babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Motivating Voters
October 28, 2015 - 10:58am
***
There is a lot of chatter about low voter turnout and what would improve it.
I think voter engagement beyond voting is the problem.
I read this a few days ago and it stuck with me. It's easy to be dismissive of such a person but this woman is not stupid or lazy.
She didn't vote because she is disillusioned by politics.
She wasn't impressed by Trudeau's platform which she had read, but also said she wouldn't recognize him in the street. How is that even possible? Seems like the MSM isn't impacting people all that much.
And finally:
It's easy to put down such a voter, to disrespect her, but I don't think she is an anomaly. To many people politics is a bunch of old men making decisions and it makes little difference which old men it is.
Apparently Trudeau's win is due to first time voters. How many were like this woman? Saw someone they could relate to? Is this what pundits and polls refer to as "shared values"? How effective is the MSM if she wouldn't have even recognized Trudeau on the street?
I think values is the wrong word, I think "interests" is more accurate. In Trudeau and his family she sees a reflection of her own, so thinks he will share her priorities and opinions.
This person is a university student writing for the studen paper, so also someone we can expect to be reasonably informed.
It's easy to disrespect and lament the simplistic approach to politics but it is one that many if not most voters share. Many, if not most, will tell you they are not into politics. Even those who read the papers and watch the news are far less informed than I imagined in the past.
Neoliberal thinktanks figured out how to sway the thinking of the average person that is preoccupied with their own lives and goals to go against their own self-interests, to believe the way things are is the best we can do.
Understandably this board has focused on the recent election and now what the NDP needs to do to win the next as well as holding the Liberal government to account and other current events such as pipelines and the attacks in Paris.
Nothing wrong with that, but no one seems to be focused on how to sway people who are not accessible through long progressive arguments or passionate manifestos. Focusing on injustice sways people to give to charity. Personal self-interest which includes family and friends, is a stronger motivator which is what neoliberal marketing targeted. "People should get to keep the money they earn" who can argue with that? "Government is corrupt" plays right into the hands of neoliberals because if government is corrupt then shrinking government is good.
Activists seem trapped in a bubble unable to see the forest for the trees, focused on conversion through moral argument and grand inspiration, treating self-interest as selfish, something to be looked down on, rather than a powerful motivator.
In my opinion progressive ideals would benefit the 99%. Medicare benefits the 99%. Fully funded education benefits the 99%. Environmental protection benefits the 99%. Basic income benefits the 99%. A 6 hour work day or four day work week benefits the 99%. Curtailing corporate power benefits the 99%. Even so few of these ideas can be sold because people are convinced we can't afford them. If medicare did not exist today it would be a much harder sell.
People need to be deprogrammed, neoliberal conditioning needs to be underminded but it will not happen through long explanations or righteous manifestos.
Unfortunately, our media outlets are not designed to inform anyone as to what is actually going on in this country or in the world. Neither is our education system. However, lest anyone betray a haughty sense enlightenment and accomplishment for being politically active, I give you babble's slate of election related threads to behold. Very clearly there's much to be said for remaining blissfully ignorant of the goings on.
Under the circumstances it wouldn't really matter would it? A shrunken government that had previously been corrupt would likely remain so.
I do think rational politics needs to move away from the status of benefit cheque/local satisfaction politics to something that is contingent on a broader lens. If they promise to maintain this or that social program, but say nothing about curtailing investment in a belligerent foreign policy, then this kind of activism should be seen for what it is. It is the flip side of the right wing activist complaining about having more tax money siphoned off.
I think we have to stop calling political thought that opposes Capitalism 'manifestos.' It's right wing verbage for anything they don't like. What is required are political representatives that will add their voices against the presiding neoliberal agenda and order, which undermines itself in its daily functioning. That is what the so called democratic voter lacks in the daily barrages of useless information they receive. Voices actually opposing this state of affairs at the representative level.
I always thought it was Italian for "we have all the answers right here, if you're not too brainwashed to agree with them".
Alice Funke (Pundit's Guide) posted some interesting Election turnout numbers today:
Q. Where did #LPC #elxn42 votes come from?
A. a) 1.6M prev abstainers,
b) 1.04M prev NDP,
c) 1.26M newly eligible voters,
d) 221K prev CPC
https://twitter.com/punditsguide/status/666286377693134848
The Fraser Institute stuff is never called a manifesto when the MSM prints it up.
Does the Fraser Institute call it a manifesto?
I think they'd balk at the mere suggestion. That shouldn't deter the MSM from assessing it as such in the form of a disclaimer to their readers. Except that in our society, Fraser Institute reports are presented as a respectable form of analysis judging by the exposure they often receive in the corporate media. There's generally no disclaimer stating that what you are about to read is a capitalist inspired manifesto. Use of the word 'manifesto' is generally reserved as a slur toward 'non-capitalist' contexts.
True.
The Fraser Institute is a right-wing policy think-tank. And there are lots of others. They should be presented by the press as having a known pro-conservative bias.
Chambers of Commerce are also usually afflicted with a right-wing bias. And they are rarely independent & non-partisan.
I remember in 2012 when Sen. Scott Brown of Massachussetts touted his endorsement by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a debate with Elizabeth Warren. He tried to claim it was a non-partisan organization, even though it had a record of supporting Republicans around 90% of the time.
If some group wants to publicize their ideas, called "Our Ideas", and then the MSM refers to it as a "manifesto" then I'd agree that's a slur.
But if that group publishes it as "Our Manifesto" then why am I supposed to blame the MSM for referring to it as a "manifesto"??
Radical types seem to like the term for some reason. If it's a problem for them, what if they just stop using it?
THis is what our conversation is about. Logically we're not in the business of denying anyone use of the term who has their heart set on it.
I'm not sure what your conversation is about. "The Leap Manifesto" was not named by the right wing press and the Fraser Institute doesn't release manifestos.
The right does a great job of drumming up the support of the majority. The left does not and putting it down to the right wing press is a cop out because most people aren't paying that much attention to the press anyway.
The right found a way to successfully sell their ideas and the left has not.
As I recall you don't want voters to be motivated to vote and this thread is about what motivates voters to vote on the premise that we do want people to vote.
The problem is that the secret of right wing success is being willing to lie without limits. Global warming is a hoax, tax cut for the rich create jobs, and on and on. The left are much more constrained, by the nature of their beliefs, to stay in the general neighbourhood of reality. That is a huge disadvantage.
Reading twitter today many many Conservatives are now tweeting saying that Trudeau can't govern because 60% of voters voted AGAINST him. Some are even musing openly about going to court to get him recalled!
Which is kind of rich & hypocritical. Because when the shoe was on the other foot (Harper winning with only 40% of the vote) those same Conservatives said Harper winning with just 40% of the vote was what democracy is all about!
Hypocritical or not, if they're now giving serious consideration to proportional representation, then that's good.
N/A
Why are you posting this Con garbage here, tt?
is this supposed to motivate voters?
That's just silliness. We don't vote "against" anyone.
If I say that my favourite flavour of ice cream is chocolate, that just means I prefer chocolate out of all the options. I'm not "voting AGAINST vanilla".
Recall vanilla.
Vanilla Ice?
Ice Ice Baby.
Conservatives are just sore losers. Suckers.
It's easier to sell the truth than a lie. The secret to neoliberal success has been message simplification, feeding and playing on fear and convincing people they are being wronged by someone coupled with a relentless marketing campaign and manipulation of the public into seeing themselves as taxpayers and consumers and little else.
Progressives need to learn how to sell their message with the same and other techniques but to reveal the truth not conceal it.
There is real reason to fear. the 99% is being wronged by someone(s). People yearn to see themselves as more than just taxpayers and consumers.
Media is an integral part of this enemy system we're living under. Anyone failing to recognize that,...well I don't know what would account for an oversight like that. Corporate media for instance can make it appear that the hand wringing of a few bloviating corporate political shills and a handful of stupefied constituents regarding a lack of vigor when it comes to fighting terrorism, or supporting Israeli and US crimes against humanity, etc, is representative of wider opinion. On the other side of that coin, only those politicians that tow a particular line as it's laid down by corporate media, with slight, inconsequential deviations allowed for here and there to maintain the facade of difference and choice for the average voter, can hope to be elected to office. Anyone else not on an approved and vetted list of candidates has no hope of influencing anything. People are likely to be drawn in to this theatre of the absurd purely for entertainment, as we've witnessed occurring here in the Election forum. It's also likely why, when a person looks around at the political scene and begins to come to terms with what there is to work with in the form of an electorate, that something like Objectivism begins to make inroads, as in, why should someone put themselves on the line for pack of lemmings heading toward a cliff. It's where the impulse that says 'look to oneself' begins to sound practical for some people, especially if they're in charge of things. Under the circumstances, motivating more voters for the next time around seems like the wrong thing to be doing entirely. Helping to unplug them seems like a better use of time.
Do you have any evidence for that? I have watched politicians who tried to sell the truth fail egregiously for the last 50 years. What examples of the truth winning out over lies in politics do you have to put forward?
I'm not saying Trudeau is completely honest, but he's definitely more honest than Mulcair and Harper are. So...election 2015?
ETA: I'm not exactly agreeing with Pondering that it's easier to sell truth than lies, but I know first hand that it's easier to sell something you believe in than something you don't. People can tell.
Yes, an ability to believe nonsense when that is advantageous is an important characteristic of successful politicians and other charlatans.
It is easier to sell a simple message than a complicated message. No matter which is the truth or which is the lie.
I'd say the opposite is true. Justin proved you an lie through your teeth and people will beleive you everytiime; he and Obama have that in common. Run left, govern right. Here we go again.
Are you a time traveller?