Say that 10 times fast.
Anyway, I think we need to do a lot of critical examination of the idea of "sheeple", that people will fall in line when "told to" vote for the establishment candidate. E.g., in a recent diary comment:
Most Americans are far to comfortable in their Janet/Michael Jackson world too really care about politics, they just want to be told who too vote for.
I think there's a lot of unspoken class issues going on with the whole sheeple meme that I find really unfortunate.
Two points: One, I think that Internet communication and blogging helps to foster this to an extent. It creates a zone of rhetoric where it's easy to paint "us vs. them" scenarios, and one liners about "them." The sheeple obviously aren't online, and definitely aren't on political blogs! Perhaps this lends itself to the creation of virtual (albeit ephemeral) social classes, or at least social exclusion. It is hard on the Internet to place people in context, instead of mass entities with uniform desires (or lack thereof). Of course, the Internet also offers powerful tools for connectivity as well and for really creating empowerment through information. These thoughts of mine on this are pretty nebulous, and people much smarter than me have no doubt discussed this issue in greater length and depth.
Secondly, particularly since I see the sheeple meme bantered about by some Dean supporters as a reason for Dean's downfall, I think we have to ask the question about what this means. I don't think this is necessarily a reflection on Dean himself, as he indeed has reached out to Americans in all strata of society. But I think it has become way too easy to blame voters in our party, working within legitimate political discourse, for the woes of one particular candidate or another.
Does media positioning occur within a race? Of course. Are the decisions about who we choose as president in no small way shaped by media images and crafting? Sure. And does the media have biases? No doubt. But that's the game, and one has to play it. That's the plasticity and, yes, superficiality inherent in a democracy and retail, mass market politics. (Which is the way it's nearly always been.) People get most of their news and media images from television. It's one thing to talk, in a broader context, about changing the political discourse in a positive manner to allow for more thoughtful, extended discussion. It's quite another to talk about "changing America" and then snarling at the non-annointed 95% of the country who isn't on board with you, and must be too stupid to realize that it's for his or her own good to support a particular candidate.
So when a candidate runs for the office of President, is he or she for all Americans or not?
And more so: Do all people have value and worth, or not? That's the central question that differentiates Democrats and Republicans; for the former, a resounding yes. For the latter, a sense of "well, it depends..." This is the core of who we are as a party. And maybe that's why "sheeple" just rubs me the wrong way. It might seem like I'm overplaying this, but these rhetorical flourishes and broad brushes are not insignificant in shaping a national identity. Particularly in swing states. So, as they say, not only is it the decent thing to do, it's good business.
