[lbo-talk] Mark Ames: The Tea Party as a front group for oil flacks

[Alan Rudy]

There's much to like here but one major flow.
You argue that the "hoi polloi" pursuing dignity and self-respect - defined
by the macho toughness and hard-nosed ways of doing business they value -
vote for Repugs because they project that image of macho self-respect and
hard-nosed dignity.
First things first, are you saying that such a perspective is organic to the
hoi polloi, somehow?  That it is distinct from an anti-feminist
reinscription of "traditional masculinity" wrought by the economic AND
cultural sides of neoliberalism in the US intended to deepen incipient
sexism and racism tied to historical prejudices, fears exacerbated by
economic stagnation and reinforced by the intended political economic
restructuring planned by neoliberals and their neoconservative allies?
Second, what was the role of "its the economy, stupid" and "I feel your
pain" in 1992 or of hope-y changy-ness in the context of negative reactions
to warmongering and economic implosion in 2008?
Third, is your position validated by polling data focused on women's voting
or did you just completely masculinize the hoi polloi?
Fourth, aren't there two central myths in the US - one about macho,
hard-nosed, cowboy/entrepreneurial competitive individualism and one about
affective, familial, religious/communtarian mutualist populism?  The
confusion all around, it seems to me, lies with the contradictory
manipulation of these myths by any number of elites and the wildly uneven
and highly contingent permutations and combinations of their up-take,
socialized mediation and public expression by the hoi polloi.
Yours in sociology,
Alan

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:


> RE: " hoi polloi are taking positions against their own interest because
> they are being fed false information and being denied accurate information
> -- and would think and act in their own interest if they had access to the
> actual facts"
>
> [WS:]  It is quite naive, if not arrogant, to think that the masses act
> against their own interests due to misinformation.  It assumes a model of
> rationality in which people ought to maximize material self-interest, the
> very same model that Milton Friedman used to equate capitalism with
> freedom.
>
> For most people, the main motive is to project and defend their dignity -
> not to maximize their material self-interests.  They will sacrifice their
> material possessions and their own well being to gain respect of their
> peers.  What looks like irrational violence of street thugs, irrational
> discrimination against unpopular minorities,  irrational spending and
> consumption, or irrational voting pattern of 'hoi polloi' is often a very
> rational i.e. purpose-oriented behavior to project a desirable social image
> associated with dignity - honor, respect, independence, machismo,
> prosperity, "coolness" etc.
>
> People vote for a political party not because they expect that party to
> line
> up their pockets.  Only business schmucks seeking political protection do
> that.  People vote for a political party because they perceive that party
> as
> a reflection and embodiment of the values that make up their own dignity.
> The 'hoi polloi' tend to value macho toughness and hard-nosed was of doing
> business.  Since the Repug party's image embodies macho toughness and
> hard-nosed way of doing business, they tend to get the 'hoi polloi' vote,
> even though their policies are detrimental to the 'hoi polloi' wallets.
>
> Likewise, those who value compassion, cooperation, and conciliation tend to
> vote for Democrats, because these values are an integral part of the Dem
> public image.  They do so even if Dem policies are detrimental to their
> material self-interests.
>
> People are quite rational in their public/political behavior, and they know
> what they are doing.  It just that thier goal and means of achieving them
> are different from what many Leftists think they should be.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM, John Gulick <john_gulick at hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Chip Berlet says:
> >
> > "Astroturf is not the same as manipulated groups of people numbering in
> > the millions that would be what Chomsky calls the Propoganda Model."
> >
> > JG asks:
> >
> > Incidentally, Chip, doesn't Chomsky's "Propaganda Model" assume that the
> > hoi polloi are taking positions against their own interest because they
> are
> > being fed false information and being denied accurate information -- and
> > would think and act in their own interest if they had access to the
> actual
> > facts? If so, this model doesn't seem to apply to the vast majority of
> Tea
> > Partiers, either...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
> inbox.
> >
> >
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- 
*********************************************************
Alan P. Rudy
Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
Central Michigan University
124 Anspach Hall
Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
517-881-6319