« Previous | Next »

I Wish This Were Satire
Posted by tgirsch

But sadly, it’s pretty close to the mark.

January 2nd, 2008 Satire, Humor | 11 comments

11 Comments »

  1. Rob Ryan writes:

    The truth hurts. I am a lifelong resident of Tennessee. Beautiful state, nice people, but not a hotbed of intellectual curiosity or rigor. Duane could be any of a dozen good ol’ boys I play darts with down at the Checker Flag sports bar.

    Comment 1/2/2008

  2. tgirsch writes:

    If it makes you feel any better, it’s not much better in the rural parts of Wisconsin, where I spent most of my 20’s. The accent is different, but the attitude is eerily similar.

    Comment 1/2/2008

  3. Morris writes:

    You liberals had better not go out in a rainstorm. With your noses so stuck up you will drown.

    Comment 1/2/2008

  4. SayUncle » True writes:

    […] Via Tom. […]

    Pingback 1/3/2008

  5. digglahhh writes:

    Shockingly, I’m in agreement with Morris here.

    I mean, the article is amusing (although pretty poor by Onion heyday standards), but are we really at the point where we are complaining about the fact that everybody is supposed to get a vote?

    Is the professed sensibility here any less antithetical to the notion of representative democracy than the charges the lefties hurl at the right?

    Shit, I have intellectual superiority issues, as I’m sure many of you do, but I’m not implicitly supporting the notion that some deserve voting privileges while others don’t. Everybody should have equal right to participate in a completely hollow simulacrum of the exercise of democracy and self-determination…

    The goal is to reverse the cultural toxicity and radically shift the process and means by which we are educated so that opinions become more well-informed, in general. I don’t wish that ign’ant country bumpkins were unable to vote, I wish that we all take a some time to reconsider what exactly the phrase, “in our best interest” means.

    Go vote for some other guy beholden to the same exact corporate interests and operating from the same Euro-centric interpretation of history and humanity, but who claims to be on the other side of the fence from the ass-kickin good ole boy, and let me know when that starts to work.

    Nor directing this specifically to TG or anything, but - real talk (as the kids say) - get off this rock the vote shit! It is virtually impotent in its ability to create meaningful change, especially at the Presidential level. How about rocking intellectual hegemony and the hollow political rituals that profess themselves as means of change yet serve only to reinforce a limited view, and further hamstring real change!

    It is the faulty assumption that political change is achieved by voting that leads people to care more about the decisions people make than the process by which they make those decisions, as is the case with the imaginary Onion column author. A vote doesn’t stimulate political change, it reflects those that have already taken place!

    Comment 1/3/2008

  6. tgirsch writes:

    I’m confused. Just exactly who ever argued that the right to vote should be restricted based on intelligence, or any other factor? Decrying the fact that lots of people vote ignorantly is not even on the same continent as arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. For this reason, I have absolutely no idea where digg’s rant comes from.

    Comment 1/3/2008

  7. Morris writes:

    “Decrying the fact that lots of people vote ignorantly is not even on the same continent as arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to do so.”

    Where would democrats be without the ignorant voters? Dems would never support taking away the votes of their base.

    Comment 1/3/2008

  8. digglahhh writes:

    The conclusion is implied.

    Your vote cancels mine, hence we’d better off if you chose not to vote, and presumably even better than that if it was somehow ensured you never voted.

    Basically, touting that article is saying that it is a shame people vote like that - and implicitly privileging the fact that people vote like that as being a greater tragedy than the fact that people think like that.

    That’s the biggest problem with any urge for civic action or political reform that centers on voting, the rhetoric obviously in full force during election/primary seasons. Praising the vote is like praising the medicine, or diagnosing a symptom, or some disease-related analogy. It’s curative, not preventative.

    Also, this canceling out shit is the step-son of the legendary third party debate. If your vote is really the most profound opportunity you have to exercise your democratic will, what does it say about the power of democratic will granted if people are constantly forced to think about their votes as canceling others, or choose their selection begrudgingly, against their own sensibilities, as to not “split the vote.” It means you aren’t exercising YOUR anything. The more important you think the vote is, the greater disservice you do to your intellectual principles when you compromise for “strategic” purposes.

    No team ever comes back from 3 TDs down in the fourth by playing “field position.”

    Comment 1/4/2008

  9. tgirsch writes:

    Well, digg, that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. My opinion is that you need to lighten up, take a pill if necessary, and learn to enjoy a good bit of satire without pretending that it represents some sort of slippery slope toward totalitarianism. But hey, that’s just me. :)

    No team ever comes back from 3 TDs down in the fourth by playing “field position.”

    Terrible analogy, because no football game ever involves more than two competing teams. Maybe if we did our elections tournament-style, third-party candidates could start to make a positive difference, but we don’t live in that world, now do we?

    Comment 1/4/2008

  10. digglahhh writes:

    Is this role reversal? I thought you’re the one who normally argues that there are only two viable participants (parties) in (most) elections.

    Regardless, the analogy was not to compare an election to a football game, but to compare how a “safe” electoral “strategy may manifest itself in what one may consider dire circumstances. The whole canceling out thing does make the election seem more like a game than an exercise of democratic will - ironically, I agree, but for seemingly different reasons.

    Additionally, I have NO PROBLEM appreciating satire. The Onion is The Onion. I have just about every book they’ve ever published, several CDs of the “Radio News” spots, and even used to have, though I’ve subsequently gotten rid of, a a modestly impressive back issue collection of the actual paper. Oh, and the pint glass that says “I enjoy drinking beer,” as well as the “I’m like a choco-holic, but for booze” t-shirt, both gifts.

    The articles is whatever, my only problem with the article is that it pales to vintage Onion standards.

    When you post it here, you do two things, since this is not a satire site, but primarily a forum for serious political discussion One, you lend credence to Fred’s assertion about intellectual snobbery and intolerance of differing views on the part of the liberals. At least that’s how he interprets it. You can certainly argue other intentions, but I think progressives should at least have enough experience to expect how conservatives will interpret endorsements of such pieces. Two, you implicitly endorse the types of deeply buried hegemonic views of the role of voting in politics and the scope of what constitutes political action in general.

    I don’t have “a problem” with either. I’m not objecting to what you decide to include on your (shared) blog - who am I to do that! I was just reacting. Satire can elicit comments about more serious underlying issues, no? And a non-comedy-oriented political site linking to such satire can add an additional layer of context, don’t you agree.

    It’s all love, for both LL and The Onion.

    Comment 1/7/2008

  11. tgirsch writes:

    In almost any winner-takes-all competition, where there’s no award for finishing second, you always inevitably wind up with just two viable contenders. I didn’t invent that law of nature, I just pointed it out. :)

    Regardless, the analogy was not to compare an election to a football game, but to compare how a “safe” electoral “strategy[”] may manifest itself in what one may consider dire circumstances.

    I still don’t think the analogy works, though. To me, it’s a question of likely outcomes. If the most likely outcome of a particular action (in an election or otherwise) is the one that’s least desirable, then to me that makes it a bad choice of action, no matter how well-intentioned.

    The GOP has succeeded in recent years precisely because they’ve managed to maintain party discipline in a way that the Democrats/progressives haven’t been able to match. Now you might argue that this is bad, and I’d be inclined to agree. The problem is, when the other side is playing hardball, taking the “principled stand” is a sure way to get your ass kicked. It’s the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight, as the expression goes. The Democrats/Greens/other progressives have been behaving like the People’s Front of Judea.

    When you post it here, you do two things, since this is not a satire site, but primarily a forum for serious political discussion One, you lend credence to Fred’s assertion about intellectual snobbery and intolerance of differing views on the part of the liberals.

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that issue. All we lend credence to is the idea that Fred and some others have no sense of humor about themselves.

    Two, you implicitly endorse the types of deeply buried hegemonic views of the role of voting in politics and the scope of what constitutes political action in general.

    Perhaps so. But voting does remain a powerful tool, for setting general direction if not for sea-changes on issues.

    But the deeper issue I have with your comments is that they implicitly endorse the whole “the two parties are no different, so voting doesn’t matter” idea that’s disturbingly common, but patently false on its face. In another thread, not all that long ago, I listed more than half a dozen important issues on which the two parties have serious differences. Do they have common flaws? Sure, the biggest of them being the influence of money. But that doesn’t mean that there are no important differences.

    If you really believe that there would be no significant differences in the country if we had President Gore instead of President Bush (for better or for worse, depending on your perspective), then I’m afraid you haven’t been paying attention. :)

    Satire can elicit comments about more serious underlying issues, no?

    True. In fact, good satire will do that. My objection was to your non-sequitur that the only viable thing to do about it was to deny the vote to an entire class of people.

    Comment 1/7/2008

Leave a comment