The Winner by a Slogan; or, How to Get Elected President of the United States

There are many people who are saddened, disappointed, and alarmed by the election of Donald Trump. And there have been (and will be) many analyses as to how or why that came about.

I believe that one factor (among, doubtless, many) was his slogan, "Make America Great Again." Evidently this slogan had some effect, in terms of persuading some voters that Mr. Trump was offering something desirable for the country.

 

But, what does this mean? This is very vague, but it packs at least a couple implications, namely that America was once great, and that it no longer is (plus, that Mr. Trump can effectively do something abut that).

 

Besides questioning those two assumptions, a voter, before the election, should  have asked—at least to himself, if not aloud--"Great in what sense?" There are countless parameters or measures or rankings in which America would not score Number 1. To name just a few: per capita income; literacy; student math and science scores; life expectancy; low infant mortality—the list goes on.

 

Are these the things Trump has promised to improve? I don't think most of these are the things he talked about in his campaign speeches. The slogan is vague and, sad to say, has suckered in a lot of people who, I am sure, never stopped to really think about it.

No complex idea or issue can be adequately encapsulated in a four-word slogan. That is why I will never join in any march where the marchers are chanting some short and chantable slogan.

 

Slogans are effectively designed to discourage and even prevent real thought, by which I mean an analysis of what it is they're saying. And a great many people have never been taught or encouraged by parents or teachers to think analytically or critically. I know this from teaching: I used to berate my students for not being more critical. I'd tell them, "I could stand up here and say 'Black is white' and you'd just mechanically write that down in your notes."

I don't mean to suggest for a minute that slogans are the sole property of right-wing demagogues like Donald Trump. Barack Obama ran on the slogan, "Yes we can." Can do WHAT, fer chrissake? Did anyone stop to ask that? Surely, the people who come up with these slogans appreciate the power of the unstated, that-which-is-left-unsaid. They know slogans are vague, and pretty much let the audience supply what meaning they choose--like an ink-blot test. And they do that deliberately. Sloganeering is a fine art, and a part of propaganda as it was pretty much perfected by Hermann Goering, Hitler's propaganda  minister.

Copyright (c) 2017.

Money in Politics.... Or, How Much Will That Office Cost Me?

In the recent election in my state, Illinois, the Republican candidate for governor was a man named Bruce Rauner. Rauner is a billionaire, and his annual income (as he released the figures during his campaign) is 60 million dollars.

 

I did not vote for this man. I'm not likely to vote for a Republican, but also, in this particular case, I felt that he believed he could buy the election--personal wealth, when put into a political campaign, translates into more TV campaign advertising--and the election results proved that he was right.

 
Generally, in America, there is not much class resentment. The poor don't resent the wealthy and mobs don't stone the Rolls-Royces as they roll by. One reason is that people still buy into the great American myth that anybody can "make it," that you might be rich some day.

And how might that come about? Well, some people live in hopes of winning the lottery. But rags-to-riches is a myth for most people during waking hours. While occasionally someone starts as a mailroom clerk and ends up president of the company, it's more the rule that your socioeconomic class tends to stay the same throughout your life.

I don't know the whole story of Rauner's financial success, but he owns a number of businesses. To put Rauner's wealth into perspective: there are not many avenues, not many occupations, that will give you an income of 60 million. Some professional athletes have multi-million annual incomes, but I don't think they typically make 60 million. An Elvis Presley or a Michael Jackson makes that much. I would not be surprised if J. D. Rawlings (author of the Harry Potter books) has made that much.

 

Copyright (c) 2014.

Growing Social Inequality in America

A little survey of man-in-the-street–type individuals by a TV show showed them all saying that what America needs is to raise the taxes on the rich—and maybe also reduce taxes on the poor.

And that is a core message of the "Occupy Wall Street" and other "occupy" demonstrations.

So millions of Americans feel this way. But—you know what? It's not going to happen. At least not as long as some of the fundamental facts of the American political system do not change.

The fact is that wealthy interests control our government. They can effectively buy Congress through lobbying, and through campaign contributions. Wealthy individuals and corporate-organized and -funded lobbying organizations buy Congress. Whereas political contributions from individuals are limited to $2500, the so-called "Super PACs" (political action committees) have little or no limitations on them. This state of affairs was made possible by the disastrous Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United (discussed elsewhere in this blog).

A recent book by Hacker and Pierson, two social scientists, called Winner Take All Politics, shows how the concentration of wealth in America has worsened. That is, the top few as regards wealth have grown wealthier—in fact vastly, astronomically wealthier—in the last 25 or 30 years.

The concentration of wealth in America is worse than in other Western countries: in Europe, in Canada, in Australia. And of course money is power. It can even be concluded that we no longer have a democracy.

The situation is the result of money buying influence; of the tax code; and of lax or even lack of regulation of Wall Street. (The countries named above, for example Canada, did not have as severe an economic crisis as the US four years ago, because they have more effective regulation of their financial systems.)

In 1986 legislation was enacted that closed many of the loopholes in the tax code that enabled the super-rich to escape taxation. But in the years since, those tax reforms have been very largely undone.

It's a sad situation in America. People are speaking out and voicing their dissatisfaction. But have they got power to effect change? Are any of the political candidates even promising to do something about the situation? It does not seem to be one of the issues discussed in candidate debates. The Occupy people are aware of all this but otherwise it all seems to be a big secret.

Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein

Help Prevent an Extreme Right-Winger from Being the Next US President

First, I don't really aspire to being a political pundit—but I do have this one thought to share. It occurred to me that the presidential election is next year, and candidates are already preparing.

Now, it's conventional wisdom in politics that an incumbent has every advantage, not the least of which is that he (or she) has the necessary fund-raising machinery in place.

However, as to recent presidents of the US: we are used to the idea of presidents serving two terms, but in the last few decades there have been several that failed to get elected to a second term. There was Jimmy Carter, who lost to Richard Nixon in 1968. There was George H.W. Bush, who lost to Bill Clinton. And, if you want to count him, there was Lyndon Johnson, who, before the 1968 election made the famous speech, "I will not seek, nor will I accept, the nomination of my party for President of the United States."

I think that Barack Obama is by no means a shoe-in for a second term. Again political wisdom is that the economy is always the primary issue—at least if it is not doing well. And the US economy, and the jobs situation—rightly or wrongly—is perceived as unsatisfactory, and Mr. Obama (again rightly or wrongly) gets the blame.

Not to mention all the sentiment against him stirred up by the Tea Partiers and other far–Right Wing types. Even many of those who supported him at one point have become disillusioned.

I'd say Obama has less than an even chance. Given that, I suggest to liberals that they consider voting in the Republican primary election, next year, to help advance the candidacy of whichever Republican presidential candidate is the most moderate or centrist. If many people did this, it might help prevent a very far-Right candidate from being the next president.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

My Verdict on Mankind--After 68 Years

Regular readers of my blog, if they happen to be very thoughtful people (or if they have the leisure and curiosity to do so), may have thought about what view of humanity is implicit in much of what I write.

If so, it's probably pretty clear to those people that I have a somewhat cynical view of human intelligence and rationality. For example, in the recent political season I was complaining about how easily people allow themselves to be manipulated by slogans--which always oversimplify issues—and other superficial, simplified, or downright wrong ideas. I feel that critical thinking is in short supply.

But we've somehow survived some major crossroads situations. When I was a young child in school, the Soviet Union had recently developed atomic bombs, and—remember, this was the Cold War, and a time of hysterical fear of Communism at home and abroad—the U.S. truly believed that the Soviets might attack the U.S. with nuclear-armed missiles. So our grade-school classes had bomb drills. In my school, we all moved into the corridors—away from windows, I guess. Evidently in some other schools it was "get under your desks and tuck your head down."

Well, at least for 60 years, mankind has managed to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation. To put it mildly, that's reassuring, and helps improve one's view of human rationality.

Now, however, we face a new set of challenges, like global warming. It remains to be seen whether nations can collectively move to preserve our planet from disaster this time. So maybe the jury is out on some questions.

Has there been progress? I think that nowadays we have higher standards, in some respects, for how we treat one another. On the other hand, remember that World War I was supposed to be "the war to end all wars." Then, after we had another world war, the United Nations was established to end armed conflict between nations. But we've failed, in almost a century since the First World War, to end war. We haven't had another conflict on a global scale in the 65 years since WW II, but the count of wars that have occurred worldwide in the last 50 years is astonishing. One problem there is that one thing has not changed: I feel that military, Pentagon types are overgrown boys who like their toys (they call them "weapons") and always want more and more destructive toys. But that is starting to go off on another subject.

I think that, in more general human affairs—how nations govern themselves, what wars are waged and what wars averted, what persecutions and genocides occur—humanity will manage to muddle through as it has for thousands of years. That is, we as a species will survive, but in the course of things there will be a lot of misery and killing caused to humans by humans.

So that is where my thinking has arrived, after a few decades of my life--not that I'm really quite old enough to be talking like a bona fide elder. I'm confident my perspective on things does not seem way out of step, or irrational. For another man's very thoughtful and thought-provoking view, read An Essay on Man (1773 - 1774) by Alexander Pope.

Update, September 9, 2011
I have to admit I get saddened and maybe discouraged by the innumerable and unceasing examples of human greed, selfishness, stupidity--and Man's capacity to lie. Think what a different world it would be if human beings could not lie, and you knew you could believe everything anyone said! Of course that's not going to happen.

But just now, if you look at the political situation in the US, it looks as though we've got plenty of obstacles in the way even of our being able to govern ourselves intelligently and effectively. And, as to global warming, I expect the planet to become a less and less habitable place as the consequences of global warming march on unchecked.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Political Discussions Are in Vain

A gentleman named Michael Moakley has written,

. . . [T]he best way to lose a political argument is to carefully research the issue in question and support the resulting opinion with facts.

To me at least, that's one of those statements that immediately rings true. You know, and I know, that we almost certainly would not get anywhere arguing with one of those Tea Partyers. It's probably futile to even try to argue these things. We share our ideas with those who already agree with us, and we read magazines that reinforce what we already believe: liberal for liberals, conservative for conservatives. There's the old expression of "preaching to the choir" or "preaching to the converted."

Maybe I should not waste any more keystrokes blogging on political matters.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein