I’ve posted some rather critical posts but I think politicians in essence are something good:
In an age of rigid structural confines and hierarchical domination by bosses, police, relationships and work, politicians are the physical manifestations of our abstract thoughts, complaints, ideas, dreams and hopes. Thus through politicians our emotions and concepts are given life and real power to affect society. Politicians make it their life to be a steam-valve for the rest of us. They get right down in the mud and battle with novel ideas and promises, scrutinize and are scrutinized, attack who we want attacked and pounce on those who misstep. They stand in our corner and fight for ‘ideas’ with everything they’ve got. Even if things like attack ads or lies occur it is only a reflection of their passion to form and defend solutions and is only part of the game they play for the rest of us. Content might turn some off, but I think the passion they have for participating in such a precarious intellectual endeavour is commendable. I believe the content is often irrelevant, politicians are a medium and the medium is the message. And like sifting we can watch as some of the best possible solutions float to the top, are collected and implimented. I’ve always thought that 80% of the population make up the pragmatic status-quo and 10% on either side push and pull the stubborn middle towards progress. Politicians are part of that 20%.
When it comes down to it what do you think of the concept of a ‘politician’ ignoring all content, and just focusing on the actions?
The liberal feminist paradigm is mass media’s most used perspective to explain gender inequality and this article is no different. Furthermore liberal feminism is a project which attempts to apply political power and influence in order to reach its goals
Margaret Wente downplays views less focused on politics: radical feminist views on the pervasiveness of patriarchy as well as claiming Marxist-feminist criticisms of structure do not tell the full story. Instead, she employs the liberal feminist view that inequalities are created through the various ways in which people interact with each other within current frameworks. To be even more specific her symbolic interactionist perspective posits that inequality is formed by how women behave and think in the workplace and therefore psychological and behavioural aspects of women are the reason for inequality. While at first this main seem like ‘blaming the victim’ there have been studies within workplaces which can corroborate that the methods of interaction employed by women have negative consequences. Margaret Wente offers some examples, which I’ve also seen described in studies:
-“Women systematically underestimate their capabilities,” she says. “If you ask a man why he did a good job, he’ll say, ‘I’m awesome.’ A woman will say, ‘I’m lucky I got someone good to help me.’ ”
- “a major reason why women still make less money and have lower-ranking jobs than men is very simple – they just don’t ask for it. In my experience, this is true. When I was a manager, men would barge into my office all the time, demanding more. Women would creep in, with apologies. (Personally, every time I asked for a raise I would go home and throw up.)”
It is very obvious that actions like this by women will of course cause them to lose out to men. The solution? In the article Wente offers this:
“But the solution, according to Ms. Sandberg, is for women to get over it. Raise your hand, keep it up and make sure you’re sitting at the table.”
Of course, it isn’t hard for Ms. Sandberg, the Harvard educated COO of Facebook to make the presumptuous claim “get over it.” I’ve oversimplified her view a little, but she generally misses a lot of factors with her individualistic notion. While yes, in the sort term some people can act differently which would help them succeed, generally it isn’t easy just to up and change your personality, it is likely even more difficult to do what I believe Ms. Sandberg is saying between the lines: for women to succeed, they should start acting more like men. Going against the way one is socialized has many psychological and social consequences, I think it would be important to consider gender socialization throughout the life course as a more helpful panacea than ‘change yourself’.
Therefore, unless you are a subscriber to the biological determinist viewpoint, women’s lack of power is the result of socialization. So then it would logically follow from Ms. Sandbergs ideas that females should be raised differently as the best tactic in which to empower them. Currently females may be taught in school or by their parents, consciously or not, not to brag, draw attention to themselves, show up others, lead groups and so on. A liberal feminist would thus suggest that new methods of childhood raising and schooling need to be adopted. In essence women must be helped in changing how they act. This viewpoint fits firmly within the confines of political power. It suggests that political power and legislation should be used to reform how children are raised on society.
Would this result in positive changes? Yes I think so. But, as I mentioned earlier this is still suggesting that women must become like men in order to succeed within society. Men have created the institutions and much of society before women had influence and therefore tailored it to themselves. If you agree with me that women shouldn’t have to act like men, the logical conclusion is to abandon political reform, and consider radically changing society as a whole instead. Thus a more serious look at Radical-feminist, Marxist-feminist, Socialist-feminist and Postmodern- feminist paradigms needs to be undertaken in order to further the project of equality. I’d love to know which side makes more sense to you in the comment section! : )
I was amazed that a mayor could get elected, in 2011, with a campaign focusing on stopping a ‘gravy train’. As provincial elections approach, I was ready to roll every eye on my body at what the provincial parties would come up with. HHUUUDDAKK mustered up every bit of class he had and started things off by framing Dalton as “The Taxman.” Apprently Dalton is some sort of callous super-villain thug that is trying to fuck over hard working families:
The Liberals are not to be outdone and respond with an almost more childish approach, depicting Tim like he’s some kind of total dick:
These attack ads are just one example of the typical mass media techniques used in today’s politics, interestingly colleagues in class referred to them as “hate-ads.” Old mass media lends itself to soundbites, memorable quotes, catchphrases and emotional content, and unfortunetly not discussion or analysis.
I’d like to say that political parties have so little confidence in their own platforms marketability that they have to appeal to emotion and slander rather than rationality and intellect, but I don’t think that’s entirely it. And I can’t help but think that all three campaigns were and are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, Canadians whose emotions are easily manipulated by catch phrases and manufactured ‘outrage’, but that might not be it either. Or maybe Canadians are just way too busy and don’t have the time to make informed decisions? (WATCH The Agenda with Steve Paikin). I guess in class it was decided that they are used because they are memorable and influence lower voter turnout.
Additionally, this sort of electioneering seems to be tinged with a sort of vindictiveness and cynicism: some gravy train riders need their just deserts, Hudak thinks you’re an idiot and Dalton is a sneaky crook that needs to be taken down. I think a dangerous end result is the dawning of simulacra politics. By this I mean all the political spinning, lies and exaggerations might become themselves truth, thus politics could be shifting into the hyperreal, if not already there.
On the other hand, I think an agrument could be made in which tactics should be measured by their effectiveness. If political parties are defined by the goal to win office, then they’re just playing the game in the most effective way and can hardly be blamed for their Machiavellian, impertinent methods. Although, I am a little embarressed to live in a country where these things work. Whatever the results, justifications or motives, these attack ads work, otherwise they wouldn’t be used, and that is the most disappointing fact of all.
I can’t help but wonder if through continuous and patterned low quality elections, the process which creates the actors within government, that one day our political system could be transformed into a non-functioning social instition. To conclude I’ll end with a big dose of fatalism: we should probably just abolish representative democracy and represent ourselves instead, or not. : )
((would you vote for a politician who says the incumbent is good, but we can do something better? Would you rather live in some sort of direct-democratic anarchistic freezone?))
And one last clip: besides a few small differences like tax cuts that wouldn’t save me anything and save most people a reasonably low number amount, aren’t the politicians all basically the same anyways?
These are just some musings, normally I wouldn’t really put this in an academic paper, but in the spirit of blogging, why not, I’ll see if anything sticks at all or maybe I’ll throw it out or change it later.
As we move into the furthest depths of an organic society our created media (I am using McLuhan’s definition of media here) has perfectly overlapped everything, including god, community, identity and so on as if a map has covered the land it represents. Due to the extent of media’s ubiquity there is nothing left but representation. Representation cannot convey the whole, and what is simulated and what is left out of life is done through negotiation. It must also be said that this representation is not always accurate, and discrepancies are impossible to find with no reality to compare to, a Naked Lunch is no longer possible. When there is nothing to compare representations to, media inherits the power of god. I’d argue that these collective representations based on nothing but vagarious notions of the past informed by our new god established the mechanisms through which negotiations are framed and power is created. The winning negotiations shape the organization of our society but not in the most rational way, only as a result of which concepts are better negotiated. The goals of power, simulations, automation, and spectacle win out and the door on Weber’s Iron Cage is not only shut, but it’s as if the door is a mirror. That is to say power has ensnared us in an extrinsic finality, the masses are framed from the get go, a set-up proceeded by a need to continue simulation and work, entfremdung abounds inevitably, making happiness all the more ephemeral. Hope lies in the my belief that power is not self justifying. I think we can refuse reifying the state and its inherent power over daily life and see mechanisms of simulation, hierarchy and domination which control negotiations with the utmost scepticism.
Boredom is our motive, and no longer blindness from spectacle glare is the start.
In an age of image-politics, teleprompters and appealing sound-bites, can anyone see past it all?
Tim Hudak implies programs for prisoners like zen yoga, poker, and television are equally frivolous, but I have to disagree. Does he not see the potential benefits of teaching criminals self-control and ways of calming themselves through yoga and zen? He also doesn’t like how Liberals have decided to teach inmates how to cook good food on a budget. How is helping people to eat well a bad idea? His downplaying of such helpful programs in favour of forced labour must appeal to vindictive or bitter people who want more a more authoritarian and tighter controlled society. I doubt he is actually mean-spirited, but it must be hard to pander to this voting group, without alienating everyone else. His ‘vast majority of Ontario families’ comment seems to be something a lot of politicians say these days, conformity must be an effective tool.
“An honest day of work is good for the soul,” As if forcing prisoners to do menial degrading tasks is going to really do much for their souls. The Correction services minister is even against this. Lastly, and maybe most importantly, this all sounds expensive, transporting them, guards that monitor them etc… So thanks Tim for this plan.
Who’s next? After prisoners, Tim goes for the second lowest, poorest group in society by planning to freeze min. wage….yeah keep the poorest of all workers just as poor. It just makes sense. It isn’t hard to tell he is working for business and not us when he wants to keep our wages down.
Tim really shows how deep his ignorance is when he claims graffiti shows that gangs run the cities. If he actually thinks this I really have to wonder. Of course 99% of graffiti isn’t gang turf markings, and even if it was, cleaning paint would probably be the least helpful thing you could do to stop gangs. I guess he is just trying to get the old people vote here, or does he believe what he is saying?
He seemed to want less police accountability, claiming some of us would rather handcuff police instead of criminals, a straw-man argument against those of us who enjoy justice. You just have to look at some SIU stats to see that cops already get away with almost everything. No one wants to lock up police, we just want to lock up the few cops that actually are pigs and give the rest a bad name.
In another speech he mentions a hokey reference and compares himself to Reagan, (does he think he’s in teabagger territory?) claiming to follow Reagan’s 11th commandment, not speaking ill of another conservative. Perfect campaign promise in a democracy where everything should be debated and discussed.
I think more people agree with other Conservative party points and there are many fair complaints of McGuinty, so why are the campaign media advisers telling Tim Hudak to waste time with this, and taxman nonsense? Why not just stick with real issues, has political marketing fallen this far in Canada? It is a little worrying.
And if this sort of low-brow campaigning attracts voters, it is a dark day. I certainly won’t appreciate being governed by whoever can appeal to this sort of voter. Even if a ton of old people, business men, and those “hard working middleclass families” give him a majority of the votes, I can’t understand why this would legitimize political power of one group over everyone. We should change how a power is legitimized, representative democracy is no kind of democracy at all, decentralized direct democracy or nothing. It’s painful to submit to our bosses; it’s even more stupid to choose them. - SI
(Tough on Crime may sound good to conservative voters, but it isn’t good in real life.)
