Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lasspvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!lasspvax!gtaylor
From: gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: A Vote for Mondale
Message-ID: <104@lasspvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 09:34:26 EST
Article-I.D.: lasspvax.104
Posted: Thu Nov  8 09:34:26 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 21:15:09 EST
References: <1500@pur-phy.UUCP> <1105@bbncca.ARPA> <>
Reply-To: gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor)
Organization: Theory Center (Cornell University)
Lines: 54
Summary: 

In article <>  Ray Simard  reminds me of one of my bits of uneasiness:
>
>	1) No administration is a homogenous body.  Thank God Reagan
>surrounded himself with thinkers, instead of "yes-men".
>
In some ways, that's what bothers me. RR's right-wing "kitchen cabinet" pals
(anyone want to bet on how long it'll take the *real* right to back off of
George Bush. Even RR was a bit of a disappointment). The masses didn't vote
for the people who make the *real* decisions. This, of course, depends upon
whether or not you believe that Reagan is *really* making the decisions. Or
*really* in control.
>Reagan has shown an admirable
>ability to keep his eye on the big picture, and not let one small element
>of his policy blind him to other important factors.
>
I'd refer to the nice back to back summaries on the grounds upon which 
foreign policy decisions are made from the last debate. "evil empire" and
"commies or totalitarians" vs. the more complex (that sort of thinking just
doesn't sway the voters....) business of a foreign policy that assumes a
certain knowledge of the unique history, politics, climate etc. of the area,
and a genuine concern for the people involved. THat must not be the big picture
we're talking about.
>>.I
>>think a lot of people are voting for Reagan because they want a Calvin
>>Coolidge 1984-style, a flagrant figurehead.
>
>	Nobody I know, and I know a lot of Reagan supporters.
>
I guess that I must agree with Ray here. I would say that a fair amount of
Reagan's support stems rather from a normal desire to believe that the world
is *not* a complex and scary place. RR did a really nice job of suggesting all
along the way that those parts of our life that seem out of our control
(everything from our jobs to what we do about the Libyans) haven't changed 
due to the times or the fact that the world is a different place, but because
we've been lead astray. The present can be a mirror of some glorious past
if we just (insert the campaign promise here).

In the end, I must say that I think that that's a pleasant fiction, with the
sort of appeal that would nearly guarantee victory to anyone who'd try it.
Nor,  do we point out, is RR alone in its use. It's a common tactic. I tend
to be easily swayed by it myself. So do you, if you're honest. It's a common
tactic for dealing with anxiety (the other is to live entirely in the present,
and project the future as a linear development of the present. CUt your slice
of the present thin, and this works well, too).

BUt it's a cruel and contemptible lie *wherever* it come from ( LEFT or RIGHT,
RICH or POOR, THE PULPIT or the SOAPBOX-no favorites). And it damages both the
person who believes and follows it as well as the persons affected by the
decisions made by anyone who holds it. That's what's *really* ugly about it.

During the seventies, I thought that the "New Left" pretty much had the market
cornered for this sort of stuff...and wound up looking too far right. I'm 
somewhat bemused to find that the New RIght does it better. But now I'm a
Communist sympathizer, prophet of pessimism, or worse. And I didn't even move.