It is the world of manufactured reality. No matter how many times one shouts "practical" or "reality" the truth is that the entire framework for discussion is tightly controlled and utterly contrived. People are being propagandized and still unable or unwilling to look behind the curtain.
Consider this one paragraph from The Nation <
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070514/moser >:
One of the striking things you notice, covering a debate like this, is the vast gulf between what the reporters and pundits see and what the people see. I spent most of the debate in the stifling habitat of a media room with the likes of CNN's Jeff Greenberg and Candy Crowley. As the first big question about Iraq was lobbed at the Big Three--Clinton, Obama and Edwards--the mediocracy collectively pounded away at their laptops, taking down every word in a veritable symphony of typing. When the same question then went to Kucinich, the man who intrepidly preached against the war in 2004 when the others would not, all hands rested. All typing ceased. The music stopped. Attention wandered. Who cares that this man was--and is--dead-right on the issue, and that he says it stronger, and in a way far more in tune with the bulk of the people, than any of the others? He is not "viable." He is not big money. He is not worth transcribing.
There are a number of assumptions that may be at work in the discussions about various candidates and "who appears Presidential" and who is or isn't "Presidential material" etc. to which I would take exception:
- That we need "a guy" (or a gal) - an assumption that turns the truth on its head, the truth being that politicians need us, we don't need them.
- That selecting someone now to support for the 2008 campaign is a priority or even a constructive thing to be doing or discussing.
- That the selection of whom to support is a matter of comparing our "ideology" to their's and making a selection as though we were shopping for our favorite consumer item (and spending a lot of time arguing with others about it and defending our choice.)
- That the crisis we are in does not require fresh thinking and fresh approaches to tactical and strategic issues.
- That we should ignore the most chronic Democratic party and liberal interest group problem - confusing tactics and strategy with ideology, so that once we have the "right guy" or the "right position" on an issue, making that "choice" covers all tactical and strategic considerations and all we need to do is cheerlead in unison louder and louder.
- That we need to "be practical" and look at who is "electable."
- That our choices are limited and that we must pick from what is offered to us.
- That the presidential elections are the place to start rather than local organizing and rabble rousing.
- That the sooner we know which personality to align with the better.
- That we need to give ourselves heart and soul to a politician, rather than letting a leader emerge who will give his or her heart and soul to we the people.
- That there is some reason to move toward the "center" or some danger in being "too far left" or appearing "too radical."
- That the popular notions of left-right as fomented in the media mean anything.
- A concern over winning that is divorced from the ideas that winning represents is intellectually empty.
Those are a few things that come to mind.