More on strength, and appearances
Mar. 15th, 2005 10:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythPeople want leaders who're strong. People want many things of their leaders, one of the main is to be better than them, stronger, smarter, wiser, better suited to lead. Even if the leader in question isn't, people want to think they are.
Which is how this ties into current politics. The Republicans do their best to portray the Democrats as "weak" on national security. Which presents a problem, not just because the Republicans have a huge noise machine and a lot more discipline and skill at manipulating the media. But because it's easy for the Republicans to look "stronger".
It's always easy to look "stronger" by favoring the use of force. Even if you're not, if you act strong and talk tough, people will buy it. Especially when it's never tested. And it's a lot easier to do that. If your opponent tries to act tough too, then you just act tougher, more threatening. Which is stupid, but it's hard to say that in a way that gets to people. Somebody who advocates going in and kicking some ass (well, not them personally doing it, of course, nor their kids, but y'know, "us" as in the military), will always seem "tougher" than somebody who says "We don't need to fight here." Even if the other ways work better, since you're not pushing for a fight, you must be weak or afraid, and not somebody you can trust to be strong.
Which is false. You're NOT stronger just because you're more willing to fight. There's many times when it takes more strength and confidence to not fight, partially because you know other people will think you're weak. Strength is more than short term antagonism, talking tough and promising to vicariously kick some ass. Strength comes from commitment, discipline, ideals you're willing to live for, not just die for. But these are subtle and don't market as well as aggression. And don't make a very good five second sound bite. This is one of the reasons Bush has managed to make himself seem so tough and strong. Public speeches and a willingness to threaten to go kick ass, or send other people's kids to kill and be killed. And we can all see the results of strength without wisdom or knowledge in the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq.
Strength is generally good, yes. But strength isn't the same as aggression, and it's less important than wisdom, or knowledge, or perseverance, or dedication. The bully's not a better leader than the ferret.
But that's what modern politics has become. When one of the otherwise rational guys at work talks about the election and says things like "I'm glad Bush won, Kerry would have run and hid," I just have to roll my eyes, and try to explain to him why he's wrong, which didn't really work. Old dogs, new tricks, I suppose. Anyway, I'll finish this with a link, to an article from the New Yorker about Joe Biden and other "National Security Democrats". I really hate marketoid-speak like "branding", but a good bit of politics is marketing, which, along with LJ and all the other things I've done on the net, probably has disqualified me for public office already. :)
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles
Which is how this ties into current politics. The Republicans do their best to portray the Democrats as "weak" on national security. Which presents a problem, not just because the Republicans have a huge noise machine and a lot more discipline and skill at manipulating the media. But because it's easy for the Republicans to look "stronger".
It's always easy to look "stronger" by favoring the use of force. Even if you're not, if you act strong and talk tough, people will buy it. Especially when it's never tested. And it's a lot easier to do that. If your opponent tries to act tough too, then you just act tougher, more threatening. Which is stupid, but it's hard to say that in a way that gets to people. Somebody who advocates going in and kicking some ass (well, not them personally doing it, of course, nor their kids, but y'know, "us" as in the military), will always seem "tougher" than somebody who says "We don't need to fight here." Even if the other ways work better, since you're not pushing for a fight, you must be weak or afraid, and not somebody you can trust to be strong.
Which is false. You're NOT stronger just because you're more willing to fight. There's many times when it takes more strength and confidence to not fight, partially because you know other people will think you're weak. Strength is more than short term antagonism, talking tough and promising to vicariously kick some ass. Strength comes from commitment, discipline, ideals you're willing to live for, not just die for. But these are subtle and don't market as well as aggression. And don't make a very good five second sound bite. This is one of the reasons Bush has managed to make himself seem so tough and strong. Public speeches and a willingness to threaten to go kick ass, or send other people's kids to kill and be killed. And we can all see the results of strength without wisdom or knowledge in the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq.
Strength is generally good, yes. But strength isn't the same as aggression, and it's less important than wisdom, or knowledge, or perseverance, or dedication. The bully's not a better leader than the ferret.
But that's what modern politics has become. When one of the otherwise rational guys at work talks about the election and says things like "I'm glad Bush won, Kerry would have run and hid," I just have to roll my eyes, and try to explain to him why he's wrong, which didn't really work. Old dogs, new tricks, I suppose. Anyway, I'll finish this with a link, to an article from the New Yorker about Joe Biden and other "National Security Democrats". I really hate marketoid-speak like "branding", but a good bit of politics is marketing, which, along with LJ and all the other things I've done on the net, probably has disqualified me for public office already. :)
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles
