Politics

It’s Not The Answer You Want

It’s Not The Answer You Want

Garth Beyer

2941559903_484dcd49ee_b

How do you tell someone who feels like you’ve done them wrong, that you can’t do anything about it? How do you get people to talk about politics when they don’t want to? How do you get a hardcore punk-rocker to buy your classical music? How do you get a math major to write a fiction novel that’s not sci-fi?

The answer is you don’t. Not only do you spend their time and energy on something they don’t care about or are uncomfortable talking about or working on, you also waste your own hour and effort appealing to someone who doesn’t want to hear the message you have to offer.

As much as the world seems like it’s a discourse in manipulation and persuasion, it’s not. The game isn’t the game you think it is. It’s not who can please the most, who can convert the most, who can get the others out of their bubble into their own. The game is finding and connecting those with the same bubble as you; color, shape, goal and all.

Campaigns don’t move forward logically, that’s why so many people are frustrated with politics. Campaigns move forward emotionally, through connections of people who trust one another. The lesson here is not to preach to those who don’t trust you and you don’t earn trust with those who don’t agree with you.

Run social media for business’s who believe in it. Talk politics with those who enjoy talking about politics. Please those willing to be please. Don’t aim for the masses, the market that’s not listening or anyone who you haven’t fist earned the trust of.

 

Stay Positive & Your Message Is Only As Strong As The Peoples’ Trust In Hearing It

(not how convinced you are that you’re right)

Photo credit

A Look At Old America: A response to press, politics, and the public sphere as perceived by Tocqueville

Garth Beyer

When you’re in a room with a dozen other people and you all notice that the time is wrong on the clock, everyone waits for the one person to speak up. The writers of the early American press are that person. The writers are that person every single day and not just in regards to the clock, but to government, to the arts, to the community and to the world.

After the writer stands up to speak about the clock being wrong, not only does the writer become a soldier, but also the class becomes his troupe. For the teacher merely says that the time is irrelevant and in a sense censors the writer’s announcement. Now the writer is rejected but the writer has also moved up in rank and gathered an association. As Tocqueville states, “The word of a strong-minded man who alone reaches to the passions of a mute assembly has more power than the confused cries of a thousand orators.” (181)

What does this deep analogy have to do with the press, the public sphere, with American’s associations, and in general, the politics of America? Before any of which can be answered, there must be an aside made about the writing of Tocqueville. All of France needs to be filtered out of the answers. Tocqueville is bias in the sense that he often compares, relates and goes back to making statements about France that to the readers who wants to know about America needs to disregard.

Plainly stating, – and Tocqueville would agree that – the paper prevents evil things from happening more so than it creates good things to happen. Who is anyone to judge whether it should be the opposite? Who has high enough authority or experience to know or advocate for it otherwise? Both influences have a revolutionary vibe to them, but one is more suitable and relatable to the press of America. The paper had created myriad ripple effects; there was no magic bullet. Because there was no universal and direct impact of the press, such as that of a hypodermic needle to each reader, the press could not create an immediate universal change. By this, I mean that while the newspaper could present positive ideas for people to incorporate, it wasn’t effective enough. Rather, by reporting facts and talking about events, thoughts, and efforts that are already present, the press had prevented anything that is already in existence from sliding toward negative consequences. Each newspaper would create a ripple effect based on the feedback, reflections, unsettlement, and agreement of other writers, readers, and in general, the public sphere.

A highlight that is necessary to be made regarding the press and its relationship to the political sphere is that, “competition prevents any newspaper from hoping for large profits, and that discourages anybody with great business ability from bothering with such undertakings.” (185) While one can “buy off” political people, one can’t buy off what is written about them. And if so, the journalist who accepts such bribes takes the risk of being the center of destruction as much as the political candidate. This is much to worry about in the olden times due to the fact that journalists had nothing to lose; they were already undereducated, they ignored social norms, and dug for the dirt; regardless, their words taken to heart and mind. This was also a time before personal views were heavily produced in papers. People read the papers for news, for facts, and for information. There was little – very little – room for a journalist’s actual opinion. This restriction and lack of freedom for journalists is exactly what powered the political framework of society and the public sphere. The advantage that journalists had in influencing the political aspect is that the majority of those in the public sphere read the newspaper to confirm their beliefs, not to have them altered. When they would discover any doubt, they would either ignore it or search themselves for answers to overcome their doubt. (While cognitive dissonance was present, it was heavily underrepresented in early America.)

Next, it is vital that one looks at the idea of associations and the relationship they have with the press. The press made it easier to get a multitude of people to work together for a common effort. Let it be noted that the press isn’t part of an association; it is merely the organizer, the connector, and creator. Since the meet up is made public (and is open to the public), those in the public sphere know what is happening, when it will happen, and that they can participate. Through the press announcement, those in the public sphere become more livened to voice their opinions. It goes back to the simple idea that because one person knows that a multitude of people will be discussing and in cahoots on a particular subject, that person naturally wants to be in association with it. The press is not the public sphere, nor is it a filter; the press is the facilitator, mediator, or the director of associations, which constructs the public sphere.

In opposition to Tocqueville, I wouldn’t say that the press allowed complete freedom of association. There must first be an association before it can be written about or grow to a level of real public influence.  Additionally, when America was first discovered and established, compared to Europe, there were not many people. The press was invented and induced into society before there became too many people who had multiple varying opinions and views. As America grew larger, everyone shared relatively the same ideas, fears, and outlooks for the future. In order to live on the west end of America, people must travel from the East over. In their travels, they would adapt to the general idea of men and the order in which they would unanimously comply with. The whole idea of being part of an association that was already created is what levels the idea that there was complete freedom of association; it was extremely difficult to create enough of a ripple effect of a completely new idea that it can be said there was no freedom to. However, while complete reformations had no ripples, variations of already present ideas did. It was in these variations that the political realm existed. While America was lathered with politics, politics were the end result of all that was mentioned above, something that Tocqueville has an issue with blatantly stating.

 

Stay Positive & Tocqueville Could Have Been More Direct IMO

Three Eras Of Newspapers

Garth Beyer

The first era of newspapers which never truly disappeared was the Partisan Press. The term basically implies the press is biased to one party in the information in their paper. The partisan press was very informative and direct, but all was starch and nothing very distinguished. The content surrounded commerce and politics – that was it. While most of the paper discussed prices, advertising, and shipping news, the editorials are what truly stood out. The editorial section was strongly partisan and at times, highly tempered. The editors would use this section to attack other newspapers, political groups, and political characters. Containing this small amount of content variety, rather, lack of variety, the partisan press’s audience was made up of the mercantile and political elites. Partly because the information was directed only at them and partly because the papers were very expensive, costing readers six cents an issue (when the average weeks’ pay was only 85 cents). The other odd thing about the distribution of the partisan papers was that you could not pick up a copy at your local barbershop. The partisan press papers were sold mainly by subscription only. As a result, this created a huge gap between the political and elite with the commoners. However, this wouldn’t last.

The second era of the newspapers was the introduction of the Penny Press, the gap closer between the political and elite with the masses. Due to new fast presses, tens of thousands of papers could be printed off every day at low cost. The excess of newspapers meant the distribution of them had to be refigured. The party press papers began to have an economic circulation rather than a political one, meaning that print provided information that would appeal to people, humans, morals, as opposed to merchants and business men. As a result the average Joe, the community member, basically everyone wanted to purchase a paper. Luckily they could because penny press papers were cheap. Since the penny press papers no longer made the majority of their money through subscriptions, they had to incorporate ads. Advertising became an exchange rather than something which was viewed as subjective and unfair. Prior to the penny press, ads were frowned upon. But since papers had to work a new way to make money, they were able to make money by charging higher prices for advertising since the papers had a strong circulation. Now that the masses were well informed, they sought out entertainment. And they found it.

The third era of newspapers was the most entertaining to say the least. The third era was the era of Yellow Journalism which is a type of journalism that presents very little and rarely genuine researched news or accurate reports.  The premise behind it was to sell more newspapers at any expense (of their credibility). Newspapers using yellow journalism (notoriously William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer) relied on using eye-catching headlines and sensationalizing banal news. Those who would go out and obtain these bits of information (if you can call it that, I prefer “story ideas,” not actual information) were called muckrakers. A muckraker is a person who investigates and exposes issues of corruption and venality. As a result, the newspapers content contained crime and scandal stories, gossip, and fraud. While the newspapers would also report on international affairs, they presented the “news” in the same false-glorifying way as news at home. The content was created to provide entertainment, for it to be “aesthetically informative.” In regards to advertising, the more newspapers that are sold, the higher one can charge for advertising. Pulitzer sold advertising at fixed prices this way. He also abandoned the act of penalizing advertisers who used illustrations or broke column rules. This was a major change in the advertising world. Up until now most businesses and newspapers were hostile to advertisers. Since money from newspaper distribution was made primarily from advertisements, Pulitzer also began charging only two cents per issue and giving readers more pages than other two-cent issues that were sold. The goal was to sell newspapers to anyone and everyone through catching their eye, offering it to them at a cheap price, and entertaining them. The era of yellow journalism may not be the last era, but given the introduction of all the new technologies, it was the last most prevalent one in regards to newspapers.

A Tad Of Politics

Garth Beyer

“Everyone who wants a job can find a job, no senior fears for the security of retirement, and an America where every parent knows their child will get an education which leads them to a good job and a bright horizon” says Romney.

Every other part of his speech was remarkable. The quoted statement however, is where he went wrong. This is how he could have better worded it. “Where everyone is encouraged to find or create a job, where no one fears for retirement because they learn to fund it themselves early on, and an America where the school system has been changed so that it teaches dreams and promotes passion so that every student does what they love and provides a brighter horizon to others.”

 

I wrote this when I was younger and was determined that I would become President in 2028.
“I’m a man of heart, not soul. I believe in humans, I will not hesitate to deliver a blow, nor will I be the first to deliver one. […]

Over the years our economy had to take a few steps back to understand itself and others. […] Life is worldwide not only America.

Our aim needs to be to improve all of life by building an America that helps others.”

 

Stay Positive & Only Ever Slightly Political

Garth E. Beyer

A Little History Of The World

Garth Beyer

In 4th grade, I wanted to be a History teacher. That is, until I got a C in my social studies class. Not that great of a start. Although I either Aced or got a B in all History related classes since then, I never enjoyed it for two reasons.

The first is that all the history school teaches is memorization of dates, places, names. That’s it.

The second is that as I grew I thought, why are we so focused on finding out who the step-brother of a churchgoer was and what they ate each day? Why aren’t we focusing on the future? Sure you can learn a lot from the past that can help in the present and future but is that what we are teaching and focusing on when it comes to history? What happens when we find out everything from history and pre-history (no longer making there such a thing as pre-history)? Will we then finally focus on the future, or wont there be one by then?

Nevertheless, this book was given to me and I’ve been on a reading spell to read all the books on my shelf before I move. So with that, let’s start this book regurgitation!

– I know this is sort of trivia, but I never actually knew how each day of the week was named. You will find the answer in this book. (or Google)

– Gombrich explains the difference between history and pre-history. I think pre-history is hilarious. All we can do is “act” like we know what happened. But we don’t and I’m unsure if we ever will. Afterall, nor am I sure that we should be enlightened with that information.

– I had a good laugh when I finally made the connection of why the language teaching software, Rosetta Stone, is called that. *sigh*

– What was also mentally stimulating was understanding where the original alphabet, reading and writing was created. The Phoenicians are the ones who established them and the place in which they expanded was in the marketplace. The Phoenicians were merchants and marketers!

– What I loved about the Greeks and Athenians was that they came up with something new every year, they were always creating and everything was always changing. If you think you have trouble keeping up with the technological advancements now, try living back then!

– And guess where all this change was brought and transferred at? The marketplace! Makes you wonder if in this consumerism world that is so badly reputed, is actually benefiting us. Afterall, it’s in the marketplace that  ideas, painting, sculpture, architecture, plays, poetry, inventions, experiments, discussions and arguments took place.

– “While the Spartans only ever thought about fighting fit, ready to crush any who created an uprise and protect themselves so that they may stay liberated. The Athenians took a similar hard strategy to life. They weren’t looking for an easy, comfortable life, but one which had meaning. A life of which something remained after one’s death. Something of benefit to those who came after.” (Pg 46)

This is powerful, the change and improvements in life were just that because of the previous generations efforts to make it so. Something we need to consider and take more seriously? I think so.

– The Greeks conquered everything. Then, of course – just like every other culture – they were eventually defeated. But in this defeat, they decided to conquer people in a different way, the alternative to war: knowledge.

A similar transition we must take. We have tried to conquer everything and rule through politics but war has shifted what politics means. A rebirth of education can change this and we can again begin to think of politics as a trustworthy answer like the Greeks once had.

Note: If you haven’t noticed my point. I’m relaying history in the way it should be taught, with the theme of improving the now, the present and quite possibly even the future. So far, no names, no dates and no places. Cool huh?

– I never heard of this term: Pyrrhic Victory. But I’m going to find a way to use it. It means that you won but at too great of a cost.

– The Americans fight to the bottom was a Pyrrhic Victory. (Find a way to use Pyrrhic Victory, Check.)

– Another awesome piece of “trivia”. Vandals were a tribe that ravaged Rome and insisted in the downfall of any and every other tribe. They were terrible. That is where we get the term Vandalism, which is actually charity work when compared to the type of destruction the Vandals actually implemented.

– “When people take sides they are usually unfair” (Pg 134)

– Paris has so much more history than I imagined and more than any movie or book can relate! Especially in the time of enlightenment. No matter what anyone says, and I know it, and I haven’t even been to Paris, but there’s something thought-provikingly radiant about the city. It’s as if the historic fumes of the enlightened still travel through the air to inspire artists of all kinds from all over the world who go to visit Paris. I can just imagine…

– “Citizens were excluded from politics, which suited many of them very well.” (Pg 240)

– “The history of all the inventions that followed is not as simple as you might think. In most cases they began with an idea. This idea led to experiments and trials, after which it was often abandoned, only to be picked up again later, perhaps by somebody else. it was only when a person came along who had the determination and persistence to carry the idea through to its conclusion, and make it generally useful, that that person became known as the ‘inventor'” (Pg 241)

The way I see the world, is that every idea is truly unfinished. There isn’t a tower in the world that you can’t put one more block onto and there’s not one single idea that you can’t find a way to add to. That is all creativity is: playing off a million other ideas and inventions to create something new. It’s the alchemy of the world.

– I’m going to be socialist for a moment. In the factory days people had the opportunity to declare that they wanted to work no more than 11 hours a day and get 2 loaves of bread for them and 2 for their family. If no one was willing to work for cheap or give up bread, then they would have been treated equal. Instead they raced to the bottom.

We have the chance yet again to unite and say we want a school that matters and will not accept anything less. If you agree, I hope you come back at the beginning of August to get your copy of my eBook Start Schooling Dreams.

– Now, I like to spoil movies. I love it actually. I always ever say that “Everybody dies”. Of course that doesn’t actually happen because it would make one extremely pointless movie.

Well, I’m going to spoil the truth of this book, of history. Everybody dies. Truly, they do. In between everything I regurgitated here, there was death. Sorry.

– What I admire about Gombrich is that he ended this book with the simple action to “hope for a better future.”

 

Stay Positive & Act On That Hope

Garth E. Beyer