Do political commercials prove democracy does not work?

Next time you watch a political commercial, ask yourself how we have gone so far down and away from the noble minds that conceived and created this republic?

Many of the "noble minds" in question were masters of negative politics, who didn't hesitate to defame their political opponents in a manner which would humble and shock the likes of Rove, Morris, Carville et al. Jefferson hired Callander to defame Adams, for example. Jefferson himself was accused of crimes and incest and more. Hamilton also abused Adams, and of course Burr, and also Jefferson whenever he could. The newspapers of that time were positively venomous in their treatment of politicians who were the enemies of their patrons. Claims of idiocy, immorality, tyranny and worse were commonplace. Even Washington was not spared.

Yes it does Scott, silence is compliance. The world operates on action, not thoughts. Again though do as you will.

Yes it does Scott, silence is compliance. The world operates on action, not thoughts. Again though do as you will.

I can't answer for Scott. But wanabe though you are intelligent I believe you are being naive in thinking that in this age of 'think tanks' and political pundits that are using the election process itself to further the ability to control the electorate, that voting will significantly change the agenda. Whatever you do, vote left, vote right, or don't vote at all it is being fed into a data bank and used, not as it should to satisfy the best wishes of the electorate, but rather to figure a better way to win the election next time. Politics today is nothing more than a game; It is a power struggle of power hungry and Machiavellian characters who believe winning the election is the only goal. I think my next question will be: Do You Have to Sell Your Soul to the Devil before going into politics?

Anything comical works other than sarcasm...except dating on line. Sarcasm dose not work with politics, but it works with dating on line, and that is comedy. Democracy only works with comedy, it is fundamentally connected to democracy, without it, democracy would not work. It is this freedom to express ourselves truly, other than in politics, that makes democracy, what it is. I guess.

-- Updated April 29th, 2012, 4:20 pm to add the following --

Politics is only a reflection of how comical we really are.

YOU WISH!!! And probably we would be better off. Unfortunately 'they' take it all seriously - big money and power involved. I used to think the best solution to the negative campaigns and the caricature like descriptions of each other was not to vote - Show them what you really think! But somehow unless you can turn off all the news and broadcasts over the air, etc. they will get to you and if you vote will it be because of the positive characteristics of a candidate or because of the negative smear campaign of his opponent?


Someone once described real democracy as mob rule. That may have been true once and may still be a characteristic of democracy - But we are no longer dealing with democracy; We are dealing with a contest of who is best at influence peddling and mind control - Can they manipulate you to vote for the candidate they want you to vote for - What he or she represents is of little importance to them - All they care about is winning the election - Ethics, morality and democracy are irrelevant!

Who said comedy was not serious? Just as much so as noting how comical seriousness can be. Both are as capable as the other, of either destroying lives or building them. Serious people and comedians, can you tell the difference? One acts the clown, the other tries very hard not to appear as the clown. Winston Churchill once said, "Charlie Chaplin is the smartest man I've ever known". "You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty". Sacha Guitry. These qualities write the script in our everyday lives within a democracy, the only difference is, the beasts in this circus roam freely amongst the crowd, whilst they cage the clowns.

[Scott]

Wanabe, if you think one not moving out of the way of an attacker kicking one -- or not voting between which foot one wants to be kicked or vote on what shoe the kicker shall wear -- is consent because "silence is compliance," then let's just agree to disagree. I do not consent to being kicked, I believe voting on which foot a kicker kicks me with would imply consent more than boycotting the vote, and thus I simply will not vote on which foot kicks me.

It has already begun, a nauseating birage of negative campaign adds to show you how dispicable the candidates are, each candidate attempting to unsdermine the character and credibility of his opponents. It is like watching a soft-core version of the old TV series 'The Untouchables' which showed how mobsters and gangsters would do almost anything to win. When I watch these commercials trying to win in a no-holds barred version of 'The Untouchables' I keep thinking why are they so upset by adult or pornographic material being broadcast when the obscenity of these political power hungry and Machevelian characters is nothing more than an obscene charade having nothing to do with democracy, the Republic of the United States or what the United States originally stood for?

With the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court and the capture of the GOP by the Tea Party, it looks as though we are going to see an unprecedented number of negative ads in this campaign. I don't believe the Obama folks realize it, but they are going to get "swift-boated" as never before. Outright lies and distortions will be so numerous and widespread they cannot be countered.

Once in office the Tea Party types will prevent any further increase in the debt ceiling even if Wall Street and President Romney beg them to let it pass. The nation will default for the first time in its history and the cost of servicing the debt will increase enormously. Government will have to be cut to the bone, which is their goal, and Social Security and Medicare will be only a shadow of their former selves if they exist at all. It's a recipe for fiscal disaster and it's coming right at us like a train wreck.

It has already begun, a nauseating birage of negative campaign adds to show you how dispicable the candidates are, each candidate attempting to unsdermine the character and credibility of his opponents. It is like watching a soft-core version of the old TV series 'The Untouchables' which showed how mobsters and gangsters would do almost anything to win. When I watch these commercials trying to win in a no-holds barred version of 'The Untouchables' I keep thinking why are they so upset by adult or pornographic material being broadcast when the obscenity of these political power hungry and Machevelian characters is nothing more than an obscene charade having nothing to do with democracy, the Republic of the United States or what the United States originally stood for?

With the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court and the capture of the GOP by the Tea Party, it looks as though we are going to see an unprecedented number of negative ads in this campaign. I don't believe the Obama folks realize it, but they are going to get "swift-boated" as never before. Outright lies and distortions will be so numerous and widespread they cannot be countered.

Once in office the Tea Party types will prevent any further increase in the debt ceiling even if Wall Street and President Romney beg them to let it pass. The nation will default for the first time in its history and the cost of servicing the debt will increase enormously. Government will have to be cut to the bone, which is their goal, and Social Security and Medicare will be only a shadow of their former selves if they exist at all. It's a recipe for fiscal disaster and it's coming right at us like a train wreck.

Many years ago I would hear some ordinary Americans say they don't vote for someone but rather they vote for the lesser of two evils. In this case, in the here and now, what you are saying 'Prismatic' is probably all too true. But the Democrats who also have much to lose and much money behind them, though admittedly the big money will tend to support Republicans for purely selfish reasons, will not give up without a fight; And with the very large number of people directly or indirectly receiving government money and if they can resist the Republican brainwashing that will go on till the election will still vote Democratic for another selfish reason - SURVIVAL! For most people, even those who may agree with some conservative viewpoints and who do not particularly like liberals, it should become apparent that in hard economic times a drastic slashing of government spending when that government spending, like it or not, is one of the leading financers of the economy, is economic suicide.

Many years ago I would hear some ordinary Americans say they don't vote for someone but rather they vote for the lesser of two evils. In this case, in the here and now, what you are saying 'Prismatic' is probably all too true. But the Democrats who also have much to lose and much money behind them, though admittedly the big money will tend to support Republicans for purely selfish reasons, will not give up without a fight; And with the very large number of people directly or indirectly receiving government money and if they can resist the Republican brainwashing that will go on till the election will still vote Democratic for another selfish reason - SURVIVAL! For most people, even those who may agree with some conservative viewpoints and who do not particularly like liberals, it should become apparent that in hard economic times a drastic slashing of government spending when that government spending, like it or not, is one of the leading financers of the economy, is economic suicide.

There is such poor understanding among voters of how the economy works that it is hard to have confidence that they even understand their own self-interest. One woman at a Tea Party rally carried a sign that said, "Keep your government hands of my Medicare. Don't steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine."

The lies will be coming thicker and faster than ever before. Today Romney said that he would take a lot of credit for the auto industry recovery because he said "let Detroit go bankrupt" and he interprets what happened as a "managed" bankruptcy. What a joke, but there are people who will believe him.

There is such poor understanding among voters of how the economy works that it is hard to have confidence that they even understand their own self-interest. One woman at a Tea Party rally carried a sign that said, "Keep your government hands of my Medicare. Don't steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine."

The lies will be coming thicker and faster than ever before. Today Romney said that he would take a lot of credit for the auto industry recovery because he said "let Detroit go bankrupt" and he interprets what happened as a "managed" bankruptcy. What a joke, but there are people who will believe him.

That is my main point. We are not being subjected to the real issues but rather the public is being influenced by deliberate distortions of fact and logic where the Machiavellian philosophy of the ends justifies the means is practiced with contempt for the electorate. There are a few programs on the media which analyze some of the main issues and how they will affect the voting public. But usually there is little speculation on the net result the views of the candidates will yield if they have their way, but of course speculation is only that. The main issue disturbing me however is the deliberately erroneous campaign adds - a mixture of distortions and lies that insult your intelligence. Can you really call attempts at winning elections through lies and distortions of fact democracy?

UniversalAlien,

Whatever you do, vote left, vote right, or don't vote at all it is being fed into a data bank and used, not as it should to satisfy the best wishes of the electorate, but rather to figure a better way to win the election next time.

If people vote per-issue, not just left or right: then they will have to do what the electorate wants to figure out how to win the election next time. Voting issue by issue constantly changes the political environment and makes it hard for those in power to gain a strangle hold of power. Voting also loosens a strangle hold.

The only way to fix that problem is to either vote and use the system, or to protest the system by doing an activity. Simply abstaining from voting as a form of protest makes others votes more potent nothing more. As far as it's effects on voting one might as well be dead if they abstain. Not doing something, and doing something are radically different.

If all our votes are simply used as a means for reelection for the time being, and not used for the betterment of the citizens. By having all those votes cataloged we know well what the people want, and when the protests are over we know exactly what to do.

Politics has always been a game and voting changes the rules, not voting keeps the rules the same.

UniversalAlien,

Whatever you do, vote left, vote right, or don't vote at all it is being fed into a data bank and used, not as it should to satisfy the best wishes of the electorate, but rather to figure a better way to win the election next time.

If people vote per-issue, not just left or right: then they will have to do what the electorate wants to figure out how to win the election next time. Voting issue by issue constantly changes the political environment and makes it hard for those in power to gain a strangle hold of power. Voting also loosens a strangle hold.

The only way to fix that problem is to either vote and use the system, or to protest the system by doing an activity. Simply abstaining from voting as a form of protest makes others votes more potent nothing more. As far as it's effects on voting one might as well be dead if they abstain. Not doing something, and doing something are radically different.

If all our votes are simply used as a means for reelection for the time being, and not used for the betterment of the citizens. By having all those votes cataloged we know well what the people want, and when the protests are over we know exactly what to do.

Politics has always been a game and voting changes the rules, not voting keeps the rules the same.

I agree and I disagree. Your view is rational and acceptable BUT what I disagree with is your statement: "Simply abstaining from voting as a form of protest makes others votes more potent nothing more. As far as it's effects on voting one might as well be dead if they abstain. Not doing something, and doing something are radically different." I believe that under some, but not necessarily all, circumstances not voting is a definitive statement. Would you suggest voting if you knew the election was rigged and the results were known? Egypt until yesterday was that way as were most of the communist countries and voting was meaningless. What some of us maintain is our current political system {USA} is not yet meaningless but is so much a game that often all you are deciding by voting is who was the better game player, not who is the better candidate and what are the issues. In that case not voting is not an insignificant act and tells the players {candidates and political parties} to clean up their act - we want real candidates of substance supporting issues that matter, not game players.

In conclusion my opinion is if the election has meaning to you and voting has meaning to you, then by all means vote. But just to vote for the purpose of adding your vote to a statistical abstraction to feed the data banks of the game players is meaningless and counter-productive to democracy and only adds in maintaining the status-quo of the Machiavellian game players.

I believe that under some, but not necessarily all, circumstances not voting is a definitive statement.

This post is about the politics of USA. People abstaining from voting hasn't been working out so well as a form of protest it is well known that the majority of people abstain from voting, the term is political apathy.

Would you suggest voting if you knew the election was rigged and the results were known?

In this specific example it wouldn't matter, but it's imaginary. I would suggest protest, and thats what happened in Egypt; bravo. If a "third world" country can do it, so can USA.

What some of us maintain is our current political system {USA} is not yet meaningless but is so much a game that often all you are deciding by voting is who was the better game player, not who is the better candidate and what are the issues.

That is text book political apathy. Voting for the candidate you like doesn't just mean democrat or republican it means: green, independent, libertarian, peace and freedom, Ron Paul(what ever he is) etc. The meaningfulness of an election depends on the votes ultimately not on peoples attitudes.

Who is gaining from you not voting; the existing government. Who is loosing or abstaining from their rights, you. The only way voter abstinence might work is if just about all people didn't vote. There are candidates of great substance loose the apathy and do some research on them.

I believe that under some, but not necessarily all, circumstances not voting is a definitive statement.

This post is about the politics of USA. People abstaining from voting hasn't been working out so well as a form of protest it is well known that the majority of people abstain from voting, the term is political apathy.

Would you suggest voting if you knew the election was rigged and the results were known?

In this specific example it wouldn't matter, but it's imaginary. I would suggest protest, and thats what happened in Egypt; bravo. If a "third world" country can do it, so can USA.

What some of us maintain is our current political system {USA} is not yet meaningless but is so much a game that often all you are deciding by voting is who was the better game player, not who is the better candidate and what are the issues.

That is text book political apathy. Voting for the candidate you like doesn't just mean democrat or republican it means: green, independent, libertarian, peace and freedom, Ron Paul(what ever he is) etc. The meaningfulness of an election depends on the votes ultimately not on peoples attitudes.

Who is gaining from you not voting; the existing government. Who is loosing or abstaining from their rights, you. The only way voter abstinence might work is if just about all people didn't vote. There are candidates of great substance loose the apathy and do some research on them.

I am not completely disagreeing with you. Some of your points are valid. There are definitely times when one should vote and be heard. But I still say this is not always the case and come to the same conclusion:

In conclusion my opinion is if the election has meaning to you and voting has meaning to you, then by all means vote. But just to vote for the purpose of adding your vote to a statistical abstraction to feed the data banks of the game players is meaningless and counter-productive to democracy and only adds in maintaining the status-quo of the Machiavellian game players.

In other words I still believe under some circumstances and in some elections not voting might have meaning. The fact that our republic does give us the option of not voting is also significant and there might be some who would argue that it is almost as important as the right to vote.

I think we should be clear that we are talking here about a specific form of representative democracy, not real democracy.

That's important because I know from other posts in other threads that some people, including Scott I think, feel they are democrats in principle, but that in the USA in particular the idea of representation has become so remote that there isn't any genuine feeling of democracy left in the process.

For myself I think representative democracy is the least bad option. It isn't great, but what would be better? I don't want to be ruled by the military, or a self-perpetuating elite, or the rich.

(I think choosing rulers by lottery, for say five-year periods, would be an interesting experiment, but I see that possibility as somewhat remote)

But some of the bad effects of representative democracy can be mitigated by pursuing the principle of taking more decisions at the most local level possible, trying to persuade more people to vote and get involved, and by limiting individual and corporate campaign contributions.

Like Scott I've worked and even stood for a minor party. I think it's important to stand up for and to vote for what you believe in ,even if it doesn't get elected: it has an effect, and smaller parties are often much better informed on specific issues than larger ones.

We are always judging between competing elites. I'm pretty distrustful of suggestions that only 1% of people understand the real issues. Just which 1% is that, and how do you know? In the eurozone at the moment for instance, the ruling elite is to my mind pursuing a lunatic economic policy, and the supposedly uninformed populace of Greece is seeing things much more clearly. But that's my beef

The incessant noise of the negative politicial ads should not be used to represent democracy. Nowhere in the constitution does it approve or disapprove of political commercials. They don't effectively portray anything but the personal flaws of the candidate they are aimed at. So I don't thing political commercials prove anything about democracy. Instead, they prove that the people we elect as our leaders will do anything to stay in power. What really stinks is the fact that we have to pick between the two...