Skip

On the next Jerry Springer: Whores That Vote
July 17, 2003 9:55 AM   Subscribe

Is high voter turnout due to Jerry Springer's celebrity status a good thing? Jonah Goldberg of the NRO says "Whores should have as much say as nurses, according to a worldview which says nobody can be judged, all citizens are equal, all views valid." Jerry says he's an example of media elitism and that the elitists are "afraid" of real Americans voting in large numbers. Opinions of Springer as a potential Senator aside, the issue of voter turnout is interesting.
posted by john1800 (26 comments total)

 
Why does Jonah Goldberg hate America?

Goldberg said, in response to a question about Jerry Springer's Senate run: "If Jerry Springer shows up, he'll bring all these new people to the polls, they will be slack-jawed yokels, hicks, weirdoes, pervs, and whatnot."

Oh, so that's who the nonvoters are! You know, the half the voting-age populace that doesn't cast a ballot. They're all slack-jawed yokels and hicks.

Goldberg, like most of his conservative buddies, has a deep contempt for Americans. Conservatives usually hide their contempt, but Jonah is so filled with his ill feelings for the majority of Americans that it leaked out on TV, and now he feels exposed. So he lashes out at Jerry Springer for using Goldberg's words in a campaign ad.

Republicans generally try to hold voter participation down. Democrats generally try to raise voter participation, because nonvoters tend to lean Democratic. So I suppose it's no surprise that Republicans such as Goldberg hate the half of Americans who don't vote.

The subhead on Goldberg's column reads: "Jerry Springer thinks we're all suckers. He's largely right."

Speak for yourself, Jonah.

Unlike Goldberg and his conservative brethren, I have faith in the intelligence of the American people, who will turn out to vote for Jerry Springer and deliver Ohio to the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.
posted by Holden at 10:18 AM on July 17, 2003


> Oh, so that's who the nonvoters are! You know, the half the
> voting-age populace that doesn't cast a ballot.

He means the subset of nonvoters who watch Springer. Slack-jawed droolers indeed.
posted by jfuller at 10:23 AM on July 17, 2003


I think I read about exactly this dichotomy in The Fountainhead, and I can't think of anything I'm frightened of more than people actually turning into the caricatures from Ayn Rand books.
posted by namespan at 10:29 AM on July 17, 2003


somehow, i think someone has it backward. i present the springerian slack jawed yokel in its native habitat.
posted by quonsar at 10:38 AM on July 17, 2003


I don't remember Goldberg complaining when those nice Confederate-flag-waving, States Rights, GodHatesFags minus habentes voted for his fellow Republicans

apparently Goldberg doesn't like "hicks" only when they vote for the other party
posted by matteo at 10:42 AM on July 17, 2003


Isn't Goldberg a Monster Truck?
posted by Eekacat at 10:54 AM on July 17, 2003


Isn't Goldberg a Monster Truck?

I thought he was a wrestler.
posted by Stynxno at 10:59 AM on July 17, 2003


Does anyone remember that analysis of election results, which showed that even if voting was still restricted to white, property-owing males over the age of 36 (as it was in the early days of the republic), it would not have affected the outcome of any presidential election of the past 100 years? Even though we've added new demographic groups to the voter rolls in that time (women, 18-year-olds, African-Americans in southern states), their voting patterns are not different enough from those of white, property-owning males over the age of 36, to make much of a difference. This, of course, is only presidential elections we're talking about. They may affect local elections quite significantly.
posted by Faze at 11:03 AM on July 17, 2003


It's curious that people seem to confuse those who watch Springer (tons of college kids, many others) with those who appear as guests on the show (seemingly uneducated, poor, seriously messed up folks.) Springer is really entertaining if your conscience lets the schadenfreude slide.
posted by callmejay at 11:08 AM on July 17, 2003


Well, maybe he has a point: remember that according to the Standard Deviation Curve, 50% of Americans must be *below average*. Now picture the *average* American.

Now democrats might assume that these would be fine, upstanding examples of the democratic party, like Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock (or Tommy Lee for that matter), or other such free thinkers supportive of a more liberal agenda; but what if they are democrats of the Strom Thurmon or Lester Maddox variety? Do people who live in trailers embrace multiculturalism, or do they use the "n" word a lot? Democrats might win the election and lose their soul. What then for liberals? Vote Green?

In fact, if you think about this, reasonable men of both political parties might consider joining together to *disenfranchise* a sizeable block of the electorate. In the long run, while improving the nation as a whole, it would probably not change the balance of power overly much.
posted by kablam at 11:13 AM on July 17, 2003


Did Kablam just actually suggest that kid rock was a supporter of a more liberal agenda?

And the next time I hear the word 'agenda' in a way that suggests the speaker is covering his ears and humming to himself I'm litterally going to snap.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:18 AM on July 17, 2003


Does anyone remember that study, which showed that even if voting was still restricted to white, property-owing males over the age of 36 (as it was in the early days of the republic), it would not have affected the outcome of any presidential election of the past 100 years? Even though we've added new demographic groups to the voter rolls in that time (women, 18-year-olds, African-Americans in southern states), their voting patterns are not different enough from those of white, property-owning males over the age of 36, to make much of a difference. This, of course, is only presidential elections we're talking about. They may affect local elections quite significantly.
posted by Faze at 11:25 AM on July 17, 2003


I don't remember Goldberg complaining when those nice Confederate-flag-waving, States Rights, GodHatesFags minus habentes voted for his fellow Republicans

Excellent point, though the sort of fake populism that Springer is pimping (I'm running against Washington! The elites don't like it!) has been standard issue political BS for a long time. It's really funny to see Goldberg complaining about it, considering he tries to play into the same dynamic with his whole Editor Bluto Blutarski schtick..

That said, I agree with Goldberg's point that higher voter turnout is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:31 AM on July 17, 2003


Australia has been rather successful with its mandatory voting scheme.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:38 AM on July 17, 2003


JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

somebody was gonna say it...

I just wonder if Steve's gonna accompany him to the debates.
posted by jonmc at 11:51 AM on July 17, 2003




> Do people who live in trailers embrace multiculturalism, or do
> they use the "n" word a lot?

Judging by trailer parks in this part of the world (Georgia) white people who live in them have a black neighbor in the trailer to the left and a Hispanic neighbor in the trailer to the right. I doubt the n word gets thrown around a lot in those circumstances, except from one black person to another.


> It's curious that people seem to confuse those who watch
> Springer (tons of college kids, many others) with those
> who appear as guests on the show (seemingly
> uneducated, poor, seriously messed up folks.) Springer is
> really entertaining if your conscience lets the
> schadenfreude slide.

That's the point where being a slack-jawed drooler helps so very much. College education doesn't seem to help, does it?
posted by jfuller at 12:07 PM on July 17, 2003


"Whores should have as much say as nurses, according to a worldview ...

What, whores aren't allowed to vote?
posted by soyjoy at 12:48 PM on July 17, 2003


I think Goldberg is so worked up about this because he seems to grok the obvious truth about the right in the US. There really is no party that represents conservatism in the US. The GOP, to me, is this marriage of convienence between big business and big religion while the rank and file sits in the passenger's seat.

I don't think the Springer contigent are free votes for Democrats. As someone else already pointed out they would be just as likely to vote on the GOP anti-gay agenda as they would on the Democratic "let them fuck in peace" agenda. Also, someone could have strict religious views regarding abortion while still being for all for all sorts of hedonism (drugs, strippers, etc) that is officially or un-officially declared sinful by their faith-based organizations. Toss in the debate on gun control and who knows where these votes are going to go.

If anything a sudden influx of the LCD probably won't statistically matter on the national level.

If Springer gets votes from his TV show it'll because of the little cult of personality that surrounds him and not for any real issues. (something else Goldberg groks)

>n it he takes my quote about "slack-jawed yokels, hicks, etc." and makes it sort of the central theme of his campaign

Heaven forbid we call politicians on their words. I hope Springer takes this windbag to the cleaners.
posted by skallas at 1:31 PM on July 17, 2003


Psst. Goldberg thinks scroll down to the entry titled "MetaFilter" y'all are smart.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:46 PM on July 17, 2003


From the article:

you're just bored and think it's all a big joke to send the human incarnation of a burning bag of dog droppings to the U.S. Senate.

Sounds good to me!
posted by MrMoonPie at 1:47 PM on July 17, 2003


"If Jerry Springer shows up, he'll bring all these new people to the polls, they will be slack-jawed yokels, hicks, weirdoes, pervs, and whatnot."

As opposed to the Addams Family values of Jonah Goldberg and his mother? Honestly, you'd see something closer to 'real America' on Springer than, say, a show devoted to the authors of 'The Corner'. In other words, it's pot meet kettle.
posted by riviera at 2:38 PM on July 17, 2003


Why is his mother's photo relevant? If you'd linked to a story describing her "Addams Family values" then you might have added to the discussion, but that was pointless.

As for Goldberg's column, it seems some of you didn't even read it. He very clearly states that he doesn't think the average person in Ohio is a "slack-jawed yokel" -- in fact, he makes the point that Springer is putting that label on them through his photo op in Hicksville. Goldberg seems to simply be making the point that our government will be worse off if non-voters come out and vote for Springer just because he's Jerry Springer. That isn't a disagreeable opinion in my estimation, and his critique of Springer's "media elitism" claims also seem valid.
posted by john1800 at 3:07 PM on July 17, 2003


I don't remember Goldberg complaining when those nice Confederate-flag-waving, States Rights, GodHatesFags minus habentes voted for his fellow Republicans

I do, but then, I actually read his column, rather than just making rhetorical points about it.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 6:57 PM on July 17, 2003


Hrm, I don't really see why you would say conservatives are more 'elitist' then liberals. I'm a liberal and I'm pretty elitest.
posted by delmoi at 8:01 PM on July 17, 2003


I don't remember Goldberg complaining when those nice Confederate-flag-waving, States Rights, GodHatesFags minus habentes voted for his fellow Republicans

I do, but then, I actually read his column, rather than just making rhetorical points about it.


Pseudoephedrine, I read Goldberg's column too, but I don't remember him writing this. Maybe you could link to it?
posted by Ty Webb at 9:47 AM on July 18, 2003


« Older Frag all you can frag   |   Salam Pax and the Book Deal Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post