Small point - but to a Pythagorean that can mean so much - anyway, I'm not sure it's always understood or noticed that Clinton's famous election rubric of "It's the economy, stupid" was not really at all about the economy but rather about sending the message that it was about the economy to fungible voters. I'm not sure many recognize this or stop to think about the significance of it - well, no doubt those studying the semiotics of social hierarchies etc etc understand and recognize - but your average grunt I'm not sure sees just how much message supersedes practice or content or depth in modern politics - realizes just how smoothly surface meaning has replaced, indeed seemingly obviated need for depth from both purveyor and consumer of these shared messages.
I'd have to remember at least some of the great reams of history I've read in order to know whether or not this is a keen observation - I'm guessing it isn't, if only for the reason that if it's even half as clever as it wants to be I should feel more surprise at having made it - nonetheless I do find it interesting. The smoothly part that is: as if we don't even question, hell, notice anymore the emptiness governing our socializations. [yeah, I'm sure things were so much better a few thousand years ago along the dusty banks of the Nile][now, c'mon, I've said before that the unresolved irony underlying democracy is the necessary belief or illusion that people actually deserve or are worthy of or well suited to the freedom given them - which is not to descry the freedom, which obviously has it's merits, but merely to question what its real value is].
I only bring this up in reference to three things in the news. A poll showing that in America no matter how appealing a candidate may be if he's an atheist only 45% of the electorate would be willing to consider voting for him which means no matter how brilliant a person may be if he doesn't mouth some mindless faith in some obscure thing lurking above he has no chance of winning an election which means that for more than half the electorate voting is not about substance but rather about the intimation of it. Hillary Clinton, in reading a quotation of some hymn affected what she thought was an appropriate southern accent in reading it aloud during a speech. This is really superficial stuff - and yet still ill-advised because it makes her look and sound awkward in her public presentations which will hurt her in comparison to Obama's slick and stylish oratory, yet more evidence of surface rendering substance irrelevant in the argument for the public's presumed conscience. Finally, a liberal strategist in Ontario has suggested the federal liberals soft stand on crime is going to cost them in the election even while admitting that the supposed hard stand on crime espoused by the conservatives is really about which rhetoric on crime appeals most to the voter - ie it's not so much crime that worries people but rather the message sent in how officials talk about crime that matters. The full absurdity of this rhetoric is demonstrated by fact that the only place in Canada where crime is a serious issue is in Toronto, an extreme left wing city with a socialist as mayor - and yet it is conservatives that make tough talk on crime part of their platform. Obviously their appeal has nothing really to do with crime - it has to do with the message, the message is what's important to people.
I just don't see how the marriage of modern media and democracy can long survive. The divorce will be ugly - and I imagine China will be the cold blooded arbitrator divesting parties of their precious assets.
