Grand Spectacles and Frenzied Crowds

[longshot]

Ben Stein on Obama's convention speech: "Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807240001?f=h_latest

Okay. It's been established here that some people are largely in favor of Barak Obama, and others here will not be voting for him. I'm pretty sure we know who falls into which camp at this point.

Is there a way we can discuss just this one aspect of his candidacy without blowing this up into a condemnation of him as a person/candidate, or conversely a make out fest/offers to have his children?

Try and think of it this way... imagine it was the candidate you support putting on these rather large, stadium sized spectacles. Obama has decided to receive the nomination in a football stadium, rather than at the convention.

Is this type of thing acceptable? Is it a positive move for US politics? Is Ben Stein right? Or his he nuts?

Ground Rules:

This quote was said on the Glen Beck show. I don't give a shit about Glen Beck, so no discussing him. If you want to discuss Glen Beck, make your own fucking thread.

Try and stay on topic... we already know who supports whom. I'm curious if there are people leaning towards the McCain side that think it's alright, or if there are people that support Obama that think this might be a little much.

[Stanley Burrell]

Ben Stein on Obama's convention speech: "Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807240001?f=h_latest

Okay. It's been established here that some people are largely in favor of Barak Obama, and others here will not be voting for him. I'm pretty sure we know who falls into which camp at this point.

Is there a way we can discuss just this one aspect of his candidacy without blowing this up into a condemnation of him as a person/candidate, or conversely a make out fest/offers to have his children?

Try and think of it this way... imagine it was the candidate you support putting on these rather large, stadium sized spectacles. Obama has decided to receive the nomination in a football stadium, rather than at the convention.

Is this type of thing acceptable? Is it a positive move for US politics? Is Ben Stein right? Or his he nuts?

Ground Rules:

This quote was said on the Glen Beck show. I don't give a shit about Glen Beck, so no discussing him. If you want to discuss Glen Beck, make your own fucking thread.

Try and stay on topic... we already know who supports whom. I'm curious if there are people leaning towards the McCain side that think it's alright, or if there are people that support Obama that think this might be a little much.

It's pretty obvious most professional athletes are Hitler clones because of the attention they get in crowded stadiums. Nghhththgff.

[longshot]

I think it's hard for me to divorce my own bias against the candidates when looking at this stadium-style thing. I'm sure if it was someone I supported, I'd be like, "This is fucking awesome. Just look at how many people love this guy. Even people all over the world come out to see him."

I like the idea of 75,000 people being interested enough in politics to come out for something like this. This kind of thing would have never have happened in the last election. That people care is good.

However, I think Ben Stein has a point. I think it will become very apparent once they start showing extended camera shots sweeping across a filled stadium.

[Latrinsorm]

The most generous numbers for voter turnout approach two thirds, which is pretty pathetic, and God only knows how many people vote on the basis of "I know this guy's name". Anything that gets lots of people doing something in politics clearly has something going for it, even if it's just going outside and listening to someone talk. Baby steps.

As to the Führer-like nature, I would point out to the esteemed Mr. Stein that Hitler also happened to be a soldier once upon a time - yet I hear no comparisons made to Senator McCain on that score.

[Stanley Burrell]

As to the Führer-like nature, I would point out to the esteemed Mr. Stein that Hitler also happened to be a soldier once upon a time - yet I hear no comparisons made to Senator McCain on that score.

Do not undercut my one-liners.

[longshot]

It's pretty obvious most professional athletes are Hitler clones because of the attention they get in crowded stadiums. Nghhththgff.

Thanks for giving your standard retarded one-liner stamp of approval to this thread. Congratulations. Unless you have something substantial to add, go spike your vein someplace else.

It makes me nauseous knowing that you're allowed to vote.

[Stanley Burrell]

Thanks for giving your standard retarded one-liner stamp of approval to this thread. Congratulations. Unless you have something substantial to add, go spike your vein someplace else.

It makes me nauseous knowing that you're allowed to vote.

It makes me nauseous when I eat too much garlic. This is still a dumbshit thread.

[longshot]

As to the Führer-like nature, I would point out to the esteemed Mr. Stein that Hitler also happened to be a soldier once upon a time - yet I hear no comparisons made to Senator McCain on that score.

Can we please focus on the comments that were made? And not discuss things that Ben Stein didn't say?

[longshot]

The most generous numbers for voter turnout approach two thirds, which is pretty pathetic, and God only knows how many people vote on the basis of "I know this guy's name". Anything that gets lots of people doing something in politics clearly has something going for it, even if it's just going outside and listening to someone talk. Baby steps.

I feel the same way too. Something is better than nothing.

I'm just wondering if this is the way to go about it.

[Stanley Burrell]

Can we please focus on the comments that were made? And not discuss things that Ben Stein didn't say?

To quote the OP:


Ben Stein on Obama's convention speech: "Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done"

Try and think of it this way... imagine it was the candidate you support putting on these rather large, stadium sized spectacles. Obama has decided to receive the nomination in a football stadium, rather than at the convention.

Is this type of thing acceptable? Is it a positive move for US politics? Is Ben Stein right? Or his he nuts?

Congenial ambassador is just a hop, skip and a jump away from killing six million Jews. Everyone be really careful that when Obama gets his ass moving and does things overseas that cater to the outside world, what he's really trying to do is get the Romanians to attack Odessa again.

Fuck McCain and his phobic bullshit and/or inability to get on a moving plane. That's just because he's a new-age secular focused on domestic issues. Like bombing Iran.

Lick a mother-million-fucking cocks per second LS. Fuck. You just made children die. Somehow.

[Tisket]

"I understand politicians are politicians because they have ego deficit problems and they try to cure them by having lots of worship and adulation and adoration."

I lol'd. Best line ever.

[BriarFox]

This fiasco enacts the talk-show version of Godwin's Law; it was dead before it began. If the conservative media really can't think of anything better to do against Obama than compare him to Hitler, they're doomed.

Crowds of screaming people mean nothing; everything is dependent on the context. We're not going to accuse KISS of being Hitler just because they play in a stadium, nor are we going to accuse any popular politician of being Hitler just because he's popular.

If we compare Hitler's demagoguery to Obama's, we have to notice some immediate differences, particularly in terms of what people are screaming about. In Hitler's case, they screamed in support of racial supremacy, moral superiority, and revenge. In Obama's case, people are screaming in support of global cooperation, respect for law and human rights, and sound fiscal decisions.

The comparison exists only on the surface.

P.S. Grats to you for asking for objectivity, Longshot.

[Daniel]

I find it extremely telling that you would default to the hitler comparisons, as if other american politicians have never spoken in front of large highly supportive crowds and not exactly led the country into a hate mongering war.

For instance, this picture form the 1960 DNC:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/DemConv1960.jpg/1100px-DemConv1960.jpg

[longshot]

When you say, "you" are you speaking of me!? Not exactly fair if you are.

I'm not saying I agree with what Ben Stein said. He brought attention to the stadium issue, and I just made a thread about it.

Again, this isn't about Hitler...

Do you think the move towards grand spectacles is a good thing or a bad thing?

[Kembal]

It does open up the convention. I don't think most American people find the conventions accessible at all, so changing it from a closed grand spectacle (which the convention already is) to an open grand spectacle for that one night isn't a bad thing.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm not saying I agree with what Ben Stein said. He brought attention to the stadium issue, and I just made a thread about it.

Again, this isn't about Hitler...

Do you think the move towards grand spectacles is a good thing or a bad thing?

It's rather difficult to not respond to such idiotic statements when they're a part of the context of your question.

The reason this was brought up on Beck's show (a show with a conservative bias) by a guest, Stein (a guest with a conservative bias) is because they have a candidate that is incapable of drawing such crowds ... or is incapable of emptying out enough nursing homes of enough ambulatory supporters.

The GOP is in a serious case of denial at this point, or at least they're putting on a good show of it. They either believe the polls or they understand reality and act like they believe the polls.

But that's another discussion for another thread ...

Let me ask you this; were you a performer, speaker, artist ... what have you, and you were booked into a large convention center capable of hosting five thousand people, would you stay in that particular venue knowing that you just came off of a recent tour where you packed stadiums?

First and foremost you have to accept that this is a candidate and campaign backed and funded by people .... the every day Joe. Conventions such as this are largely reserved for party/campaign insiders and delegates. To keep it as such would be a slap in the face to everyone that sent Obama a check for the amount they could afford.

The only reason this is such a big deal to conservatives is simply because of the fact that Obama landed in various locations in Europe and the Middle East and was greeted by oceans of supporters and journalists. McCain land in MA and is greeted by ... one reporter with a photographer in tow.

[longshot]

Let me ask you this; were you a performer, speaker, artist ... what have you, and you were booked into a large convention center capable of hosting five thousand people, would you stay in that particular venue knowing that you just came off of a recent tour where you packed stadiums?

I would do an acoustic session for my most loyal fans in a small and intimate environment...

I'm kidding. I'd keep doing the big stadiums until my collapse became an hour long special on VH1. What you wrote was well put.

I haven't exactly lived through a lot of elections. The reaction Obama's received isn't like anything I've seen before. I was wondering if people felt this was a good or bad thing.

[Daniel]

When you say, "you" are you speaking of me!? Not exactly fair if you are.


Why wouldn't I be speaking about "you"? You're the one that brought up the reference and made no attempt to hide your subjectivity.

Seriously, If you believe that the comparison is a load of bullshit, then my apologies.

Otherwise: Yes. I'm talking to you.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't think comparing anything today to the 1940's is a fair comparison. A stadium of 70,000 people today would be how many people then? The world is smaller now, and to me anyway, 70,000 people is just a blip if even if they ALL voted. What'd we have in 2004, 70 million voters? I recognize it's the popular vote.

I don't think anyone could achieve the fanatic support Hitler (or JFK or Reagan) had in their prime anymore, not with the communications that exist today.

The exception being something similar to 9/11 that unifies both parties occuring near a presidential election. What did Bush have, something like an 85% approval rating at the beginning of the war? I guess I just contradicted myself.

[Warriorbird]

Ben Stein lost a lot with me when he made his anti evolution movie.

The comparison here is of a more repulsive kind.

As to the subject at hand?

I think Obama is at his best when he can speak to a large crowd. I think the arena is a good one for him. It sets him apart from the traditional and heightens the differences between him and McCain. If he does everything standard he loses this race.

[TheEschaton]

Try and stay on topic... we already know who supports whom. I'm curious if there are people leaning towards the McCain side that think it's alright, or if there are people that support Obama that think this might be a little much.

As a former Hillary supporter who finds himself in the Obama camp now, I do find the rhetoric disarming and slightly alarming. I am all for more political involvement, but I don't think it should be idiotic involvement, like Back's involvement, for instance. People should be able to look at a candidate and his/her stances, and then choose from there, but what we have here are people making a rather uninformed choice based on the whole "bread-and-circus" idea.

That being said, I still think the informed choice is FOR Obama, not against him, despite the lofty, disarming rhetoric. The "scary" part of Obama's rhetoric, though, is exactly the opposite of Hitler's rhetoric - the former's rhetoric masks vagueness and perhaps a little naivety, the latter masked the single most specific evil to ever grace our planet, only almost rivalled by the dropping of the atomic bomb.

In the end, I just wish people would be more political because these issues matter, not because they "like" the guy saying it. I was aghast at people who voted for Bush because "he seems like a good guy to have a beer with," and I'll be aghast if people vote for Obama because of his lofty speeches. I'm sure MLK would have given up his ability to turn a phrase for actual social justice for the poor and the oppressed, and that was the point of everything he said, not how he said it.

Edit: This topic is actually something I'm revisiting with the book I'm reading right now: Plato's Gorgias, where Socrates seeks to show that rhetoric is merely a form of flattery that subverts actual expertise, and is thus contemptible, as it is not concerned with what is right and wrong, but what it can convince other people is right and wrong.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

In some ways rhetoric is how Bush won the country. For some politicians it is their best way to appeal to voters.

[BriarFox]

Edit: This topic is actually something I'm revisiting with the book I'm reading right now: Plato's [i]Gorgias[//i], where Socrates seeks to show that rhetoric is merely a form of flattery that subverts actual expertise, and is thus contemptible, as it is not concerned with what is right and wrong, but what it can convince other people is right and wrong.
-TheE-

Have you read the Phaedrus, too? Plato ends up saying rhetoric's a great tool to entice people toward the study of philosophy, which is less flashy but far more rewarding. So, harnessed to a worthy purpose, it's a good thing, but it can be misused, too.

[Hulkein]

The GOP is in a serious case of denial at this point, or at least they're putting on a good show of it. They either believe the polls or they understand reality and act like they believe the polls.

You said this exact same thing ad nauseum in 2004 and were proven wrong.

[Latrinsorm]

What did Bush have, something like an 85% approval rating at the beginning of the war? I guess I just contradicted myself.He exceeded 90% after 9/11, the only person to do so before or since (although approval ratings only seem to go back to about FDR).

[Tsa`ah]

You said this exact same thing ad nauseum in 2004 and were proven wrong.

Actually ... no. If you can find it and post it within context ... do so.

Let me explain this to you so you can understand the statement and also recall that I denounced the validity of polling in 2004.

The ABC or CBS poll just after Obama wrapped up the democratic nomination showed McCain doing better with independents ... which was really funny considering Obama pulled in independents at ratios ranging from 2-3:1 vs Mcain in the primary season ... yet ABC/CBS stood by the "national" poll that had a sampling of under 300 independents. The results made it on-air and the results were loading page material (and recycled ad nauseum) for over a week.

More to the point ... Cell and VOIP usage amongst the under 40 crowd has skyrocketed since 2004 while landline usage amongst the 40+ crowd has only slightly dwindled. Guess which service(s) are largely used for this type of polling.

But do go find where I said the GOP was wrong and Kerry was probably leading in reality.

PS ... I displayed how the polls were wrong time and time again during the primary season.

[BigWorm]

Have you read the Phaedrus, too? Plato ends up saying rhetoric's a great tool to entice people toward the study of philosophy, which is less flashy but far more rewarding. So, harnessed to a worthy purpose, it's a good thing, but it can be misused, too.

That's the one with the scene where Socrates really wants to bone a young guy (Phaedrus I'm pretty sure), right? Plato's shit is such a mindfuck sometimes.

[Stanley Burrell]

I've never heard a human being not use some mystically quantifiable gradation of rhetoric.

[Hulkein]

Actually ... no. If you can find it and post it within context ... do so.

Quote is provided at the bottom of the page.

You thought it was, and I quote, "self delusion" back in 2004. Now it's a "serious case of denial." That's the same theme.

You thought it was self delusion in 2004 because you don't trust polls (RealClearPolitic's combo poll nailed the 2004 results, for the record). You think it is a serious case of denial now because of the polls.

You were wrong in 2004.


All of the partisan bravado aside, does anyone here honestly think Bush has a chance.

Personally I think there has been a great deal of self delusion going on. I don't think Bush has a chance at another 4. I think the general analysis of this being a close race is hype.

I don't think this because there is an overwhelming support for Kerry, more of a mutual disdain for Bush.

Why do I think this? I think this because the polls have focused on partisan sympathetic areas. I think this because across the board there are record turn outs. The media has focused on the people that habitually vote and have ignored the populace that normally wouldn't care. Now they care. If they care more for Bush or more for Kerry remains to be seen, but historically people don't turn out to support an incumbent like this, they turn out to serve eviction.

I think this is what's happening. Millions have been turning out since this morning to sign the Bush family's eviction notice.

The only wild card that has no chance of winning, but every chance to tipping the scale one way or the other is Nader. Had Nader been the Dem candidate, I don’t think the term “close” would have been in the media’s rhetoric.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[BriarFox]

That's the one with the scene where Socrates really wants to bone a young guy (Phaedrus I'm pretty sure), right? Plato's shit is such a mindfuck sometimes.

Pretty much, though it's not TOO overt. Pederasty (older man, young boy) was common in Athens, and it was thought to build good social relationships. The old dude was supposed to introduce the young one around and get him contacts and such, and give him presents. The young one was supposed to play hard to get and then eventually give in. Once he grew a beard, it was supposed to stop.

[BigWorm]

Pretty much, though it's not TOO overt. Pederasty (older man, young boy) was common in Athens, and it was thought to build good social relationships. The old dude was supposed to introduce the young one around and get him contacts and such, and give him presents. The young one was supposed to play hard to get and then eventually give in. Once he grew a beard, it was supposed to stop.

Good thing I have a beard.

[BriarFox]

Good thing I have a beard.

What, you don't like presents???

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BriarFox
What, you don't like presents???

What kind of presents are we talking about here...

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j7/tijay2k/box.jpg

[RichardCranium]

What kind of presents are we talking about here...


Cock.

[TheEschaton]

Have you read the Phaedrus, too? Plato ends up saying rhetoric's a great tool to entice people toward the study of philosophy, which is less flashy but far more rewarding. So, harnessed to a worthy purpose, it's a good thing, but it can be misused, too.

Yes and no. Gorgias is all about how rhetoric is just flattery, convincing people of things without really educating them, and without regard for the truth.

IIRC, Phaedrus was Socrates trying to redefine what rhetoric SHOULD be, IE, not concerned with flattery, but knowing the truth and persuading people to accept the truth. From what I can find briefly on Phaedrus (it's been at least half a decade since I read it): "Rhetoric, then, must determine the nature of the soul to be an art, just as medicine must determine the nature of the body; it must know the different types of souls and how they are moved. And yet, Socrates says, the truth is of no import in a law court, but rather the convincing; rhetoric, people claim, consists of cleaving towards the likely and should leave the truth aside. However, as it has already been determined that only people that know the truth can properly use the art of the "likely", this popular opinion is decided to be clearly wrong."

Thus, "Accordingly, the legitimate sister of this is, in fact, dialectic; it is the living, breathing discourse of one who knows, of which the written word can only be called an image. To be a proper rhetorician, then, one must know the truth of what he is speaking or writing on and how to define and divide it until reaching something indivisible, one must understand the nature of the soul and what sort of speech is proper to each soul, and only then will he be able to use speech artfully, to teach or to persuade. You are only a true practitioner of the art of rhetoric, then, if you have . . . composed these things with a knowledge of the truth, if you can defend your writing when you are challenged, and if you can yourself make the argument that your writing is of little worth . . . And furthermore, then you must be called by a name derived not from these writings but rather from those things that you are seriously pursuing . . . To call him wise, Phaedrus, seems too much, and proper only for a god. To call him wisdom's lover- a philosopher- or something similar would fit him better and be more seemly."

Namely, what Phaedrus is saying is that rhetoric performed rightly is simply philosophy - and the art of rhetoric is the empty definition so roundly panned in other dialogues.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

You thought it was, and I quote, "self delusion" back in 2004. Now it's a "serious case of denial." That's the same theme.

You thought it was self delusion in 2004 because you don't trust polls (RealClearPolitic's combo poll nailed the 2004 results, for the record). You think it is a serious case of denial now because of the polls.

I honestly believed the polling was way off in 2004, in my opinion it was. Kerry's (and the democratic party's) failure to address the swiftboat lies were ultimately responsible for Bush edging out Kerry in the election.

This is of course my opinion because I'm still sort of stunned that a little over half of the voting population were willing to put the C average Harvard cheerleader back into office after the debacle that was his first term.


You were wrong in 2004.

I absolutely was wrong, but not in my opinion that the polls were skewed. I believe they were, as I said. Ultimately the election was between two "meh"
candidates and Kerry chose to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is not a replay of 2004, or 2000. This is a completely different ballgame between two very worthy candidates. Yes, McCain is a worthy candidate. I doubt we'd be in the situation we're in (economy, fuel and housing crisis, two front war ... etc) had McCain not pulled a Kerry (or is that Kerry who pulled a McCain) during the 99/00 primary season.

[Hulkein]

I agree that some polls were skewed, but I guess I'm just a fanboy of RCP's method of combining all the polls that they deem reliable. I think Obama will win the election but I certainly don't think people who don't believe the same are in a case of denial.

Yeah, Kerry and Bush were meh candidates but now we have a black candidate with a Muslim name which, as wrong as it is, will cause a lot of people to think twice once they get in the booth by themselves. I also think you need to take into account that McCain isn't Bush. He is a guy people look up to. When a lot of people vote for McCain it won't be just because they hate the Democratic candidate (which was the case for me in 2004 and a sentiment I have heard from a lot of people who voted for Bush over Kerry).