[besson3c]

I'd be willing to bet that once we have formed an opinion influenced by rhetoric, especially something that hits close to home, it is rather hard to undo that and do a complete reverse course in our thinking. We all want to justify to ourselves that we didn't overreact, we didn't act irrationally, and that there is a good reason for thinking as we do.

Therefore, it seems like the name of the game in modern politics is to come up with good rhetoric - all politicians do this. It puts the onus on us to separate the rhetoric from actual fact and/or subtlety and nuance to viewpoint, and many of us don't have the time or interest to do this.

The problem is, when this pushes the boundaries of ridiculous it sometimes has blowback. Sarah Palin has a lot of political advisers, I'm sure. What I don't know is if that boundary of what ridiculous is is not where I think it is and therefore rhetoric like this:

Sarah Palin Jabs Michelle Obama's Anti-Obesity Campaign With S'mores

is savvy, or whether this sort of thing is ultimately going to hurt her. To save you the click, Palin is saying that Michelle Obama wants to decide what we should eat, and "why should the government have a say over what we eat", whereas Obama's program is just a persuasive PSA like so many others that came before it, and she is not literally deciding what we should eat. Palin's strategy seems to be to wage every and any battle with rhetoric, and to be fair, she is far from the only politician that does this sort of thing.

But I don't really want to talk about the Obama/Palin dessert thing, because I don't really care about this issue... If you disagree with my synopsis, let's move on, there are no doubt many other examples and surely something we can agree upon, I just figured some sort of example was appropriate.

In addition to the question of whether the ridiculous causes irreparable blowback and what that blowback is, what is the net-effect of this hyper rhetoric that is so common these days, where everything is in perpetual conflict over the big issues to issues like this? Palin's strategy seems to be helping the Republican party as a whole cause either people love her or hate her, and she has excited her base. I'm sure there will be more Palins and Palin copycats to come.

Let's not make this about Palin because there have been 209348209348 threads about her, but about what she symbolizes in political strategy. Is she a blip, or a sign of things to come? Is there a point when rhetoric like this polarizes to the point that severe damage is caused? Are we already there?

[OAW]

I don't think it's an issue of rhetoric per se. I think it's more an issue of confirmation bias. If your audience is comprised of the "Obama is a Manchurian Candidate Socialist looking to take away our God-given Amurican Freedoms!" crowd then they will be apt to believe the things that Sarah Palin was talking about in the link. And then when you consider the fact that most Americans aren't political junkies like many of us around here are ... they won't even bother to research the situation for themselves and easily find out that Sarah Palin is full of shit clearly exaggerating Michele Obama's anti-obesity campaign positions. So again, I don't think it's rhetoric that's at play here. I think that because of confirmation bias, the average person is often hostile to information that contradicts their preconceived notions ... let alone being willing to actively seek it out.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Yes, I suppose a poohead like you would say that.

smileyface!!!! smileyface!!!

[Doofy]

Politics has been like this forever, and it's because the general public are a shower of bastards who can't follow an argument for more than 12 seconds. Necessity breeds method.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

the average person is often hostile to information that contradicts their preconceived notions

Amen. The shower of bastards effect.

[Eug]

"Obama/Palin dessert" stood out to me for some reason.

[ghporter]

I think OAW has nailed the formal description of the psychological effect in play here. Pols tend to pander to those biases to build their creds with select groups, which not only provides confirmation to the groups but builds a "following" among those groups' members. Lather, rinse, repeat over a large collection of smaller groups and you wind up with the "Palin effect." I'd define that as "a bunch of otherwise non-demented people following someone who is clearly way above their heads for reasons the followers can't quite comprehend."

Oh, and I think Tina Fey does a better Palin than Sarah does-Tina obviously doesn't let the contradictions inherent in Sarah's positions slow her down, while Sarah trips over them all the time.

[Dork.]

I think there's another issue here. We've already noted that most Americans aren't political junkies. They don't care about politics, and many of them don't vote. These people do have the right to vote, they just can't be bothered to do it.

What would happen if 5% of these people who don't vote on a regular basis find a reason to get off the couch and vote? If that were to happen, and the bulk of that new 5% went to one side, you could change the outcome of a bunch of elections. (I just made those statistics up, but they sound plausible, no?)

Now, what would inspire these 5% up off their asses to vote? A PSA about eating your veggies? Or the notion that someone out there, in a position of power, is telling you what to do, and you shouldn't take it anymore? To get through to these folks, you need to have a message that they can hear above the din of American Idol and Rex Ryan's wife's feet. Small ideas, even if they are good ideas that move the country forward, take a back seat to big ideas (which may or may not actually be true). Big ideas that play into the target audience's biases, of course are more effective, and incrase the chance that the 5% you get to will vote the way you want them to.

One problem is that governing is all about small ideas that move the country forward. So the people currently in office are actually at a disadvantage: they have to put forward small ideas because that is their job, so they are ata disadvantage when debating the opposition. (Michelle Obama technically doesn't hold an office, but even in her position, she can't respond to what Palin is doing without sounding like she is dragging down the Presidency/First Lady-cy into petty arguments).

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Politics has been like this forever, and it's because the general public are a shower of bastards who can't follow an argument for more than 12 seconds. Necessity breeds method.

Rhetoric also makes it clear to the folks who actually think about voting which candidate isn't just reading a speech written by a man called Keith.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Now, what would inspire these 5% up off their asses to vote?

I have a theory about this. Increase taxes, and participation will increase. The more money you're spending on government, the more attention people should start paying to the decisions that the voter can make.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I have a theory about this. Increase taxes, and participation will increase. The more money you're spending on government, the more attention people should start paying to the decisions that the voter can make.

It's probably taxes, but other things that hit close to home end up being single issues for more & more diverse peoples. Gun control is the classic single issue, but there are plenty of folks who are single-issue voters with respect to healthcare and illegal immigration now too, given that it impacts them.

But, yes, the fact that taxes/spending/public bailouts are so prevalent and obvious probably brings a lot of people into play regardless of their actual impact.

[ebuddy]

Palin will score points with those who wouldn't be discouraged by most anything she says. While I am not one of them, the example used by the OP for the foundation of the discussion begs mention (as always).

If there were not a concerted effort by those of similar political affiliation to use legislation as a means of mitigating the free market practice of producing legal wares people want, Palin's charge would move from 10% reasoned, to zero credibility.

To OAWs point, the only certain way to ensure you are not associated with socialism is to mind your associates. If they include a wealth of unabashed, self-proclaimed socialists and your upbringing and schooling involves a great deal of pro-socialist dogma; the charges of such may be perceived as valid. Just because he's smart enough to understand that no pervasive worldview can be thrust into existence overnight, does not make him a champion of free market capitalism. Lest we be kidding ourselves here.