What Do You Think?
We want to hear what you think of Citizen Voices... Please fill out our survey.
About
Citizen Voices is a blog about election politics, written by people like you. Six San Diegans give their personal take on the issues, candidates and propositions.
» Listen to their interviews on These Days
Categories
Recent Topics
2008 election lessons abraham lincoln anxiety ballot bias blogosphere blogs bridges campaign change city council races city of san diego collective will congress constitution cooperation democrats dialogue district 3 election election day election reactions elections families family friends guns history hope iraq libertarians local marriage marriage equality martin luther king jr mccain media obama politics pollsSnobs-R-Us
Have you heard the story about the Prius-driving, latté-sipping Democrat?
It goes something like this: an elitist, upper-middle class, pseudo-intellectual snob goes into a group of his or her peers and begins spouting advice on how to fix their inbred, uninformed, and sad little lives. Not funny? No, it really isn't too funny. But for many non-Democrats (such as, Libertarians, Republicans, neo-cons, the apathetic masses, the creators of South Park, etc...) this is the vision of a liberal.
So, is there any truth to the stereotype? Does John Edwards' $400 haircut amidst New Orleans' ravaged Lower Ninth Ward signal what's wrong with liberalism? Or does the unseemly image of a bleeding heart Democrat preaching to the poor masses fog up the lens of perception?
In this stretch of the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have taken aim at who can connect with "real America," i.e., the blue collar worker. They've bowled, downed shots, and scarfed down hot dogs and apple pie, all in an effort to distance themselves from the "pointy headed intellectual types". Sometimes, they've even affected a folksy rhetoric for town hall meetings.
But how many of us don't believe both Democratic frontrunners also pine for the occasional latté and a copy of the Sunday New York Times?
Maybe the dichotomy of a wealthy poor man's advocate doesn't sit well because of the unsaid corollary of who foots the bill for the liberals' pet projects: government by way of taxpayers. It's not so bad when someone is telling others what worked for them personally. But when someone tells us what should be fixed at our expense for the benefit of others, it irks and galls the electorate.
Is there a way for Dems
to get their message across without sounding like condescending,
guilt-tripping nouveau hippies? The only way to reconcile their
idealized message with a our mundane lives is to see the big picture
and acknowledge that politicians inevitably sit on the hill (Washington, D.C. or
otherwise). We either need to accept these politicians as our only hope for real change, or take the reins of power ourselves.
Voters are the ones yearning for commonality with our elected representatives. Maybe this will be the year voters resist the urge to have a beer with the president, and vote for the wisest pointy headed intellectual.
Where do you stand on image versus message in the presidential election?
-Citizen Voices blogger Alma Sove has spent most of her life in San Diego and is currently attending law school.
-
1 Comments |
Email this |
-
-
-
|
- Permalink:
Comments
What do you think of Citizen Voices? Please fill out our survey.
Dear Alma,
I had a little difficulty following your blog, but I appreciate you asking a specific question at the end. It feels like you’re suggesting a dichotomy between image and message because the democratic presidential candidates pander to “working class” citizens in rhetoric but then support a more hands-on government role, or a more regulating type of government for individuals, corporations, etc? This is like a general assumption of democrats in the political world correct?
I’m sorry I’m not entirely sure of the fundamentals behind this definition of democrats, and the subsequent definition of republicans as more hands-off and supportive less regulations and lower taxes.
What I am quite certain of is that bloggers and media pundants, are guilty of thinking in very black and white terms, which is as devisive as voicing stereotypes. No person is either black or white, figuratively speaking, nor is any political body or party. There are certain examples of the contrary, but never are these examples representative of the entire body.
Because John Edwards purchased an expensive haircut, he thereby contradicts any measure to support citizens making close to the median household income. This is black and white thinking and journalism that is easy to digest for people on the go and for water-cooler banter, but it is also misleading and a personal offense to John Edwards. It is not news; it is desciption in order to keep audience attention. Are these news shows justified; of course, because of their corporation and their freedom of speech. But we should not support them and do everything in our power to support media that can entertain by focusing on art, but INFORM when they discuss political issues, issues that affect our everyday livelihood.
It’s also important to look beyond the mud-slinging from both sides of the aisle and remember simple logic. If you make several million dollars annually or have mulit-million dollar savings, this immediately dismisses credibility in the first place, regardless of what someone spent on a haircut. There is luxury living and enjoying the rewards of successful business or inheritance, and then there is decadence, excessiveness, and greed. And yes, I do believe the majority of Americans could make a very clear decision on where a line is drawn between rich and super-rich, and the super-rich should be held accountable to this society in different ways. It is sheer probability that got them into their position, and at that point citizen-based regulative measures should make sure portions of that excess money be funneled to the community.
Sincerely,
RJ Gordon