We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

Mushy Center

by Sudhama Ranganathan Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2012 at 1:37 PM

In politics the tendency for candidates to move to the center when things get tough for them has become increasingly popular. The move helps them to side step and deflect heat coming at them from things that they have done or that have been done to them causing their popularity to wane. It also can appease a segment of folks that typically are not their constituency when members of their own base are looking at them unfavorably in hopes of making up lost ground regarding supporters. Come election time this can be especially important as it can help garner support. However, this still requires strong support from at least most of your base, and when they are fed up with a politician it is usually a good idea to get them behind that person to have not only guaranteed votes, but so as to look as if you are who you say you are. Bizarre schizophrenic personality shifts that try and say “I am no longer the person I was just four years ago” can seem – off.

When a politician starts their original campaign making things not as much about their personality as the issues, this can be different. In such cases for them to develop more of a personality can be a good thing. If they won on the issues the emergence of a stronger or strengthening character profile can be helpful to them. As their tenure continues we get to know them better.

When a politician wins their original election based on personality, for the most part we expect, whatever their decisions as they go along, for there to be a modicum of consistency to the personality we saw during the first election, or at least a continuation with some growth here and emerging facets there. But a 360? A complete shift in dynamic? That can be a little unsettling.

Maybe, maybe if they were somewhat of a rough edged person when they were elected and then soften up or present a more personable, sophisticated and affable side later on – that may be acceptable and perhaps even a welcome thing. But, to move in the opposite direction? That can come across as odd. If your entire first campaign was based on that personality or character, and then just four years later you try to just be some other guy – one without much of a definition even, that can be just plain weird.

If a person were elected and we believed them to be “that guy” the guy that was gonna change things or die trying to change things that we believed in our hearts was so sincere, and it brought tears to our eyes when we thought about it - we obviously invested a lot in that person's personality. At such a time for whatever the reasons were endemic to that time, we believed that person to be whoever they portrayed themselves to be. They said it, we wanted to believe it, and we did believe it. “Trust me, count on me, have faith in me and I will come through for you because like you I believe in a better future for us all” are the sorts of pronouncements that convince people not only in the issues espoused, but also convince them of the personality and in investing in the politician in question, through a blind leap of faith to an extent.

Once that happens, you kinda have to be “that person.” To suddenly turn around and say, “hey guys, remember that passion and electricity I imbued in all who heard me speak last time around? I think I left that personality in a coat closet in France last time I was there or something. Either way it's gone. It's now four years later and a new personality has emerged from me and you better get used to it or you can go get stuffed” can be disconcerting if that makes sense. Truth is, any person over fourteen years old will most likely understand how that's strange.

In such situations, for people that used such an electrifying and dynamic personality to pull us in and as a large part of convincing us to vote for them, to switch up suddenly looks odd, and sorry but people aren't gonna buy the idea you stepped into a phone booth and came out another superhero. “Tada!!!!” (crickets).

When the issues associated with that particular politician are tied into that personalty so closely and the following that personage garnered becomes so invested in their personality, such an odd lurch can really be a strange thing to pull on people, especially people that thought you were “that guy.” To turn around and say “that guy? No I'm this guy!” can be unsettling.

If perhaps you are trying to find a way to say “okay, things didn't work out the way I planned, but don't lose faith in me” you can do that without people electing you as one person and then just four years later you turning around and say, “oh no I'm not that guy any longer. Nope, just fours years out and I'm toooootaly different. Yup.” For the politician that can't see that, perhaps a psychiatrist and a break from public life altogether may be in order.

As strange as it may sound, it could just be a stronger position to just level with folks. “Hey things didn't go the way I expected them to altogether this time around” or “I am still working on these things, in the meantime here's what I did do.” Just make sure, if you are going to do that, the record reflects that and doesn't show you were elected saying one thing then mushed in and did the polar opposite when insiders, advisors and other political figures caused pressures to mount. Or even worse that the whole thing was one big carnival barker act and you weren't even close to the guy we elected; just knew how to play him real good. In that case, all these actors thinking about running for office nowadays might as well.

That is because, if what we need now most are people that can wave their hands to get us looking over there so the establishment can do what it likes where we aren't looking, they are much better qualified than law school grads, poli sci majors, history majors or anybody else, of course it would prove just how badly the American people really need true representation more than ever from a diverse range of places.

For were that the case, the game truly would have become the point and objectives, issues and the governed will have become quaint notions and outdated words at least with regards to American politics and the bible from which the American political system finds its compass (no offense to any actors intended). At that point our votes will actually be what they really are starting to feel like - wasted on a system that does what it wants and mushy centered representatives afraid of rocking the boat and truly making good on their promises to us, that instead simply acquiesce to playing their little bit in the drama and nothing more.

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.

Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy