Back to politics

I feel like I have to post today, in honor of my guy, John Edwards, who has officially dropped out of the race.

posted a link to an interesting article about the state of our democracy in terms of open primaries.

As a registered independent I found it particularly interesting – he questions whether the open primary system is perpetuating a system in which candidates are constantly vying for the middle, marginalizing and alienating people on the wings.

I’m not sure I buy his argument, though. What do you think? I think the main reason Americans are constantly electing moderates, regardless of party, and both parties are constantly trying to find moderate candidates, is because America is already much, much more polarized than anyone truly realizes. I think the move to the middle is an effort to stabilize, which is either the very definition of democracy, or the antithesis of democracy. Maybe both.

The most telling line in his article was this throwaway line, however:

As we discussed last week, the media has frozen out Edwards because their corporate owners are scared of him.

And THAT is the most depressing thing I’ve heard all week, although it’s been my suspicion all along.

Advertisements

~ by realsupergirl on January 30, 2008.

7 Responses to “Back to politics”

  1. The media also froze Dennis and the others out even more.
    😦

  2. I think the primary system is terrible. Why should two unimportant (or no more important than any other) states vote so early? Wouldn’t it be better to all vote at once? I don’t even feel the need to really vote, because by the time my state gets around to it, the choice is pretty much already made. As it is, the primary system seems to lead to more need for big money (marginalizing the candidate without sponsorship of the rich).

    As for the middle of the road candidate, I wish that’s what we got. Nobody could call Bush moderate. Moderate implies an ability to see shades of gray. I, for one, don’t want someone from the right or from the left. Fanatics of any color scare me.

  3. You are certainly correct that Bush has governed as one of the most reactionary, right wing presidents we’ve ever seen. But in his initial campaign (the first time) he poised himself as a “moderate”, which is how he was able to get so many of the Republicans to support him, and why many of them feel betrayed by their own party now.

    I totally hear you about the problems with the primary system, but the flip side is that its purpose was to give more power to smaller states, forcing politicans to pay attention to them. I think the system is broken, but I think that original idea is still a good one. As someone who lives in a state that is clearly light years ahead of the rest of the country in terms of civil rights, I’ve come to really appreciate the role of states’ rights.

  4. You are certainly correct that Bush has governed as one of the most reactionary, right wing presidents we’ve ever seen. But in his initial campaign (the first time) he poised himself as a “moderate”, which is how he was able to get so many of the Republicans to support him, and why many of them feel betrayed by their own party now.

    I totally hear you about the problems with the primary system, but the flip side is that its purpose was to give more power to smaller states, forcing politicans to pay attention to them. I think the system is broken, but I think that original idea is still a good one. As someone who lives in a state that is clearly light years ahead of the rest of the country in terms of civil rights, I’ve come to really appreciate the role of states’ rights.

  5. I’m getting pretty sick of all the crying wolf about bias in the media. The corporate media don’t give a damn about liberal or conservative. Their first, last, and only master is the dollars from their advertisers. Their agenda is to maximize the number of eyeballs looking at their ads so they can squeeze more dollars out of their advertisers. They cover whatever gets the best ratings in their prime demographics. Full stop.

    The media corporations don’t give a damn about Edwards or any other candidate. They looked at their advertisers and their audience demographics and chose what content would please them most. They’d cover what Chuck Norris had for breakfast if one of their advertisers was a syrup manufacturer and a focus group or Neilsen told them suburban women between 18 and 34 were interested. They haven’t “frozen out” Edwards because they had a political agenda, they didn’t cover him because they were getting better ratings elsewhere.

    The “media” are not purveyors of news and information in the public interest. They sell entertainment to fill in the space between the advertisements.

  6. The reason they DO care about Edwards is because Edwards is advocating to reduce the role of corporate soft money in politics, which is what scares the advertisers. So no, it’s not that the media has anything against Edwards, it’s that the advertisers that pay for the media have a vested interest in not allowing Edwards to diminish their power.

  7. The reason they DO care about Edwards is because Edwards is advocating to reduce the role of corporate soft money in politics, which is what scares the advertisers. So no, it’s not that the media has anything against Edwards, it’s that the advertisers that pay for the media have a vested interest in not allowing Edwards to diminish their power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: