Incidentally, the title of the post, to me, implies that what matters in a campaign is PR efficacy--the obvious fact that neither party has the public's interest at heart is irrelevant. It's about which one can win the propaganda battle. From here, the logical step is to come up with an alternative rather than indulge in useless speculation as to why the people don't prefer Tweetle Dum to Tweetle Dee (unless, I suppose, one is employed in the propaganda industry).
On Oct 21, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
> "Charles A. Grimes" <cgrimes at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
>> There is something seriously wrong with this study. The only economic
>> positions the Republicans offer is lower taxes, and that's a just a
>> lie.
>
> The Lane Kenworthy piece had some obvious methodological problems --
> mentioned in earlier posts -- but the suggestive thing about it was
> that it focussed, not so much on what the R's *did*, but on what the
> D's *didn't do* -- namely, deliver the breadbasket goods.
>
> There's a connection with the Thomas Frank argument, but it's
> not quite the same thing.
>
> IIRC the Frank argument is that the Rs seduced plain ol' white
> folks (POWFs) away from their economic interests by appealing
> to their cultural shibboleths. Kenworthy seems to be refining
> this by asserting that since the D's weren't attending to the
> economic interests in question, then hey, why *not* indulge your
> cultural shibboleths -- if they're all that's in play?
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>