Paul Eres ([info]rinku) wrote,
@ 2008-05-07 06:40:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:culture, history, politics, psychology, world

This was a comment in the Ron Paul LJ community which I meant to be much shorter but which spiraled off; it may be worth saving. And then after that was another comment on why I felt the campaign didn't win, which may also be worth saving.

*

I think the war of ideas is pretty much determined by who has the ability to transmit and disseminate those ideas.

RP took advantage of the current strength of informal media -- blogs, sites like digg.com and reddit.com and facebook.com and myspace.com, web 2.0 and social networking in general, even livejournal.com -- but the current strength of informal, secondary media relative to mainstream, primary media is an anomaly and in all likelihood won't last very long, perhaps not even the four years until the next election after this one. It certainly wasn't anywhere near as strong four years ago.

This election cycle was also very weird because it actually had a few politicians who were principled and on the people's side running for president (Gravel, Paul, Kucinich to some degree), but this probably won't be the case most of the time.

It was a constellation of unlikely factors which caused the RP campaign to progress even as far as it did. I realistically don't see that constellation repeating in the next 10,000 years. So it's unfortunate that we lost, because the chance of winning this time was higher than it ever was before.

That isn't to say things are hopeless -- the chance of a billionaire or someone of great wealth, fame, or power clandestinely gaining power and then acting on loyalties to principles and the people rather than the power structure is becoming increasingly likely. It used to happen fairly often during the age of monarchy and empires, due to the untrustworthiness of loyalties through hereditary dynasties, but it's still possible now. The Founding Fathers fell under this category to some degree, so were a few of the so-called benevolent dictators (Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great, Peter the Great).

But it's just as likely today, because of a decrease in the ability to control people's thoughts as effectively as was once the case, ironically through the increased ability for anyone anywhere to control the thoughts of others, as seen in cults, leading to confusion as minds are pulled in many directions at once and forced to adapt. And because no minds are more controlled than those in the power structure itself, this weakening of the ability to control minds may lead to anomalies like people in power caring more about normal people than about maintaining their power.

Normally what happens currently when an anomaly appears within the power structure is that that person is identified and pushed out of it by the others. So what really needs to happen is that a network of them develop and keep themselves hidden within it. That too is becoming increasingly possible (and may even exist right now, for all we know).

*

I think the biggest reasons the campaign didn't win are:

- Most everyone focused on putting up signs and building airships and almost nobody focused on face to face interaction and convincing friends and family members one on one, when the second is easily ten-thousand times as important and effective. Most often my experience is the average RP supporter had not convinced a single member of their family or a single one of their friends, if they even had any, to vote for him.

- The RP campaign staff itself was surprisingly ineffectual, as described in good detail an article I linked to from this community a few months back. He really should have hired the greatest talent he could, rather than relying on his personal friends and the Lew Rockwell crowd, or worse.

- RP worship, which led to relying on him to do everything because of a mistaken premise that he's superhuman and that all that was required was cheering him or chanting his name like a mantra, despite his repeated claims that he was just a messenger and that it was up to us.

- RP himself failed to be as convincing or as charming as he could have been when the opportunity arose. Another reason was his earlier personal immoralities, particularly the issue with letting bad stuff be published under his name -- even if it was without his knowledge, it's pretty inexcusable to not have knowledge of things done by your own ghostwriters and such. Some slack should be given to him in the articulate department because he's like 73 of course, he did a good and occasionally a great job during most of his interviews and the debates, but it still could have been far better.

- Resistance from the other campaigns, including infiltrators, and resistance from the power structure, including mainstream media. But those resistances were expected and should have been taken for granted.



(Post a new comment)


[info]nancylebov
2008-05-07 11:53 am UTC (link)
Lots of interesting stuff there, especially the idea that the strength of the independent media is temporary. It's plausible that frontiers eventually get taken over by large institutions.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-05-07 05:17 pm UTC (link)
It's already beginning to happen; Myspace is now owned by the parent company of Fox News for example, and most of the biggest and most popular blogs eventually get bought by some company or another, most companies also secretly edit their Wikipedia pages, LJ was recently bought by a Russian tycoon, etc.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]jsangspar
2008-05-07 02:08 pm UTC (link)
I guess the thing that bugs me about Ron Paul advocates is that they forget that the man is still a politician.

(Reply to this)


[info]kenshi
2008-05-07 07:18 pm UTC (link)
You left out probably the most important failure mode for the RP campaign: very few people want what RP is selling.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-05-07 10:15 pm UTC (link)
That is true, but I think you underestimate how flexible political beliefs are. Most people are apolitical and vote based on factors besides issues (example: Obama).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kenshi
2008-05-07 10:19 pm UTC (link)
They're not apolitical. It's just that most of them don't subscribe to a cohesive set of political beliefs that is even substantially congruent with the positions of the major or minor parties, let alone individual candidates. They also tend to vote according to incentives, and not just incentives of self-interest. Voting gives them a way to take "action" signifying to themselves that they are involved in addressing issues they see as important, but doing so in a way that has no personal cost to themselves and no direct negative repercussions if they get it wrong.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-05-07 10:41 pm UTC (link)
I think they are apolitical in the sense that even though they do subscribe to an incohesive set of political beliefs, most of those beliefs aren't very strong or stable. As an example, many or most of the people now against the Afghani and Iraq Wars supported them when they started.

And they're at least apolitical in not knowing much about politics, to the point where they've never even heard of many political issues -- for instance, I expect most people don't know what NAFTA is, or have any position on it at all.

What I mean is that it takes very little effort for most people to switch their opinion on something; the issue appearing on the Daily Show etc. is usually enough. Perhaps we hang around different crowds of people, but the people I know are easily convinced of any most position by anyone, so long as you phrase it well.

Edited at 2008-05-07 10:42 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cwoxviii
2008-05-07 11:04 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure why voting on factors besides "issues" matters.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cwoxviii
2008-05-07 11:05 pm UTC (link)
Or rather, why it isn't actually the best way to vote.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-05-08 01:54 am UTC (link)
I'm not saying it isn't, just that, because most people do vote that way, who people vote for is fairly flexible, because that way is more subject to opinion (whether through media or through one's friends) than having a set of issues you believe in and finding the candidate that is most in line with those.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rinku
2008-05-07 10:17 pm UTC (link)
To illustrate, imagine if Obama tomorrow started talking about strict constitutionalism and ending the drug war and stuff like that -- RP's platform more or less -- would most of his supporters even care? Would it change their opinion of him? Perhaps 10% of them, but maybe not even that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kenshi
2008-05-07 10:21 pm UTC (link)
They would care, and most of them would abandon him to fringe status just like Paul. Most people like the drug war, and also like many of the policies that would be outlawed by a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-05-07 10:33 pm UTC (link)
I still doubt that, but I see no way of finding out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2008-05-07 11:04 pm UTC (link)
Kenshi's right on - Obama had to make the greatest political speech of the past 50 years to dig himself out of a hole his pastor dug, and he himself didn't even say it. If he came out and talked about ending the drug war, he'd be a pariah in the mainstream media in seconds. He would go down in flames.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-05-08 01:56 am UTC (link)
He didn't have to. If he hadn't given that speech he probably still would have gotten about as many votes in PA, NC, and IN. He gave that speech primarily for the superdelegates, but for the vast majority of the people who voted for him, those who had already made their decision, I suspect that speech didn't matter either way.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…