Americans Aren’t Sending a Message

Jan 21st, 2010 by Brett Greene

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts senate seat is filled by conservative Republican Scott Brown so “Americans are sending a message.” In a word, No.

Obama was elected after President Bush & Congress bankrupted the country with an unnecessary war, corporate welfare (which Clinton did too, by the way), and laws favoring the 1% of wealthiest Americans so “Americans were demanding change.“ In a word, No.

Brushing with broad strokes to manufacture correlation for ones views is a common malpractice, despite ones particular political views. Since the majority of people in the US don’t vote, it’s a misnomer to ever say that the outcome of an election is “Americans sending a message” as if all Americans (or any group) are fully aligned.

Outcomes of elections are the result of who spent the most money on the best marketing to manipulate voter emotions enough to create the reaction they wanted. I’ve been in marketing and psychology for 20 years so I see through the machinations. Don’t be fooled by the blind influence of corporate media stories.

Have you ever heard a politician say “The American people want…” and not heard it followed with a lie to help them get what they want for personal gain? Why do you think there are 237 millionaires in congress making a salary of $174,000 a year? To help their constituents or to increase their personal power and wealth?

As an example, President Clinton earned $40 million in speaking fees alone his first 6 years out of office. Sarah Palin left a $125,000 a year Governor job for a $1.25 million book advance and a commentator position at Fox News though she couldn’t construct a sensible sentence without reading a teleprompter as a candidate. No matter how much expected change President Obama does not deliver on, he’ll be doing fine when he leaves office and so will your nationally elected representatives.

Politicians are not saviors or agents of Satan, they’re people who act on self preservation and self interest as a first defense. Enemies will be manufactured and no matter how scary situations seem or how many demons politicians, religious leaders and mainstream media puppets cook up for us, we will survive. Believe their actions and ignore their words.

So please stop saying that “Americans are sending a message” as if 1) It’s true and 2) It matters. Most of us can’t even agree on where to find the best burger in town much less agree on a message to send to politicians who usually vote for their personal and corporate interests anyway. …but never underestimate the power of groups of committed individuals to generate needed change. We are a nation of unceasing innovators.

P.S. Another reality check – today the Supreme Court solidified corporate influence to dominate U.S. politics even further by eliminating limitations on funding elections. We appear to live in a corporatocracy by, for, and of multinational corporations profits, not a democracy interested in it’s people or their messages. …until the people decide to stop following their influence.

Tags: americans, barack obama, bill clinton, corporate media, corporate power, corporatocracy, election, George Bush, massachusettes election, Media, politicians, Politics, sarah palin, scott brown, supreme court, ted kennedy

Posted in Influence, Spin

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

17599 ResponsesAmericans+Aren%27t+Sending+a+Message2010-01-21+19%3A20%3A49Brett+Greene to “Americans Aren’t Sending a Message”

on 22 Jan 2010 at 3:42 am1Andy

Another great read, as always.
on 23 Jan 2010 at 1:40 am2brettgreene

Thanks.
on 23 Jan 2010 at 2:46 am3brettgreene

This is my response to a comment to this post on my Facebook page. I thought the ideas were worth adding here also:

It's frustrating that most people primarily engage in the impotent republican vs democrat distraction as if it mattered. The issue is corporate influence on government laws that negatively affect citizens in favor of postitive outcomes for mulinational corporations.

Revolution would be good,but it's not going to happen in Washington unless 1) Lobbyists are castrated 2) Corporations lose the power to pay for access and 3) Corporations stop writing legislation for congress that benefits their industries with no regard to negative impacts on others.

The MA election doesn't mean much because no matter who is elected or which party they belong to, their actions in office serve the monied interests that fund them. Then when they're voted out of office most of them become lobbyists and make higher salaries, so being defeated in an election is not a bad deal …especially if you're already a millionaire.

You just take your increased power and connections with you to further increase your wealth in power in the private sector. That's why Washington is revolving door betwen government service and corporate C-level executive positions.

It's more likely that revolution will happen outside Washington to force changes in the current systems. I'm not against corporations & congress, I'm against the misuse of their power in service to quarterly profits over a triple bottom line agenda (people, planet, profits).
on 25 Jan 2010 at 5:47 pm4Raul

Thanks for sharing comments in face (I don't use it myself).
just got think on the last sentence:
…until the people decide to stop following their influence
People is barely aware of how they decice, much less how the're influenced …
The mass just move toward the best resultant vector among all the disputing forces … mass is only aware of the results but not the process
on 25 Jan 2010 at 6:11 pm5brettgreene

Agreed Raul. One reason I started this blog was to point out ways to help people to be more aware of how they make decisions. We'll never stop being blindly influenced, but we can learn how to be misled less often. It's up to each individual to decide to understand how the processes work, and as you mention, most will continue to go on blindly, but that's their choice.
on 26 Jan 2010 at 7:21 am6Mark

You are absolutely right. Americans did not send a message. The people of Massachusetts sent a message that they do not want the health care plan that Congress is considering.

This Brown guy ran exclusively against Obama's health care initiative. And he won. That begs the question. "What motivated their vote?" That is done by polling the people that leave the polls…something called exit polling. Look at the data and the terms "Americans sending a message" is really the medias way of trying to explain that people have changed their mind (depending on the issue) in the last year when it comes to how much they support the Presidents agenda.

When you look at who supported Obama in 2008 in Mthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts and then see that same segment swinging the other way 12 months later then the conclusion is people are not happy with how things are being done in DC. Look at the exit polls and you will see what I mean.

You make alot of valid points all around but they really donlt address the heart of the matter which involves the swing in independents away from Obama which voted him into office.
on 26 Jan 2010 at 4:32 pm7brettgreene

The point that Obama supporters swung the other way, if it's true, is an important one Mark. Thanks for adding it. The fact that both Obama supporters and detractors are extremely unhappy with the health care solutions that Congress has chosen has been so extensively reported that I left it out. His approval rankings further reflect the expected disappointment http://bit.ly/bVDr.

Yes, the Massachusetts voters of this election (not all of "the people of Massachusetts") may have expressed a change of heart. It's easy to assume, but hard to prove, that the same voters who supported Obama are the ones who voted in Brown.

Undoubtedly the turnout was lower than when Obama was elected which can be tied to lower interest in a special election, a less energized democratic base, rejection of the proposed health care solutions, or whatever an onlooker chooses to attribute it to in order to prove their particular opinion.

The issue I was addressing is how we look at an outcome and trumpet our particular belief (usually swayed by opinions of people we follow and agree with) as if it's the truth when it's actually a theory.

The psychological behavior behind this is tied to neurological impulses to pick the first solution that supports our view and ignore the other hundreds of possibilities to explain a specific result. Read "Predictably Irrational," " Fooled by Randomness," "How We Decide" or "Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind" for further research on this common phenomenon. It's most obvious in peoples religious and political beliefs, but can be seen in other areas of our own lives on a daily basis.
on 19 Mar 2010 at 2:06 pm8Holly Hamann

What a great post, Brett!
on 19 Mar 2010 at 5:52 pm9brettgreene

Thanks Holly, btw I've been backed up and haven't posted in awhile. That will be changing after I get my company's site launched this weekend. Thanks for browsing the blog.