On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:02:00 -0500, Kelley Walker a.k.a. blonde wrote: > >> there seems to be an underlying assumption among ideologs of all >> hues that *elections* should be waged on ideological grounds -- >> that being "correct" is better than winning. and while i suspect >> ideology does motivate *some* voters in casting their votes, this >> doesn't seem to be the case across the board. all kinds of things >> motivate voters at the polls and winners put together the kinds of >> electoral coalitions that triggers their voter's motivations. > > the assumption that ideology is about explicitly political parties, > etc is ITSELF an ideology. perhaps, but that is not *my* assumption. i was using the term in the context of the poster to whom i replied... > the assumption that people aren't motivated by ideology but > something else--something nameless and amorphous--is ITSELF > ideological. again, perhaps, but that is not *my* assumption. i explicitly stated: "all kinds of things motivate voters at the polls," which includes the ideology of the original poster. some of those motivations (that motivate voters) are lofty, some are petty and some are nonsensical. nonetheless, *winners* put together the kinds of electoral coalitions that responds to *all* those kinds of motivations. >> perhaps the clinton legacy is that people have come to think of >> governance and campaign slogans as the same. winning elections is >> one thing; governance is entirely different. you shouldn't expect >> them to be the same. > > more ideology! hmmm, if you think that you can run an *electoral* campaign based on nothing more than ideology, go ahead. but i can't personally think of any examples where this was successful. and that particular observation is based more on experience than on any ideological perspective i might have... >> there are a lot of factors here, all of which have complicated the >> political environment. it used to be easier to build a general >> consensus when communities were small, the media was oligarchic, >> and people believed that government actually mattered (in their >> daily lives). and i do believe the public *has* the government it >> actually deserves... > > more ideology! yep! this *is* my particular form of ideology, that government has grown useless as well as ineffective. for the life of me, i cannot understand why people who truly seem to want to help their fellow man wish to assign that responsibility to an institution with all the compassion of the post office. that not only seems particularly cruel to me, but it also seems to absolve those advocates of any personal responsibility for lending a hand to their brother. but i digress... >>> But I don't excuplate the Dems. They had Congress up to 1994; they >>> had the presidency in 1977-80 and through the 80s, and the country >>> is, as John Mitchell promised, so far to the right you wouldn't >>> recognize it. This despite the fact that _public opinion_ is not >>> significantly to the right, and indeed on many matters, notably >>> race and sexual orientation (though not capitsl punishment) is to >>> the left, well to the left, of where it used to be. >> >> the problem is, even if they are, do they *think* of themselves as >> such? > > and how do you explain this!? hmmm, kel, i would have to think about this for awhile. i can provide you with the observation that it seems to me that americans don't think of themselves as anything but middle class and moderate, but i can't explain it. the secret in campaigns and elections is to package whatever agenda that you are spouting as middle class and moderate. success seems to follow. but it is also my *ideology* that you don't have to govern by the same rules. i still think you can win with mickey mouse as long as you don't piss off enough voters... >> if the country is not conservative, then it seems awfully >> cautious to me... > > equating conservativism with caution: more ideology! i didn't say you had to like my observations! they're free, ya know. you get what you paid for! >> well, my momma always told me you could do anything you wanted, if >> you were willing to make the sacrifices required to achieve your >> goals. > > more ideology! or motivation. who knows... and, yes, i get your points. i never said i didn't have an ideology, i merely state that my own particular form of ideology falls outside the mainstream and even the alternative stream! hence the ability to be mercenary. i had nothing vested if people won or lost, save my own reputation... >kelley (hey ac, ya old baldy!) ac ''' (0 0) ----oOO----(_)---------- | the geek shall | | inherit the earth | -----------------oOO---- |__|__| || || ooO Ooo ------------------------------------------------------------ FREE EMAIL from AUSI at http://ausi.com