, than sending a real message that we're mad as hell and we aren't gonna take it any more. If that's how it is for any one individual, that individual is part of the problem.

But the guy I oppose is a closet terrorist/Muslim/homosexual/Catholic/elitist/Illuminati/hairdresser/RINO who was raised a hippie/preppie/radical/liberal/facist who smoked dope/burned flags/went to church/didn't go to church/sent pictures of his weiner to strangers on the internet. He's obviously the ba***rd son of the Hollywood elite and an alien from the South Pole who hates America. He might even be the antichrist in the flesh. We can't let him win the election or we will have forgotten 9/11/Pearl Harbor/the Battle of Ticonderoga.

Fear and ignorance are powerful human conditions.

 

[LizzieMaine]

But the guy I oppose is a closet terrorist/Muslim/homosexual/Catholic/elitist/Illuminati/hairdresser/RINO who was raised a hippie/preppie/radical/liberal/facist who smoked dope/burned flags/went to church/didn't go to church/sent pictures of his weiner to strangers on the internet. He's obviously the ba***rd son of the Hollywood elite and an alien from the South Pole who hates America. He might even be the antichrist in the flesh. We can't let him win the election or we will have forgotten 9/11/Pearl Harbor/the Battle of Ticonderoga.

Fear and ignorance are powerful human conditions.

Yep. To say nothing of media-induced paranoia. Dr. Leary advised his followers to "tune in, turn on, drop out," but I submit that the only hope for us as a people is to tune out, turn off, and unplug.

 

[ChiTownScion]

What if, in 2016, every American who's as sick and tired of the modern approach to campaign politics as I am went to the polls and, regardless of their personal political views, or the particular merits of the nominees, wrote in NONE OF THE ABOVE. What if not just a few of us, but hundreds of millions of people laid aside their political differences and said "enough already, you people need to start representing us and not The Money, NONE OF THE ABOVE."

It would only work if the entire electoral system were overhauled. Abolish the electoral college, and require that "None of the Above" be placed on the ballot in all states. If "None of the Above" were the choice of 50% of all voting nationwide, plus a single voter, the election would be declared void. A mulligan for the election. But I don't see it happening in the US- in my lifetime, or ever. Nation wide, or even at the local election level. People want fairness and the right to be represented, but they also insist upon some sense of resolution and closure.

Voting is often like being on a jury: ruling for the People of the State of __________ or Danny Defendant, or Penny Plaintiff or Danny Defendant in the civil realm, is often not an easy decision, and it may come down to a choice of the lesser of the 2 evils. But for all of its faults, it's still the system we have to work with.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It would only work if the entire electoral system were overhauled. Abolish the electoral college, and require that "None of the Above" be placed on the ballot in all states. If "None of the Above" were the choice of 50% of all voting nationwide, plus a single voter, the election would be declared void. A mulligan for the election. But I don't see it happening in the US- in my lifetime, or ever. Nation wide, or even at the local election level. People want fairness and the right to be represented, but they also insist upon some sense of resolution and closure.

Voting is often like being on a jury: ruling for the People of the State of __________ or Danny Defendant, or Penny Plaintiff or Danny Defendant in the civil realm, is often not an easy decision, and it may come down to a choice of the lesser of the 2 evils. But for all of its faults, it's still the system we have to work with.

True, and I absolutely agree that the current system is a big part of the problem. What I'm suggesting is nothing short of a revolution, an actual revolution just like the one that started the country in the first place. Tear up that whole section of the Constitution and start over again. It's not the inspired word of God, it's a document thrashed out two hundred-odd years ago by a bunch of men who did the best they could under the circumstances, but had no way of knowing how things would eventually work out. The Founding Fathers were not gods, and God didn't guide their hands. He was too busy just then trying to figure out what to do about France.

But most Americans would have absolutely no taste for something like that. As Howard Beale put it thirty years ago, "Just give me my color TV and my steel-belted radials and leave me alone." That's still the way most people think today. They want to grouse and complain about what's wrong with the world, but they don't really want to be bothered about actually taking hard, decisive, collective action to change it. And as long as that's the case, well, there's your problem.

 

[jamespowers]

Time to get back to real world examples of the Decline:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...aught-video-warning-graphic-article-1.2145599

This happens and no one lifts a finger. Absolutely savage and disgusting. :doh:

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I just simply vote for myself as a write in. I don't think I could be that much worse than what we've already got.

 

[jamespowers]

True, and I absolutely agree that the current system is a big part of the problem. What I'm suggesting is nothing short of a revolution, an actual revolution just like the one that started the country in the first place. Tear up that whole section of the Constitution and start over again. That's exactly what it would take to change the way things are right now. A real, genuine, mass revolution.

But most Americans would have absolutely no taste for something like that. As Howard Beale put it thirty years ago, "Just give me my color TV and my steel-belted radials and leave me alone." That's still the way most people think today. They want to grouse and complain about what's wrong with the world, but they don't really want to be bothered about actually taking hard, decisive, collective action to change it. And as long as that's the case, well, there's your problem.

The revolution should not involve tearing up the Constitution but going back to the original document without all the garbage attached to it. Start over from the beginning.

 

[jamespowers]

I just simply vote for myself as a write in. I don't think I could be that much worse than what we've already got.

Definitely not. VC for governor.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Time to get back to real world examples of the Decline:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...aught-video-warning-graphic-article-1.2145599

This happens and no one lifts a finger. Absolutely savage and disgusting. :doh:

There's internet culture for you. OH WOW GET THIS ON YOO TOOB DOOD!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I just simply vote for myself as a write in. I don't think I could be that much worse than what we've already got.

I often write in a certain local reporter for vacant seats on the School Board. He's far more knowledgeable than any of the louts who actually run.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Time to get back to real world examples of the Decline:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...aught-video-warning-graphic-article-1.2145599

This happens and no one lifts a finger. Absolutely savage and disgusting. :doh:

This one's a real beauty. :eeek:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...m-mcdonald-beating-arrested-article-1.2146819

Her own grandmother had put out a restraining order against this person who had threatened to burn the house down and had attempted to bite a police officer on one of the numerous occasions she was arrested.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

There's internet culture for you. OH WOW GET THIS ON YOO TOOB DOOD!

More like Worldstar