The Wikileaks story in a way is about 'secrets'. That is, if there's one, someone will tell, and someone else will listen. Sure, along the way it'll take someone down, but that won't stop secrets from spilling.
Marketers, beware too. Someone's talking about you. Your products and services. And someone else is listening. Can it make or break you? Maybe not, but it sure will dent you. What can you do? Pretty much nothing, if its the talking and listening. But everything, if its your products and services. Marketers in a world where everyone's turning a message propagator and recipient, must strive to better their consumer offerings. That way, if someone's talking and someone's listening, it'll be good for you.
For they'll be singing praises, and building your brand for you. At zero cost to you.
Tuesday 30 November 2010
Someone's telling, Someone's listening
Sunday 28 November 2010
‘The media are the message’
'How can TV anchor-journalists pretend the Radia tapes aren’t viral on the net and then repair to their nightly orgies of Twitterlicking and Facebukkake? How do you go from the indignant maven of We the People to “Okie. Gnite tweeple”? Why does Rajdeep Sardesai describe his own monogrammed opinions on CNN IBN as “our editor’s take”? Why does he shout so much? Why wasn’t it bigger news when the son of a famous newsmagazine editor was apprehended for passing a Rs 10 lakh bribe from a newspaper to the Company Law Board? Why is plagiarism not a firing offence for newspaper film reviewers? How can the editor-in-chief of a newsmagazine explain his plagiarised editorial by telling us it was ghostwritten? How can an editor describe her own prose as ‘searing’ on the cover of The Halka? Is the copy desk just the workstation where you concoct the ‘Letter for the Editor’? What is wrong with Arnab Goswami? Why is every story an ‘exclusive’, even if it’s not? Are TV anchors journalists, or entertainers? And aren’t newspapers supposed to have front-page news instead of one big ad—sorry, edvertorial?'
- Kai Friese, 'The Media Is The Message'.
Saturday 27 November 2010
Wisdom
'Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.'
- Aeschylus
Friday 26 November 2010
Why Bieber can & Bhansali can't
They say Bhansali's made another 'sensitive' dud. His latest offering Guzaarish is sinking at the box office. But across the Atlantic, there's a kid who's not just raking in the moolah but the applause too. Bieber fever has infected one and all. Justin Beiber's just swept the American Music awards. Plus he's always been neck and neck with the Gaga lady on YouTube hits.
What a contrast. What similarity too. The latter first. Bhansali and Bieber both represent talent. And that's where the similarity ends. The contrast's how either talent has been honed and commercialised. One's sunk it, the other's used it. Bhansali makes movies no one wants to watch, though critics sing paeans. Bieber belts songs and millions want a listen-in. Bhansali's got talent that can't be commercialised. Bieber's talent on the other hand rakes in the moolah.
Why? The reason's simple. Bhansali's too pig-headed to have commercial interests 'corrupt' his talent. That is why you hear inane stuff like, 'My films create the world where I live', from him. And so the way it is, he won't ever make money. Bieber on the other hand is humble enough to know, talent's nothing without commercial success. And so when he gets his award he thanks the late Michael Jackson and his mentor Usher, whose label by the way manages Bieber.
The Bhansali-Bieber lesson is a marketing one. Talent's useless until it translates into a product consumers wanna buy. And that game's played well when talent combines with Marketing acumen. Bieber at his age knows it. Bhansali for all the grey, can't get it.
Pity.
The 'familiar' inhibitor
There's something about the way our living room looks, these days. Its never looked this way before. And the reason's a li'l boy at work. Jaden.
One of Jaden's mission in his li'l boy life is to ensure there's a different pattern to our living room everyday. And I get to see it every time I return from work. Tell you what, the first few days, it almost drove me crazy. Now, I look forward to it (read, have adapted to it). My former reluctance to come to terms with the changed pattern can be attributed to my desire for a certain living room 'order'. It had to be the way I liked it. And the way I liked it was different from the way Jaden saw it, and did it. Hence the initial angst. For me to come to terms with the new order, it required that I step out of my 'familiar order' and align to a new one. And that's exactly what I did, albeit after a while.
Order is what we seek. And we seek it the way we are comfortable with it. Stepping out of that desired order isn't easy as it threatens our sense of familiarity and stability. Even the thought is a fearful one. Consumers too, bring an order to consumption in their lives. At least to those purchases that are frequent, and are for everyday items. New brands and stores in the market may find it difficult to get the consumer to break his 'order' and 'try' them. At such times, the only way to go is to first present the consumer with what's new, and then give him an irresistible reason to try what's new on offer. A promo perhaps. Maybe great packaging. Or better atmospherics that usual. And soon you may have a few consumers straying form their familiar order to try you. That's when a smart marketer can score, with the new.
For me, getting used to Jaden's design of a living room required that I step out of what was familiar, in my head. In contrast, for the consumer that act will almost never happen out of personal choice. Instead it will only go through if the marketer present him with a compelling new act. One he can't refuse.
Sphere: Related ContentSunday 21 November 2010
The Nexus is complete. Welcome to the Nexus
Lest anyone think the 2G spectrum scam is a byproduct of capitalistic greed, I must add what you're witnessing isn't capitalism for what it is, instead its crony capitalism in full bloom. And this is why free markets must be allowed to do what government can't. Ensure fairness.
Its mindboggling to think the nexus is near perfect for fixes and scams in India. Its has the usual neta-babu-baniya triad at play. Who's joined in recently is the baatein-guy, the journalist. The fixing-foursome is complete and can't get better.
The result? The tax-paying public being taken for a ride. Their taxes supposedly collected for collective good goes down the drain, and the money they're left with then has to buy products and services at prices that are fixed. I am not too sure if the lesson is ever going to be learnt. That government can't do much for citizenry because its natural their greed overruns social considerations. The best chance any society has at fairness is to allow for free markets to do what they do best. Keep everyone in check.
Remember the invisible hand?
Tuesday 16 November 2010
The kitchen table & our lives
There's no goofing around on Master Chef Australia. There's a lot of camaraderie that co-exists with a spirit of healthy competition. Then there's stories of triumph and heartbreak. Everyday people trying to cook gourmet, and in the process letting us see on screen glimpses of what we experience in our everyday lives. Of course, I mean our lives in general, not just at a kitchen table. The kitchen setting in the show's symbolic to what we experience in everyday lives.
What takes the cake on the show is the gentle yet firm mentoring the experts chefs do. Its unbelievable how nurturing they are. So much a contrast to Hell's Kitchen. So much a contrast to the way it was in our formative learning years where we progressed with no mentors and plenty of stumbling. And that's why the show tugs big-time at our heartstrings.
Our lives played out 'better' and 'sweeter' on screen is why Master Chef Australia is grabbing eyeballs. Its why millions connect and eagerly wait for the show. Its classic marketing too. The lesson's one of format design and presentation. Its one of how a product should be, and how it must be packaged and merchandised. Its also one about how to target right.
I for one enjoy the show. Alphy loves it! And I am not surprised.
Monday 15 November 2010
Is North India more violent?
The latest tragic event of worker anger resulting in the death of an HR manager at Allied Nippon comes close to the heels of another similar incident of loss of life at RICO at Guragaon. Having lived in Delhi for a couple of years and having seen violence at close quarters, I was tempted to ask if North India is more violent as a society in comparison with other states and if there's a reason to it. I must add that management-worker disputes resulting in a tragedy was also witnessed at Coimbatore in South India.
Does increased 'masculinisation' of a society have anything to do with violence that's witnessed there? This paper titled, 'Is North India violent because it has a surplus of men?' concludes thus.
'The striking predictions by presented Hudson and den Boer in Bare Branches that highly masculine sex ratios tend to have violent consequences find, at best, mixed confirmation in the available Indian data which we have examined. Many of the predicted relationships are too weak to pass the test of statistical significance. A few, most notably the correlation with homicide, are strong and in the predicted direction. Others of nearly equal strength, most notably female suicide rates, are lowest in the most masculine states, the opposite of what was predicted. On the whole, then, the Indian evidence does not support the strong claims that highly masculine sex ratios pose major threats to state security which Hudson and den Boer advance.
In addition, we have offered evidence, historical, anthropological and statistical which has led us to see merit in the argument that political insecurity and the exercise of violence are more reasonably seen as causes, rather than effects, of North India’s masculine sex ratios. In other words, in India at least, it seems to make better sense to invert the causal sequence proposed by Hudson and den Boer and argue that it because of a deeply embedded history and culture of violence in North India that there is an excess of males, rather than the reverse.'
Read the complete paper here.
Seeing is believing
The new safety upgrade promised to Tata Nano owners is a good thing. But it will still leave gnawing doubt in the minds of potential buyers. If as claimed by company the safety upgrades aren't for generic faults and only to enhance safety systems, why now? Why wasn't this part of the car when it was rolled out?
I am not so sure if the Nano's woes will vanish soon. But what can soothe anxious potential buyers is if they can see more Nanos on the road, and of course no more media reports on further problems. Now that's a Catch-22. How does the Nano get more buyers when there's a perceptual problem? My recommendation is a non-price franchise building promo that's irresistible. Though its early late on the day for the Nano, I see a well thought out promo as a bait. Again, its touch and go. Get the promo wrong, and people will think they are desperate to sell. One thing's for sure, more Nanos on the road is only way to assuage anxious buyers.
For nothing does more for a mass brand than its conspicuous usage. Here's hoping to see more Nanos on the road.
Sphere: Related ContentSunday 14 November 2010
What is isn't what's perceived
'Who would have thought that the man hailed as a great American orator and whose stage at the 2008 Democratic convention was a faux Greek temple would be shown up in terms of the theatricality and articulation of the presidency by the man derided as a tongue-tied bumbler and global village idiot?'
Yeah Toby, who would've thought? But then that's what happens at some time or the other to us as consumers too. The lure of the package, the colours, the promos, the damn name, that's what yanks our 'buy-in'. And then we discover the product's such a let-down. The person's such a bore. The President's actually a teleprompter prompted orator. And only that.
The power of perceptions is potent enough to get the first buy-in. Beyond, and especially if there's functional value delivery required, the brand can't sustain. It will only if there's superior value delivered. For brands to score, they've got to move from 'perceptual' to delightful 'real' territory. A territory of delivery where the value proposition isn't just a 'promised' one.
For Barack, the road hence on is steep. Reality just didn't turnout as promised. And so the fall.
Undermining Fed Policy
A new pricing survey of products sold at Wal-Mart stores there's been a 0.6 percent price increase in just the last two months. That means rices would close at four percent higher than last year. The products tracked by the researcher, MKM Partners included everyday items like food and detergent form national brands.
So much for Fed Policy. So much for trying to keep interest rates low.
Monday 8 November 2010
Don't say, do!
To those judging President Obama on his masterful, teleprompter aided speech, I'd say think again. Sure, its similar speeches that got him elected to the post of President back home. But currently in America they want no more of such high on promises, zilch on action speeches. Because by now they know he can't, and wont deliver. And so the Americans exhibited their displeasure by booting the Democrats from the House through their latest elections, so much so they now see his India trip as 'fleeing' the domestic shellacking he took.
Lets wait and see what president Obama delivers on. For 'saying' is one thing, 'doing' quite another.
Sphere: Related ContentSunday 7 November 2010
God in comeback
'In academic, scientific and media circles it has become the fashion to fly the flag of militant atheism. It seems to be de rigueur for scientists who launch books aimed at a mass audience to make some sort of assertion that religious belief is incompatible with scientific progress and technological advance. The assumption is that attacking religion is popular and belief is backward. Yet there are a number of indications that active atheism, by stirring up debate, actually strengthens belief in God or implants it in the minds of those who had never thought much about the matter before.
And when people begin to think about nonmaterial issues--about the spiritual significance of death, the possibility of a future life, the notion of eternity and the meaning of personal morals--they tend to lean toward the view that a life totally without God is not enough.
It's a curious fact that when an atheist debates with a believer today, his own deeply cherished beliefs are just as much at risk as anyone else's.'
- Paul Johnson, 'God in a British comeback'.
What if the Tea Partiers are hypocrites?
'So, let nobody think that the Tea Party will lead US politics into new territory. Its hypocrisy will become apparent over the next two years, and its supposed radicalism will disappear in an ooze of compromises and fudges. That will help lay the ground for an Obama victory in the next presidential election in 2012.'
Really Swami, you think so? And you base this on? Oh yes, Shikha Dalmia's expose' on Tea Party hypocrisy. So you think America will soon see through the fact that the Tea Partiers want less government, less taxes and a lesser probability of their country's bankruptcy. And then America will soon want back for the next term a bankrupting socialist like Barack Obama so he can continue with his disastrous policies. Like the ones we had not too long ago here in India.
And you and Shikha think all this will happen because the Tea partiers have been hypocrites? Well I got a question for you. Who in their sane senses wants bigger government, greater taxes and a possibility of bankruptcy? Oh yeah, I forgot, the socialists! Like Barack.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the Americans need Barack and his policies to bankrupt their country for them to realise what America was originally built on by its founding fathers. Just so you and Shikha know, let me quote what the founding fathers of America noted,
Thomas Jefferson -
'If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.' (Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:342.)
'...we shall all consider ourselves unauthorised to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life (expectancy) of the majority.' (Ibid., 13:358)
Samuel Adams -
' The Utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of he means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.' (William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams, 3 vols. [Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1865], 1:154.)
Our hope for a future & what it fuels
The complexity that India is, is characterised by its abounding 'opposites'. Take language for example.
In Karnataka, noted Kannada writer Devanuru Mahadeva refused to accept the prestigious Nrupatunga Literary Award protesting against the apathy of successive governments in making Kannada the medium of instruction up to higher education. Contrast this with what's happening in the village of Lakhimpur-Kheri in Uttar Pradesh. An eager bunch of devotees await the 'English Devi' so they can worship her much like other requests that are pouring in at the doors of those behind a unique temple being set up here to popularize English. The 'English Devi' deity planned for the temple is as unique as the concept of the temple. The "Dalit Goddess English", as the deity is referred to, is cast more on the lines of the Statue of Liberty.
The funny thing is, the reason behind these contrasting acts is the same. Both parties, in doing what they do, are hoping to see a 'better' future the way they visualise it. One wants to see a future with Kannada flourishing, the other with English. Both parties have justifications that are valid to themselves.
Consumers too much in the same way conjure up a future that's 'better'. And the desire for that certain 'better' future is what fuels consumption. The washing machine comes home so there's no more slaving at washing clothes. The microwave so re-heating food isn't a pain anymore. Now what makes the consumption act different from what was described earlier is that its a 'personal' future that's is at stake for consumers. For the Kannada writer and Dalits, the reason's cultural and social.
Our acts if deciphered carry with them a hope for a better future. What makes one act different from another is that it stems from a different 'hoped-for' future. Though, I must add, the underlying sentiment still remains the same.
Saturday 6 November 2010
Why Nano's worries aren't nano sized
The dipping Nano sales should be worrisome to Tata Motors. No one can doubt the business marvel that Nano is. Targeting lower income consumers so they can buy a product they never dreamt they could, is not just a great business idea, its noble too. But then there's something else. What are the considerations consumers have, when they buy a car?
Sure, price and value for money is important. But I believe a car buy is partly an esteem buy, even for low-income consumers. That is, there's an aspirational value that the car must fulfill. And on that count, the Nano doesn't score too well. I mean, a current bike rider who's family man may want to graduate to a car, but will he prefer the Nano. Or will he wait that bit longer and save that bit more, so he can go higher to a car like the Alto? It would be interesting to see if the current Nano owners are first time car owners or are have they bought the Nano as a second car?
Something tells me the first time buyer who associates aspirations with his car buy may move away from the Nano to another entry-hatchback. Its the second car buyers who may not have any qualms at buying a Nano. Now that should again be worrisome because there are no numbers in the latter. Its the first car low income consumer-buyer who can give volumes to Nano.
I hope those numbers come through for the Nano so more lower income families don't have to use the super-unsafe bikes on to Indian roads.
Friday 5 November 2010
Callous California
'Now — and here is the nub of my piece — whatever you do when this happens, do not allow anyone to bail us out. Not one penny. Not the federal government, the Heart Fund, the Community Chest, the World Bank, UNICEF, or even George Soros. Do not take up a collection in your places of worship or set up a food bank. And above all, do not make California into some giant state version of General Motors. It didn’t work for the auto company and it will not work for us.
The only solution is for California to suffer — and to suffer badly. The citizens of this state need a serious beat down. This was the place where Jane Fonda popularized “No gain without pain.” Well, time for the pain. Remember the “Summer of Love”? Time for the “Summer of Tough Love.” And the Winter, Fall and Spring as well.
Otherwise there is no chance we will wake up. And if we don’t wake up even then, feel free to call in the Air Force and drop some bunker busters on the San Andreas Fault. Set us adrift.
And don’t worry, as we sail off into the Pacific, we’ll be just fine. Even if our kids don’t get any toys, we’ll still have our Big Macs. And if we get really depressed, we can always cut the safety net under the Golden Gate Bridge — it’s so overpriced anyway — and take the plunge.'
- Roger L Simon, 'Is California Hopeless?'
If Jon's funny, I must be Chaplin
I don't get. Americans, some of them or maybe many, find Jon Stewart funny. Watch this piece where he talks to Fox's Chris Wallace. The guy doesn't have the gags unless its copy-written before the show. Impromptu doesn't work for him. Just like his dude-friend Obama, who needs his teleprompter. In fact now we know the Indian Parliament too will witness the gadget, for the very first time in its history. So much for someone who was supposed to be the visionary saviour.
To imagine millions of Americans find Jon Stewart funny says something about who they are. Of course, they have to be liberals. The kind that laugh even if it isn't funny, because its a liberal they worship mouthing it. You just have to listen to Jon Stewart to know how much he has to ham to get a gag when its not pre-written. And so what he does that's convenient is go on a giggling spree, fisted hands on mouth. His minions cackle along.
Maybe it ain't just the liberals. Its with all of us. We take to those who are our kind. We cackle along because its our tribe. Like for example, I take to Rush, Hannity and Mark Levin. The only difference is, I'd like to believe I don't do the laugh just because its Rush doing a 'forced' joke. In fact Rush won't do the joke, and I keep my mouth shut.
That I believe is 'quite' a difference.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday 1 November 2010
When 'Push' comes to 'Shove'
Learning's also a psychological engagement. You take to those teachers you connect with, psychologically. And so when it comes to 'pushing', the way Seth Godin stated it, and which I agree to, you're walking a thin line. Turn push into shove, and you may have the learner raising his defenses, and maybe even shutting off from what you have to offer.
I guess its happened to me too. Though I'd like to believe that its been rare. I am delighted at times to know the 'push' worked. Like with Vamshi. He's even had an added reason to disconnect. 'Cos when he came to me broaching the option to 'teach', I told him Marketing's out there. It would be best for him to hit the market, learn, and be back. Of course, our experience of the market won't teach us everything, but it sure will turn us wiser and even humble. And guess what, he did just that.
Vamshi took it well, and I am proud he did that. I guess he's working the market and lovin' it. In fact this is what he wrote in a few days ago, 'We cursed when you pushed us to read more, work on assignments which many of us felt were stopping us from having fun. But now we know how important it was for us to understand. Seth just paints my words. Thank you for pushing us, making our classes more interesting, making us think, learn and yes for writing a blog.'
Tell you what, Vamshi, thank you for being in my class and taking the 'push'. Proud of you!
What America is about
Santosh Desai with his 'Just another country' piece betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the greatest idea that now is the United States of America.
Note the questions he poses. In fact I'll answer (with a lot of help from the great Thomas Sowell) each of them to illustrate Santosh's cluelessness about the miracle that changed the world, the nation that is the United States of America . Furthermore unlike what he sees, the grassroots movement in America today is more about reclaiming the real America, not drifting further away.
First the questions, 'There are larger questions that the world wants to ask of America. Why would any country willingly put automatic weaponry in the hands of its citizens in spite of the body of evidence that establishes the insanity of such a policy? Why would it fight a healthcare bill that is inclusive and lowers the cost of good medical care for all? How can a country that has lectured to the world about the benefits of free markets turn protectionist at the first sign that its jobs are at risk? Why would there be such opposition to the idea of raising taxes for those earning more than $250,000? Why would a country of immigrants be so nervous about an entire religious community and forego the ideals on which it was founded? And most perplexingly, how can someone Like Sarah Palin be a credible political leader?
Let me now answer the questions, one by one.
'Why would any country willingly put automatic weaponry in the hands of its citizens in spite of the body of evidence that establishes the insanity of such a policy?'
When the founders of America adopted the declaration of Independence they based it on the belief that God endowed all mankind with "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Embedded in these are natural rights the founders knew existed but did not enumerate, and they include 'The right to bear arm for self-defence'.
Coming to whether there's a body of evidence that proves the 'insanity of this idea', think again, for statistics lie at our convenience.
Note what Thomas Sowell, the economist has to say on the matter, 'As for the merits or demerits of gun-control laws themselves, a vast amount of evidence, both from the United States and from other countries, shows that keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is not uncommon for a tightening of gun-control laws to be followed by an increase — not a decrease — in gun crimes, including murder.
Conversely, there have been places and times where an increase in gun ownership has been followed by a reduction in crimes in general and murder in particular. Unfortunately, the media intelligentsia tend to favor gun-control laws, so a lot of hard facts about the futility — or the counterproductive consequences of such laws — never reach the public through the media. We hear a lot about countries with stronger gun-control laws than the United States that have lower murder rates. But we very seldom hear about countries with stronger gun-control laws than the United States that have higher murder rates, such as Russia and Brazil.'
Santosh's Question 2., 'Why would it fight a healthcare bill that is inclusive and lowers the cost of good medical care for all?'
Really Santosh, you believe a healthcare bill that bankrupts the country and puts healthcare into hands of government bureaucrats should be welcomed? Sure, the premise just like all liberal premises sounds noble, but you've got to be a bat-blind socialist to believe it would usher in an era of universal wellness.
Note Sowell (in fact I'd recommend you read his 4 series articles on governementalising healthcare), 'What is most like Alice in Wonderland is discussing medical care reform in the abstract, as if there are not already government-run medical care systems in this country and elsewhere.
Yet there seems to be remarkably little interest in examining how government-run medical care actually turns out-- medically and financially-- whether in Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration hospitals in this country, or in government-run medical systems in other countries. We are repeatedly being told that we need to have a government-controlled medical care system, because other countries have it-- as if our policies on something as serious as medical care should be based on the principle of monkey see, monkey do.By all means look at other countries, but not just to see what to imitate. See how it actually turns out. Yet there seems to be an amazing lack of interest in examining what government-controlled medical care produces...
One of the statistics they spin endlessly is that life expectancy in some countries with government-controlled medical care is higher than in the United States. What they don't tell you is that, in some of these countries, all the infants that die are not included in infant mortality statistics, as they are in the United States. More important, both political and media supporters of government-controlled medical care consistently confuse medical care with health care. '
About Santosh's next question, sure free markets is the answer, not protectionism. If you knew, its Obama and the liberal Democrats who favour the latter, not Republicans.
Santosh, I'm afraid but your next question smacks of classic liberal hypocrisy. 'Why would there be such opposition to the idea of raising taxes for those earning more than $250,000?'
Note Sowell once again, 'When politicians talk about "the rich" that they want to tax, send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee -- if not now, then at some other point in your life. Talk about how tax cuts will "give" money to the rich is very misleading. Thinking about the economy solely in terms of money ignores the fact that income and wealth consist of real things -- food and shelter, automobiles and airplanes, factories and farms. To boost the economy means increasing real production. Boosting the economy requires policies that change people's behavior, causing more people to be hired, more work to be done, and more production to result.
The point of cutting taxes on dividends is not -- repeat, not -- to get dividend recipients to spend more money, if and when they receive those dividends somewhere down the road. The point is to get them to invest right now, creating jobs right now, so that employment will go up and real output will rise. Those who think solely in terms of money prefer to extend the period for receiving unemployment benefits. But paying people longer for not working makes no sense if you want more output. Perhaps the most ridiculous of all the economic fallacies produced by politicians is that "tax cuts for the rich" are supposed to cause money to "trickle down" to those in lower income brackets. This is a pure straw man.
As someone who spent the first decade of his career researching, teaching, and writing about the history of economic ideas, let me assure you that there is no such thing as a "trickle-down" theory. No economist of any school of thought has ever proposed any such thing.'
Let me now skip and go to Santosh's last question. 'And most perplexingly, how can someone like Sarah Palin be a credible political leader?'
Well, what can I say, I am perplexed you're perplexed. Shouldn't you instead be perplexed more about community organiser Obama with no executive experience being elected president? Shouldn't you be perplexed that someone who was raised on the ideals of communist Alinsky and attended a church where Jeremiah Wright was the pastor got to becoming president of a country built on a glorious ideal drastically different from those shared by the people Obama admired?
Quoting the great Thomas Sowell one last time, note what he has to say about Palin who Santosh is so perplexed about, 'Governor Palin's "inexperience" is a talking point that might have some plausibility if it were not for the fact that Barack Obama has far less experience in actually making policies than Sarah Palin has. Joe Biden has had decades of experience in being both consistently wrong and consistently a source of asinine statements.
Governor Palin's candidacy for the vice presidency was what galvanized grass roots Republicans in a way that John McCain never did. But there was something about her that turned even some conservative intellectuals against her and provoked visceral anger and hatred from liberal intellectuals. Perhaps the best way to try to understand these reactions is to recall what Eleanor Roosevelt said when she first saw Whittaker Chambers, who had accused Alger Hiss of being a spy for the Soviet Union. Upon seeing the slouching, overweight and disheveled Chambers, she said, "He's not one of us."
The trim, erect and impeccably dressed Alger Hiss, with his Ivy League and New Deal pedigree, clearly was "one of us." As it turned out, he was also a liar and a spy for the Soviet Union. Not only did a jury decide that at the time, the opening of the secret files of the Soviet Union in its last days added more evidence of his guilt. The Hiss-Chambers confrontation of more than half a century ago produced the same kind of visceral polarization that Governor Sarah Palin provokes today. Before the first trial of Alger Hiss began, reporters who gathered at the courthouse informally sounded each other out as to which of them they believed, before any evidence had been presented. Most believed that Hiss was telling the truth and that it was Chambers who was lying.
More important, those reporters who believed that Chambers was telling the truth were immediately ostracized. None of this could have been based on the evidence for either side, for that evidence had not yet been presented in court. For decades after Hiss was convicted and sent to federal prison, much of the media and the intelligentsia defended him. To this day, there is an Alger Hiss chair at Bard College. Why did it matter so much to so many people which of two previously little-known men was telling the truth? Because what was on trial was not one man but a whole vision of the world and a way of life.
Governor Sarah Palin is both a challenge and an affront to that vision and that way of life-- an overdue challenge, much as Chambers' challenge was overdue. Whether Governor Palin runs for national office again is something that only time will tell. But the Republicans need some candidate who is neither one of the country club Republicans nor-- worse yet-- the sort of person who appeals to the intelligentsia.
So you see, the current Tea Party grass roots movement is so that America doesn't become 'just another country'. Of course, not the way Santosh Desai sees it, but the way it was conceptualised by the America's founding fathers.
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
