|
November 01, 2006
|
Thanks to Brian Harriss who posted a count of how often the country went as Ohio went. (See the comments for my entry ...So Goes the Documentary.) As went Ohio, so went the nation all but twice in the twentieth century (and seven times in the 19th century). Yowsa.
See, now *that* is an interesting angle to use as the launching point for a documentary.
My other beef with the trailer for the documentary "...So Goes the Nation" is the fact that the various clips that were presumably taken from the movie show the Republicans as being all about strategy -- what is the best way to campaign so as to win -- while the Democrats were all about getting the right man in office. The impression this creates is not only false, it is unfair to both sides.
I say that the implication is false because in both my observation as an historian (and a former radio station news director) and as a participant in the political process (having attended rallies for both parties, and doorbelled for the party of my choice), *both* parties are *equally* attentive to the strategy of winning and are also equally believers that their own particular slate of candidates and planks (party platforms) are the better choice.
And the implication is unfair because it denies the Republicans any sense that they care about what they are doing (and believe me, they do care) and it makes the Democrats look like naiveniks (which, believe me, they are not).
The Democrats completely dominated both houses of the Congress for most of the modern political era (say, World War II and beyond), this past decade or so notwithstanding. To paint them as naive idealists whose heart is in the right place but, gee whiz, they just can't hold their own against those tough, smart, and heartless Republicans is, itself, a naive position to take. The Democrat Party Machine has been notorious for pulling strings, making and crushing careers, and even stealing a Presidential election.
This is my main beef with the trailer for this movie. It paints a picture of how the two parties approached the Presidential election in 2004 differently where, I believe, the two parties were rather the same. The movie may be more balanced than the trailer. I don't know.
Here's a thought that just occurred to me: Rush Limbaugh, after years of struggling, led a vanguard of conservative radio entertainers (infotainers?) that has continued to dominate the airwaves on the AM dial, despite several attempts by liberals to challenge. Liberals have found an equally compelling outlet in the form of movie documentaries, where conservative documentarians have likewise failed to successfully challenge.
With conservatives holding the older technology, and liberals holding the not-as-old technology, the battle for the moderates is being waged where? Newer technologies like the internet (in the form of blogs and viral videos)? Not-as-new technologies like cable news outlets? Way-old-school technologies like, well, the schools?
As goes hyperreality, so goes the nation.
Posted by on November 01, 2006 11:39 PM in the following Department(s): Tidbits III
|
Comments
|
Not to start a fight or anything, but I'm curious which presidential election you think the Democrats stole. To my knowledge, pretty thorough investigation of the 1960 election turned up no credible evidence of any wrongdoing - and in fact the recounts Nixon pushed for privately (while publicly insisting he wouldn't) showed conclusively that Kennedy had won Hawaii, not Nixon.
Maybe you're going all the way back to Reconstruction and the Hayes "compromise," but I'm still curious.
Posted by: Beeeej on November 2, 2006 7:38 AMYes, I was referring to the Presidential election of 1960.
I should have been clearer; when I said that the Democratic Party Machine was "notorious for... stealing a Presidential election," I meant to indicate that this was a popular perception; I was not concerned with the merits of that notoriety.
That said, when you maintain that investigation turned up "no credible evidence of wrongdoing" in the 1960 Presidential election, you and I are clearly relying upon different sources. Steal This Vote by Andrew Gumbel, to name one, discusses the investigations into and evidence of *an extensive amount of wrongdoing* for the Presidential election of 1960, as well as other elections.
What is unknown and unknowable is whether all that wrongdoing was enough to have changed the result of the election.
But to claim there is "no credible evidence of wrongdoing" during the Presidential election of 1960 is, it seems to me, just as naive as saying there is no credible evidence of wrongdoing in the Presidential election of 2000.
The evidence is there, and it is credible. Whether that means the wrongdoing actually took place, or that the alleged wrongdoing was decisive in changing the results and thereby "stealing" the election, is another matter.
Which brings me to my original point. Whether the Democrat's party machine stole the Presidential election of 1960 is not the point; that they were notorious for having done so is a matter of historical record.
Rather, my point was/is that to portray the Democrats as inexperienced and ineffectual in the realm of power brokering is naive and counterhistorical. The historical record is clear: the D's not only knew and know how the game was and is played; they helped shape the rules.
[The same can be said of the R's, of course.]
Posted by: Allan on November 2, 2006 12:46 PMFair enough.
I, on the other hand, am notorious for my enormous **NO CARRIER
Posted by: Beeeej on November 9, 2006 12:35 PM|
Post a comment
|
Copyright (c)1998 - 2010 by Allan Rousselle. All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed, all reservations righted, all right, already.
Click here to send me mail.
