A political thought experiment.

brianlux

Over the last few year it seems (and statistics would probably prove this to be true) that the politicians and presidential hopefuls who have been receiving the most attention are some of those on the far right- specifically Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry. Public reaction to this vast media coverage has been mixed between huge support of these political superstars and general grumbling and unhappiness. Suppose, just for a minute, the scenario were the opposite. Suppose we had three people who were perceived as being radically left- say three people with similar outlooks as (and I’ll used examples of people no longer living and on scene to keep the scenario hypothetical): Huey P. Newton, Judi Bari and Abbie Hoffman. Suppose these three people were in the news as much as Palin, Bachman and Perry and each of them was perceived as having a shot at becoming the next president. What would the public reaction to this look like?

Please note- I really am curious as to what some of you think about this thought experiment. I am NOT trying to offend anyone (never have) or create adversity here or set the world record for having a locked thread fall off a moving train. An occasional humorous post I doubt anyone mind, but I would appreciate some thoughtful answers as well. Thanks.

Go Beavers

The response from the right in that case would be much, much more reactionary and alarmist. The rights core tactic is to manipulate through fear, so all we would hear about is how these candidates are socialists and will destroy out country (ring a bell?).

Dukes10

I don't think this is an experiment. You only have to look at history. Look back at when George Sr was running for re-election and the amount of coverage the extremist got before Bill Clinton emerged.
This is the case in all elections. The extremist get the headlines because they are the complete opposite of the current President.
Same thing when Clinton was running and George W.

brianlux

Dukes10 wrote:

I don't think this is an experiment. You only have to look at history. Look back at when George Sr was running for re-election and the amount of coverage the extremist got before Bill Clinton emerged.
This is the case in all elections. The extremist get the headlines because they are the complete opposite of the current President.
Same thing when Clinton was running and George W.

Possibly true but I'm calling this a "thought experiment" in the present tense. What would the public reaction be today to the scenario I described above. Is such a scenario even possible today? What would it look like and where would it go in the 2010's? How would the public react today if people viewed as being on the far left garnered as much media attention today as those viewed as being on the far right?

Jeanwah

brianlux wrote:

Possibly true but I'm calling this a "thought experiment" in the present tense. What would the public reaction be today to the scenario I described above. Is such a scenario even possible today? What would it look like and where would it go in the 2010's? How would the public react today if people viewed as being on the far left garnered as much media attention today as those viewed as being on the far right?

I think, because typical radical political opinions with their own broadcast programs are vastly republican, that the public opinion would be more of the same... Until there actually are liberal opinions with high viewership / listenership, can it ever be any different?

And I really believe that the media is run by the system, therefore everything we see is what the system wants...

Cosmo

Well... if you are speaking of today's political climate, I believe that most of the people that are left of center would reject left-wing radicals that are mirror images of politicians, such as Palin, Bachmann and Perry. Most people would recognize that those people that operate on the fringes, are not going to solve anything other than keeping America divided along political lines. There is a reason why it's called the 'Lunatic Fringe'.
The problem I see is that many that are just right of center, see the Palins, Bachmanns and Perrys as more towards their center... and not out there on the fringe. Personally... I believe it is the constant campaigning that we are seeing these days and people who had absolutely no interest in politics a decade ago, believe they are politically educated because of the 15 second soundbites they see and hear on television. I call it the 'Sportization of Politics', where Politics is portrayed as a sport... because Americans understand sports. It is a dumbing down of politics and brought to the level of sports. You pick a team you like... and you stick with it... no matter what.
When those clueless people make wild comments such as, "You should have to take a test in order to vote"... I say, 'Great'... because they are the ones who are most likely to be disqualified.

brianlux

Cosmo wrote:

Well... if you are speaking of today's political climate, I believe that most of the people that are left of center would reject left-wing radicals that are mirror images of politicians, such as Palin, Bachmann and Perry. Most people would recognize that those people that operate on the fringes, are not going to solve anything other than keeping America divided along political lines. There is a reason why it's called the 'Lunatic Fringe'.
The problem I see is that many that are just right of center, see the Palins, Bachmanns and Perrys as more towards their center... and not out there on the fringe. Personally... I believe it is the constant campaigning that we are seeing these days and people who had absolutely no interest in politics a decade ago, believe they are politically educated because of the 15 second soundbites they see and hear on television. I call it the 'Sportization of Politics', where Politics is portrayed as a sport... because Americans understand sports. It is a dumbing down of politics and brought to the level of sports. You pick a team you like... and you stick with it... no matter what.
When those clueless people make wild comments such as, "You should have to take a test in order to vote"... I say, 'Great'... because they are the ones who are most likely to be disqualified.

"Sportization of Politics"..."a dumbing down of politics". Well said Cosmo and, sadly, I must agree.

inlet13

I think you really need to start defining "right" and "left". I'd say, Ron Paul is probably further right than every Republican candidate on most issues.

No offense, but I think you're kinda picking and classifying candidates as "furthest to the right" to try to underscore you dislike of those particular candidates, probably because of environment and religion (or affiliation with the Tea Party). For instance, I think Palin would be way, way, way more moderate on more than half the total political issues than Paul.

Let's be real... people here define right as religious-oriented, affiliated with the Tea Party and/or not appealing to the environment.

In real life, it's way more complex than that. Sure... there's social issues, but there's also the economy, and there's foreign policy... and more.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

I think you really need to start defining "right" and "left". I'd say, Ron Paul is probably further right than every Republican candidate on most issues.

No offense, but I think you're kinda picking and classifying candidates as "furthest to the right" to try to underscore you dislike of those particular candidates, probably because of environment and religion (or affiliation with the Tea Party). For instance, I think Palin would be way, way, way more moderate on more than half the total political issues than Paul.

Let's be real... people here define right as religious-oriented, affiliated with the Tea Party and/or not appealing to the environment.

In real life, it's way more complex than that. Sure... there's social issues, but there's also the economy, and there's foreign policy... and more.

My picks are based on the high percentage of media coverage.
I don't see my self as labeled-- sure I'm concerned about the environment, aren't most people?-- and yes, I totally understand that labels are limited in meaning. My idea here was more about looking at ways of thinking.
Yes, I have certain biases as everyone does. But beyond that and thinking more generically about particular people or names, what about the "thought experiment" itself?

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

Over the last few year it seems (and statistics would probably prove this to be true) that the politicians and presidential hopefuls who have been receiving the most attention are some of those on the far right- specifically Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry. Public reaction to this vast media coverage has been mixed between huge support of these political superstars and general grumbling and unhappiness. Suppose, just for a minute, the scenario were the opposite. Suppose we had three people who were perceived as being radically left- say three people with similar outlooks as (and I’ll used examples of people no longer living and on scene to keep the scenario hypothetical): Huey P. Newton, Judi Bari and Abbie Hoffman. Suppose these three people were in the news as much as Palin, Bachman and Perry and each of them was perceived as having a shot at becoming the next president. What would the public reaction to this look like?

Please note- I really am curious as to what some of you think about this thought experiment. I am NOT trying to offend anyone (never have) or create adversity here or set the world record for having a locked thread fall off a moving train. An occasional humorous post I doubt anyone mind, but I would appreciate some thoughtful answers as well. Thanks.

I would like to preface this with the idea that all of this is simply conjecture

I think if those three were running right now, there would be a tremendous amount of coverage from fox news about their backgrounds. I think some of the other news organizations would probably report more on the here and now about them. Since the past, present, and future or a candidate are all really tied together, all media outlets would be doing a disservice to the people trying to get an accurate picture of the candidates. I do think that the radical nature of the candidates chosen by yourself in the actual present and the hypothetical present are not equal in nature. Some are seen as far right)really aren't that far right), but I wouldn't call them activists. The others were more accurately called activists. Those are two different things. Perry, Palin, and Bachman are politicians, those other three, Newton, Bari, and Hoffman not so much. Also, I think Newton would be murdered in the press until he dropped out because of his crack use. Bari and Hoffman would probably get called out by Hannity as radicals and all that noise, but for the most part I think if they were polling well the press would continue to cover them as fairly as they could...I mean sure the occasional op-ed piece would show up criticizing their backgrounds, but I think if they can show any sort of personality and maybe show that they were not necessarily sorry for their actions but would handle things differently in the future the public would accept them. I mean, Marion Barry did get elected again...if that can happen anything can. But no I don't think they would have a legitimate shot at the presidency...I don't think Palin, Perry, or Bachman do either...

I do however think the right leaning folks would get out in droves to act against those three candidates. Say what you want about the right, but when they perceive someone as radical, they get their talons out and show up...I just don't think you can say the same about the left.

kind of rambled there...but it is fun to think about

brianlux

mikepegg44 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Over the last few year it seems (and statistics would probably prove this to be true) that the politicians and presidential hopefuls who have been receiving the most attention are some of those on the far right- specifically Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry. Public reaction to this vast media coverage has been mixed between huge support of these political superstars and general grumbling and unhappiness. Suppose, just for a minute, the scenario were the opposite. Suppose we had three people who were perceived as being radically left- say three people with similar outlooks as (and I’ll used examples of people no longer living and on scene to keep the scenario hypothetical): Huey P. Newton, Judi Bari and Abbie Hoffman. Suppose these three people were in the news as much as Palin, Bachman and Perry and each of them was perceived as having a shot at becoming the next president. What would the public reaction to this look like?

Please note- I really am curious as to what some of you think about this thought experiment. I am NOT trying to offend anyone (never have) or create adversity here or set the world record for having a locked thread fall off a moving train. An occasional humorous post I doubt anyone mind, but I would appreciate some thoughtful answers as well. Thanks.

I would like to preface this with the idea that all of this is simply conjecture

I think if those three were running right now, there would be a tremendous amount of coverage from fox news about their backgrounds. I think some of the other news organizations would probably report more on the here and now about them. Since the past, present, and future or a candidate are all really tied together, all media outlets would be doing a disservice to the people trying to get an accurate picture of the candidates. I do think that the radical nature of the candidates chosen by yourself in the actual present and the hypothetical present are not equal in nature. Some are seen as far right)really aren't that far right), but I wouldn't call them activists. The others were more accurately called activists. Those are two different things. Perry, Palin, and Bachman are politicians, those other three, Newton, Bari, and Hoffman not so much. Also, I think Newton would be murdered in the press until he dropped out because of his crack use. Bari and Hoffman would probably get called out by Hannity as radicals and all that noise, but for the most part I think if they were polling well the press would continue to cover them as fairly as they could...I mean sure the occasional op-ed piece would show up criticizing their backgrounds, but I think if they can show any sort of personality and maybe show that they were not necessarily sorry for their actions but would handle things differently in the future the public would accept them. I mean, Marion Barry did get elected again...if that can happen anything can. But no I don't think they would have a legitimate shot at the presidency...I don't think Palin, Perry, or Bachman do either...

I do however think the right leaning folks would get out in droves to act against those three candidates. Say what you want about the right, but when they perceive someone as radical, they get their talons out and show up...I just don't think you can say the same about the left.

kind of rambled there...but it is fun to think about

Interesting comments, mikepegg44-- thanks. I agree that my three choices for the three on the "left" leave something lacking in this scenario. What three contemporary names might fit better?

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Over the last few year it seems (and statistics would probably prove this to be true) that the politicians and presidential hopefuls who have been receiving the most attention are some of those on the far right- specifically Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry. Public reaction to this vast media coverage has been mixed between huge support of these political superstars and general grumbling and unhappiness. Suppose, just for a minute, the scenario were the opposite. Suppose we had three people who were perceived as being radically left- say three people with similar outlooks as (and I’ll used examples of people no longer living and on scene to keep the scenario hypothetical): Huey P. Newton, Judi Bari and Abbie Hoffman. Suppose these three people were in the news as much as Palin, Bachman and Perry and each of them was perceived as having a shot at becoming the next president. What would the public reaction to this look like?

Please note- I really am curious as to what some of you think about this thought experiment. I am NOT trying to offend anyone (never have) or create adversity here or set the world record for having a locked thread fall off a moving train. An occasional humorous post I doubt anyone mind, but I would appreciate some thoughtful answers as well. Thanks.

I would like to preface this with the idea that all of this is simply conjecture

I think if those three were running right now, there would be a tremendous amount of coverage from fox news about their backgrounds. I think some of the other news organizations would probably report more on the here and now about them. Since the past, present, and future or a candidate are all really tied together, all media outlets would be doing a disservice to the people trying to get an accurate picture of the candidates. I do think that the radical nature of the candidates chosen by yourself in the actual present and the hypothetical present are not equal in nature. Some are seen as far right)really aren't that far right), but I wouldn't call them activists. The others were more accurately called activists. Those are two different things. Perry, Palin, and Bachman are politicians, those other three, Newton, Bari, and Hoffman not so much. Also, I think Newton would be murdered in the press until he dropped out because of his crack use. Bari and Hoffman would probably get called out by Hannity as radicals and all that noise, but for the most part I think if they were polling well the press would continue to cover them as fairly as they could...I mean sure the occasional op-ed piece would show up criticizing their backgrounds, but I think if they can show any sort of personality and maybe show that they were not necessarily sorry for their actions but would handle things differently in the future the public would accept them. I mean, Marion Barry did get elected again...if that can happen anything can. But no I don't think they would have a legitimate shot at the presidency...I don't think Palin, Perry, or Bachman do either...

I do however think the right leaning folks would get out in droves to act against those three candidates. Say what you want about the right, but when they perceive someone as radical, they get their talons out and show up...I just don't think you can say the same about the left.

kind of rambled there...but it is fun to think about

Interesting comments, mikepegg44-- thanks. I agree that my three choices for the three on the "left" leave something lacking in this scenario. What three contemporary names might fit better?

Just off the top of my head... Reid, Frank...possibly Wellstone (R.I.P)...They maybe don't come off as extreme, but the left's positions are rarely painted as extreme by anyone other than those already deemed far right...so it is kind of the middle that is left to make up their mind how extreme someone is...

slightofjeff

I don't think any candidate in American history has received the kind of fawning media coverage Barack Obama did in 2008. Chris Matthews practically had an orgasm over him.

Cosmo

inlet13 wrote:

I think you really need to start defining "right" and "left". I'd say, Ron Paul is probably further right than every Republican candidate on most issues.

No offense, but I think you're kinda picking and classifying candidates as "furthest to the right" to try to underscore you dislike of those particular candidates, probably because of environment and religion (or affiliation with the Tea Party). For instance, I think Palin would be way, way, way more moderate on more than half the total political issues than Paul.

Let's be real... people here define right as religious-oriented, affiliated with the Tea Party and/or not appealing to the environment.

In real life, it's way more complex than that. Sure... there's social issues, but there's also the economy, and there's foreign policy... and more.

...
If Ron Paul is further to the right than Palin, for example... how do you explain his cross party appeal?

blueandwhite

Honestly, I've always thought of the United States as being center-right to far right politically. The idea of a moderately left-leaning candidate must be terrifying to most Americans. Even Obama the socialist would probably be seen as center-right in many countries (Canada for example). When much of your media decrees that your moderate president is a socialist, communist or just a plain old fascist I can't for the life of me imagine how they would react to having a genuine left wing candidate.

The US is no place for a moderate leftist let alone an extreme one.

mikepegg44

Cosmo wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I think you really need to start defining "right" and "left". I'd say, Ron Paul is probably further right than every Republican candidate on most issues.

No offense, but I think you're kinda picking and classifying candidates as "furthest to the right" to try to underscore you dislike of those particular candidates, probably because of environment and religion (or affiliation with the Tea Party). For instance, I think Palin would be way, way, way more moderate on more than half the total political issues than Paul.

Let's be real... people here define right as religious-oriented, affiliated with the Tea Party and/or not appealing to the environment.

In real life, it's way more complex than that. Sure... there's social issues, but there's also the economy, and there's foreign policy... and more.

...
If Ron Paul is further to the right than Palin, for example... how do you explain his cross party appeal?

libertarian is almost so far right it comes back to the left...the reason he has cross party appeal is because of among other things, social freedom issues. He stands against the republican establishment quite often because they forget they are supposed to be for small government. I think that most people who are liberal that would vote for him would do so based on foreign policy or being against military actions. I think many liberals would start to agree with libertarians if they would get over the fear that right means you are for people like Jerry Falwell or George Bush...

Jeanwah

blueandwhite wrote:

Honestly, I've always thought of the United States as being center-right to far right politically. The idea of a moderately left-leaning candidate must be terrifying to most Americans. Even Obama the socialist would probably be seen as center-right in many countries (Canada for example). When much of your media decrees that your moderate president is a socialist, communist or just a plain old fascist I can't for the life of me imagine how they would react to having a genuine left wing candidate.

The US is no place for a moderate leftist let alone an extreme one.

Kucinich is a genuine left wing candidate, although he's probably not running a third time. Not one candidate was as willing to get completely out of Iraq and Afghanistan as that man, as well as being pro-peace (a far-Left trait). How did the media play him out? They tried (and succeeded) at embarrassing him.

Jeanwah

Here's a thought experiment for ya Brianlux... How do we get people to stop focusing on the details and the nitty-gritty and to open up to view the big picture? It's not a Left-Right game, it's a whole system error.

Considering your thought experiment here, "radically left, radically right, left, right, center... it's all the same game and the only thing that would change it up is a shift in universal perception. Far-Lefts *might* be able to do this, but it's too radical a notion, isn't it?

brianlux

Jeanwah wrote:

Here's a thought experiment for ya Brianlux... How do we get people to stop focusing on the details and the nitty-gritty and to open up to view the big picture? It's not a Left-Right game, it's a whole system error.

Considering your thought experiment here, "radically left, radically right, left, right, center... it's all the same game and the only thing that would change it up is a shift in universal perception. Far-Lefts *might* be able to do this, but it's too radical a notion, isn't it?

YES, YES, YES!! Thank you Jeanwah!!

Jeanwah

brianlux wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Here's a thought experiment for ya Brianlux... How do we get people to stop focusing on the details and the nitty-gritty and to open up to view the big picture? It's not a Left-Right game, it's a whole system error.

Considering your thought experiment here, "radically left, radically right, left, right, center... it's all the same game and the only thing that would change it up is a shift in universal perception. Far-Lefts *might* be able to do this, but it's too radical a notion, isn't it?

YES, YES, YES!! Thank you Jeanwah!!