Wow. Talk about not wanting to start a flame war!!
Seems like the debate here is even more full of mis-statements than the ones
that are complained of.
Getting back to the original question, non-Americans have a difficult time
understanding American politics. Generally, European leaders are brought up
through the ranks, serving in various high level capacities prior to
assuming the top position. European leaders normally understand the
workings of each Ministry (American read Department here) of the government
- having lead many of them previously. Americans, both Democrats and
Republicans, have a distrust - nearly genetic disposition if you will - of
government when compared to Europeans. There are many reasons for this
including 1) cultural, 2) the degree of atomization of authority and thus
responsibility in the American system (which we demand with it comes to
authority and despise when it comes to responsibility), 3) electoral system
laws which force parties to be quite weak, 4) diverse geography which
reinforces the weakness (issues have not only ideological content, but
historically strong geographical content as well).
The result is that Europeans have extremely short "campaigns" between
parties, less on personalities, which focus more on issues and stances.
Contenders are highly qualified, but might be termed "insiders" in an
American context. American's distrust the insider. US Presidents are
frequently elected with far less experience than a European leader would
ever have when elected.
By far the majority of American's who vote do so based on solid analysis
and/or ideological gut feelings. However, the sort of electoral laws result
in two parties inevitably (nearly so anyway) evenly splitting the
electorate. Elections are decided frequently by the "swing voters" who
don't have solid opinions about politics, don't really follow politics, not
normally interesting in public issues (scary eh). These people care about
issues, how things are going, but also personalities a bit more than "normal
voters". - Thus, our campaigns tend to be longer (when undecided people
don't read newspapers - how do you get to them? Answer: a barrage of
television ads) and more personal.
Are US elections a Hollywood show? No, though they may appear to be. There
is no evidence that campaigns effect voters choices significantly - we are
smarter than that. If Americans had 4-5 week campaign periods, like those
that are common in Europe, the results would be very close to the same as it
is now. American campaigns simply reinforce political opinions and positions
that we had before the campaigns began. Let me ask a viewer 10 questions
before a Presidential debate, and with a 92% accuracy level, I'll predict
who they said won the debate after they finish viewing it. People tend to
hear their candidate say what they want their candidate to say. The
remaining 8% will change their minds frequently in reaction to press
coverage over the next several days.
So why do the campaigns exist? Better question, what is to stop them?
Candidates are willing to try anything to get elected - even two, 3, 4 year
campaigns spending millions. Advertisers? Media? Political consultants?
Everybody makes money off of the campaign. There are no brakes on the
process. On the positive side, a presidential campaign is the only time that
this highly fragmented nation really talks about itself, where we are going,
where we want to go. Even if only a handful of people change their minds,
the discussion is probably good. Smaller, less fragmented nations have such
discussions in less spectacular ways and more often - but hey this is
America.
Sorry to have continued an 'off-the-wall' subject, but the thread touched my
Political Scientist side of this linux enthusiast.
========================
Michaell Taylor, PhD
Senior Economist, Reis.com, New York, USA
Professor of Political Science, NTNU, Norway
Professor of Statistics, UofD, South Africa
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
<mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> On Behalf Of Ward William E
PHDN
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:07 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Re[2]: What was Gore's Role in Inventing the Internet?
Let's not get in a flame war and hear about how the media of other countries
can be just as manipulative as the media here in the US.
However, seen by many in the US, Al Gore is a slick, uncaring, big spending
lawyer who knows as much about the common man's condition as I do of being
filthy rich, i.e., none. He was raised by a career politician with his own
(thwarted) political ambitions to be one thing: president, regardless of
what that meant. And Al has tried to achieve that goal, by any means
necessary. He has consistently shown that he is willing to do, or say
what it takes, regardless of his own personal beliefs. In 1991-92,
before Al became Vice President, I fervently hoped that he would become
president, as in general, I liked many of the things he said. As vice
president of perhaps the most corrupt and morally destitute Presidency
in history, he went along, supporting and defending President Clinton,
and by both his accounts (prior to the Lewinsky scandal) and the presidents,
he's been a player in the administration; now that that may not be a
good asset to have, he's seriously backed off his own accomplishments
in the administration. Al has been caught MANY times "misspeaking or
missrembering". He gets away with it due to a strong liberal stance
in many media sources, and a VERY strong, VERY liberal stance of Hollywood.
Al Gore's "honest reasons" for becoming president are that he wants to
be the most powerful man in the world.
George W. Bush is not a charlatan... but he's not a savior, either. He
comes in with EXACTLY as much experience as Bill Clinton had when he became
president, which Clinton and the other Democrats said was MORE than
sufficient. He has indeed "misspoke" and "missrembered" at times, but
certainly not more than Al Gore has. BTW, in your comment, you betrayed
a very UN-American thought process (but since you are an American, it's
to be expected): Bush CANNOT be "seeking office on false grounds"; there
are no false grounds to seek office in. Each person put up for president
simply says that they will serve in office to the best of their abilities.
George Bush's "false grounds" for seeking office are that he wants to be
the most powerful man in the world.... same as Al's honest reason. Both
think they can do a better job than the other, which I don't see in either
case being more honest or more false than the other.
My honest and informed vote (and as an American, mine counts in this) is
that if I could so choose, I would choose neither; forced to choose one
or the other, it's time for a change, and I'll vote for Bush. I'd much
rather, however, have had choices such as Bill Bradley and Elizabeth Dole
to choose from.
Of course, it really doesn't matter which we choose, in the long run;
they are both counting on things happening after the election that will NOT
happen. Hang on folks, with either of these two, we're about to have a
recession (it's already started up, folks are just ignoring it at the
moment),
and it's my strong belief that this presidency is a "one term wonder"
shot...
because by the time the next election starts, the economy is going to be
in a shambles.
Oh, and this is so far off topic here, it's ridiculous. Can we get back to
Linux, or at least off politics?
Bill Ward
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] <mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[2]: What was Gore's Role in Inventing the Internet?
I donnot understand the fuzz regarding Al Gore on this list. Seen from
abroad,
he is a serious person seeking the office for honest reasons.
G. W. Bush is a charlatan seeking the office on false grounds. He is a
charming
guy that can get away with lying publically on TV. I wittnessed that in a TV
show the other day.
Is the US election a Hollywood show rather than seeking the best person
suited
for the most powerfull office in the world?
Rgds
Peter Bech
Informi A/S
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
<https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list>
winmail.dat
