The debate between the two senators could've been from the 2008 election. The dems still trump the environment , working poor etc.(not that they necessarily help) and the Repubs big business optimism at all costs etc. too bad, but it does explain the moral and philosophical mess that Iraq has caused.
I think nothing has changed in longer than that. Democrats have been talking about doing things to help the environment, the poor, etc. and when they have been in, they haven't had much affect on either issue. Republicans the same with their "promises". Personally, I think the last president to actually do anything that was legitimate positive affect on people's lives was FDR. Well, maybe JFK also but the rest have been so-so. This movie made me think how people back then looked to politicians to change things. I mean, look how enthused everyone is about them. I don't think most people these days are all ga-ga over politicians the way the were in this movie. They were like friggin groupies. I thought is this a politician or a rock star?
I feel exactly the same way. An entire generation has come and gone, and we're still talking about exactly the same things. What's wrong with this country?
I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
Poverty and environmental issues are probably centuries old. It's a device politicians use to get elected. They make impassioned pleas about those issues hoping people will vote for them and then if they get in office, they usually do nothing or next to nothing about it. The last president that did anything about poverty was FDR. He's the one that started Social Security and Welfare programs, not to mention many work programs, that affectively ended the Great Depression. Since then, not much of anything from politicians.
Sorry to disagree, but you seem to have overlooked a certain president named LBJ and his Great Society program: Medicaid, War on Poverty, Civil Rights, etc. But yeah, you're probably right in general. Although I do think that Edwards might really give a sh!t about poverty and actually do something about it if he got elected.
I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
"Medic aid, war on poverty, civil rights etc".
Not to mention war in Vietnam.
As for LBJ alleged success in fighting poverty - I don´t think he was much successful in that after all as the late sixties/seventies were a peak of poverty and crime in the US.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I really enjoy the irony of some of these political threads, what with their claiming that the only politicians who ever did anything worthwhile were FDR and LBJ. I think most people would tell you that the Great Society of the 60's was absolutely disastrous, and has led to many unintended consequences which generally come along with well intentioned naivete. The same is also often said of FDR's New Deal, in that it ushered in the idea that our state should be burdened with the responsibilities of the individual. The very fact that someone said JFK is laughable. Instead, we should probably have noted such presidents as: Harry Truman, under whom the GI Bill was instituted; Ronald Reagan, under whom Communism was defeated and under which our current economic boom began; or various and sundry local politicians who had the vision to improve the efficiency of our government. But of course, this movie holds someone who is "too liberal" up as the outsider, the change- man, and some of you fall for it hook- line- and sinker. Instead, let's consider that a government, or a well intentioned liberal such as Redford's character, or FDR or LBJ with their leviathan birthing policies may be worse than a "do nothing" politician.
"Ronald Reagan, under whom Communism was defeated and under which our current economic boom began"
You know, nothing makes me want to vomit more than the endless claim that Reagan "defeated Communism". No, sorry, he didn't. Lech Walesa and even the Pope deserve far more credit. This notion out there that Star Wars "bankrupted" Russia is just wrong. They didn't bother to spend money on it because they knew it wouldn't work. Wonderful thing about KGB files being thrown open in the 90s, we now know their internal response to SDI: it was laughter. (Yes, they're more concerned about it now, 20 years of technology will do that, although I think it's just as much as a prestige thing really since 'W wanted to dump it in what they consider their backyard). Or was it the central American death squads Reagan helped to illegally fund that brought the Kremlin to its knees? Was it Reagan's speeches? Because nothing makes a super power collapse faster than a few aggressive speeches aimed strategically its way.
Even Afghanistan is a murky claim since it was Carter who wanted to draw Russia into that graveyard and while it certainly hurt Russia a failed insurgency war is only going to tip over a super power that's already very "ill".
As far as the "economic boom"....Perhaps the less said about that the better -- but both our deficit and debt was out of control by the time Reagan left office. The economy began sputtering, partially as a result, under GHWB. And of course even if economic "booms" weren't being conflated here (which they are) the 2000s boom obviously had more to do with smoke and mirrors than substance...
[deleted]
30 years?!? you think the greek and roman senates were any different? voters are still dumb after all these years, so why would powers that be change anything?
What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?
yeah, you could release this film now and it wouldn't be any less relevent.
sharethe central point of this movie is not politics in general,its about how marketing schemes have taken over the election process.If anything,its even more relevant today than it was in 1972.Great movie,makes its rather depressing point in the most entertaining way.
shareOne thing I noticed that was different from today: No negative attack ads.
share[deleted]
There was the one ad they showed portraying McKay as a little boy standing on a soapbox.
shareThere was the one ad they showed portraying McKay as a little boy standing on a soapbox. - bowery_boy
so true.
Where there's smoke, there's barbecue!
I disagree, while the political campaigns in the USA still sells their candidates like disposable products (which in some way they are). While politicians keeps repeating meaningless one-liners and saying nothing while talking too much. While all those things remains as a common practice, the "negative campaigns" in the last elections have become more and more popular. Today the campaigns are dirtier and nastier than ever. Perhaps the last McCain vs Obama wasn't as dirty as Bush campaigns that sunk to a new low.
In most european countries such kind of negative campaigns are prohibited, because using the power of the media to insult and humiliate your adversary is not democracy but a mere dirty and cheap way of proselitism that instead of debating ideas prefers mud-wrestling.
Things have changed, from pretty bad to something even worse. Sad but true.
I think with the advent of faster and more accessible forms of media (internet, highly developed telco, etc.), campaigns are bound to get dirtier and underhanded in the coming years.
share"In most european countries such kind of negative campaigns are prohibited, because using the power of the media to insult and humiliate your adversary is not democracy but a mere dirty and cheap way of proselitism that instead of debating ideas prefers mud-wrestling. "
So much for free speech then.
I'd rather have negative ads than have the state tell me what is or is not democracy. That's for the people to decide, not the political classes or a censor.
To prohibit speech in order to defend democratic principles is a pretty obvious contradiction in terms.
Aren't you smart enough to know when a candidate is telling you something stupid? Why do you think you need the state to protect you from hearing something negative? Can't you think for yourself?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with the title of this thread but not the message. What hasn't changed are the phony campaigns, platforms, speeches, debates, and conventions. Yuck! I don't even tune in anymore. Plus, it is more like 50 years than 30 of the same BS. There needs to be a SERIOUS format and content change as to how politicians present themselves to the public. I could care less about their wives, children, and mistresses. What have they actually done to improve the US? Most get into office and then start destructive policies. Winning the Presidency is about party BS and WINNING, not about improving the country or helping its citizens.I hate the flag and placard waving.
_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"
Maximus Decimus Meridius