- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
The debates generally come down to presence more than content. Obama is an extremely polished debater. Romney generally comes across as stiff. I think that's going to weigh on people far more than any facts or figures that get tossed out. It's a sad reality that we tend to vote for appearance over content.
The cynic in me wants to attribute that to the dumbing down of America - itself a consequence of conservative anti-intellectualism and general vendetta against public education. It would be the most delicious irony that those policies and ideals would deliver unto them a populace that opposed their candidate simply because it wasn't collectively intelligent enough to look past the cardboard surface.
The cynic in me wants to attribute that to the dumbing down of America - itself a consequence of conservative anti-intellectualism and general vendetta against public education.
I've often heard it repeated that the JFK/Nixon debate served as a prime example of this phenomenon. People listening on the radio only heard what the candidates said, and Nixon won on the issues. But on television, Nixon appeared sweaty and nervous and viewers gave the victory to the much more presentable Kennedy. And that was in 1960. Given that no one listens to debates on the radio any more, I think it's safe to say that presentability is going to matter more than content.I agree 100% with Atomic Playboy's post, though I don't think it's anything recent. People have always valued style over substance, but since the advent of TV as a mass medium it has become much harder to overcome this tendency. A three second sound byte now is about the extent of in depth discussion of an issue now.
I've often heard it repeated that the JFK/Nixon debate served as a prime example of this phenomenon. People listening on the radio only heard what the candidates said, and Nixon won on the issues. But on television, Nixon appeared sweaty and nervous and viewers gave the victory to the much more presentable Kennedy. And that was in 1960. Given that no one listens to debates on the radio any more, I think it's safe to say that presentability is going to matter more than content.
That's exactly the example I was thinking of, I agree completely with your assessment.
Yes, it's the conservative anti-intellectualism that is killing this country. As Howard Stern showed us, Obama's supporters are all ivy leaguers...
Fucking hell I hate "liberals", you're as bad as "conservatives". I hope you all kill each other and leave the rest of us alone.
Apparently you are a good example of how our process for educating people has failed us. Either that, or you're just a complete idiot. Actually, it's probably both.
I agree 100% with Atomic Playboy's post, though I don't think it's anything recent. People have always valued style over substance, but since the advent of TV as a mass medium it has become much harder to overcome this tendency. A three second sound byte now is about the extent of in depth discussion of an issue now.
Yes, it's the conservative anti-intellectualism that is killing this country.
Yes, it's the conservative anti-intellectualism that is killing this country. As Howard Stern showed us, Obama's supporters are all ivy leaguers...
Fucking hell I hate "liberals", you're as bad as "conservatives". I hope you all kill each other and leave the rest of us alone.
It's dry, but interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellect.../dp/0394703170
There are certainly people who demonize intellectual advancement or worse. The president was called a snob for wanting all kids to go to college.
I can go with the fucking hell and that liberals are terrible, but not as bad as conservatives. On the surface it looks for all the world like conservatives are idiots and it's easy and natural to assume that they are. But I have tried over and over again to point out this blindness to liberals, that conservatives are no more stupid than they are. But the facts as new scientific research as pointed out is that conservatives do in fact live in an altered reality they protect out of ego, and that they use their intelligence to deflect truth that would cause them pain to believe. The absolute denial of reality can have evolutionary benefits in certain cases but can also lead to extinction.
Because conservatives are simple minded in their beliefs and do not deeply reason, they can react fast sometimes in dangerous situations. Other times they will fling themselves off cliffs. They are kind of like frogs hunted by a fox in a mine field.
What makes liberals so ridiculous with their stupid conservative thing is that they do not know their enemy and respond uselessly to the threat. Smart people know they aren't stupid and laugh at folk who underestimate them. So conservatives and liberals remain blind to the real problem that conservatives are brilliant at deflecting. And what is worse, the more they do it the surer they are they are right, a self fulfilling delusional reality they live in.
What I worry will make you as useless as conservatives and liberals is that you too will refuse to see this.
I'm not going to look at that right now, perhaps later, but I'll assume it's taking a swipe at conservatives.
It has been a long time since college had anything to do with intellectualism. College is a diploma mill nowadays, designed to increase your paycheck, and it's even doing a bad job at that.
Besides, if anti-intellectualism is a conservative trait, then why don't we compare test scores in the red suburbs and compare them to test scores of the blue inner cities.
You may have missed the part where I didn't mention a party or 'philosophy of governing' at all in my post.
If I assumed wrong, my bad. I'll look at your link later.