Oh, you weak, beautiful people who give up with such grace.
November 4, 2004 8:35 AM Subscribe
"Reach out" to these voters? Yeah. Then boil your hand till it's sterilized. An alternate view of the seemingly regional political divide in the United States.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Op/Ed? More like Op/Dead!
Personally think op-ed links on the MetaFilter front page are a very very bad idea.
Having said that, I thought this article was dead-on.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:49 AM on November 4, 2004
Having said that, I thought this article was dead-on.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:49 AM on November 4, 2004
Very well stated. Not one inch of compromise with (which, of course, would in fact be capitulation to) moral bullies.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. —Bertrand Russell
posted by rushmc at 8:53 AM on November 4, 2004
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. —Bertrand Russell
posted by rushmc at 8:53 AM on November 4, 2004
> I don't reach out to bigoted scum.
's fine with me. If you'd rather sit on the sideline and suck your thumb or whatever until 2008 feel free, wouldn't dream of impeding you.
posted by jfuller at 8:53 AM on November 4, 2004
's fine with me. If you'd rather sit on the sideline and suck your thumb or whatever until 2008 feel free, wouldn't dream of impeding you.
posted by jfuller at 8:53 AM on November 4, 2004
Wrong. Here's why. Democrats sometimes think that all voters who vote one way are alike. This isn't the case. In this case, there are two major groups that voted for Bush: The evil and the ignorant. The article is right in that we can't, and shouldn't, reach out to the evil. But we should definitely go for the ignorant. They can be taught, and if things are put plainly to them, will be taught. We can never influence the hard core right wing, but remember, not all of that 51% that voted for Bush was right wing. What we need to do is not get in touch with all the red state voters, but to get in touch with the subset of them that are not ill-intentioned, but rather ill-informed.
posted by unreason at 8:59 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by unreason at 8:59 AM on November 4, 2004
We don't have to win over the heartland. We just have to win over another 100,000 Ohioans. This was a bad, bad loss, but it was closer than many would have predicted a year ago. And, despite the current spin, it is by no means a "mandate". Fuck the bigoted scum. We don't need them. THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN THERE ARE OF THEM. There really are.
We need to redefine the party, yes, but we do NOT need to redefine our politics to pander to an electorate that was built by the other guys.
posted by jpoulos at 9:02 AM on November 4, 2004
We need to redefine the party, yes, but we do NOT need to redefine our politics to pander to an electorate that was built by the other guys.
posted by jpoulos at 9:02 AM on November 4, 2004
Joe Wilson, thy name is Mudd
Paul O'Neil, thy corp is skrewed
Dan Rather, who da bitch now?
posted by Fupped Duck at 9:04 AM on November 4, 2004
Paul O'Neil, thy corp is skrewed
Dan Rather, who da bitch now?
posted by Fupped Duck at 9:04 AM on November 4, 2004
I know it's bad form to copy&paste yourself, but this applies more here than the thread I originally posted it in, which was deleted seconds later...
Since it makes no sense to have a common good without common values, it makes more sense to focus your efforts where you find common values.
Since I'm fortunate enough to live in New York, I'll continue to support the values that make this a great place to me. I'll take my tax cut check with a smile and put it back into my local community.
And when some guy in the rural south can't get a job in old industries because they've been outsourced; can't get a job in new industries because his school system taught creationism over science; can't afford private healthcare because the premiums are too high; can't survive on social security because it's been gutted; I'll say "gosh, that's too bad", and turn away without a moment of old-fashioned liberal guilt.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:05 AM on November 4, 2004
Since it makes no sense to have a common good without common values, it makes more sense to focus your efforts where you find common values.
Since I'm fortunate enough to live in New York, I'll continue to support the values that make this a great place to me. I'll take my tax cut check with a smile and put it back into my local community.
And when some guy in the rural south can't get a job in old industries because they've been outsourced; can't get a job in new industries because his school system taught creationism over science; can't afford private healthcare because the premiums are too high; can't survive on social security because it's been gutted; I'll say "gosh, that's too bad", and turn away without a moment of old-fashioned liberal guilt.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:05 AM on November 4, 2004
Tom Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? discusses the more challenging issue of why midwesterners act so misguidedly. Currently the system Democrats employ is to push hard toward the middle in order to appease them. But when they do that, the only major tangible difference between them and the Republicans are "values" issues like guns and abortion, which will inevitably cause them to lose. To appease poor, Midwestern voters, the surprising answer may be to become more economically liberal, like in the union era, so Dems become more clearly the right choice for their own interest.
posted by abcde at 9:05 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by abcde at 9:05 AM on November 4, 2004
I made this comment in a deleted thread but I think it's appropraite here:
Well, then I think that over the next four years, we on the left have to reach out the folks in the hinterlands not by changing our policies, but by making the folks there see that liberal policies will actually benefit them rather than hurt them. Despite all his posturing, I don't think GW Bush actually gives a ripe fuck about an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia or a struggling farmer in Arkansas. I do.
We've already got the "metro" base secure, we just need to convert some of the "retro" side and show them we're not their enemy. Or we can continue living in Karl Rove's bad rewrite of Green Acres.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 AM on November 4, 2004
Well, then I think that over the next four years, we on the left have to reach out the folks in the hinterlands not by changing our policies, but by making the folks there see that liberal policies will actually benefit them rather than hurt them. Despite all his posturing, I don't think GW Bush actually gives a ripe fuck about an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia or a struggling farmer in Arkansas. I do.
We've already got the "metro" base secure, we just need to convert some of the "retro" side and show them we're not their enemy. Or we can continue living in Karl Rove's bad rewrite of Green Acres.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 AM on November 4, 2004
Forget that these folks blindly ignored all objective reality -- and their own best economic and national-security interests -- and voted for Bush.
I'm sick and tired of the "how can they vote against their own economic interest??!" line. If you think that everyone simply votes in line with their own economic self-interest, you have a pretty low opinion of humanity. You might as well just come out and admit that you're trying to bribe them for their vote with public funds. (How dare they refuse our bribe!)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:08 AM on November 4, 2004
I'm sick and tired of the "how can they vote against their own economic interest??!" line. If you think that everyone simply votes in line with their own economic self-interest, you have a pretty low opinion of humanity. You might as well just come out and admit that you're trying to bribe them for their vote with public funds. (How dare they refuse our bribe!)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:08 AM on November 4, 2004
Tom Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? discusses the more challenging issue of why midwesterners act so misguidedly.
You're making the mistake of grouping the entire Midwest together. The upper-midwest (MN, WI, IL, MI) went to Kerry.
posted by drezdn at 9:11 AM on November 4, 2004
You're making the mistake of grouping the entire Midwest together. The upper-midwest (MN, WI, IL, MI) went to Kerry.
posted by drezdn at 9:11 AM on November 4, 2004
"We just have to win over another 100,000 Ohioans."
Like this year we had to win over 500 Floridians.
Give it a break. They hate us. We hate them. And they are the majority. I've spent my life denying that while fearing it might be true. Time to get real - America is a nation of Christian cowboys who hate gays and baby-killers, and love the flag more than their mothers.
Game over. Last week we made fun of Nader. Now we're in his shoes.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:14 AM on November 4, 2004
Like this year we had to win over 500 Floridians.
Give it a break. They hate us. We hate them. And they are the majority. I've spent my life denying that while fearing it might be true. Time to get real - America is a nation of Christian cowboys who hate gays and baby-killers, and love the flag more than their mothers.
Game over. Last week we made fun of Nader. Now we're in his shoes.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:14 AM on November 4, 2004
Not really, because Nader makes the daring claim that the majority of Americans agree with him, let alone Kerry.
posted by abcde at 9:16 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by abcde at 9:16 AM on November 4, 2004
When you're dealing with people who are fighting a moral battle, and you know that you're somehow fundamentally wrong to them, it really makes no sense to even consider compromise -- unless you've got something really heavy to hang over their heads.
What was that fake Russian saying that Reagan trotted out? "Trust, but verify." Sure, I'll go for that; but be careful not to give too many chances. That just makes you seem weak. And when dealing with Karl Roves, even the appearance of weakness can be lethal.
It's also very important to continually point out why you're behaving that way: "I'm doing this because we've learned we can't trust you. I'm requiring this because we've learned that you welsh on deals. I'm demanding this level of verification because we've learned that you'll interpret the deal however you need to to get exactly what you want." Don't talk nice about them until and unless they deserve it, then give it out gladly.
posted by lodurr at 9:16 AM on November 4, 2004
What was that fake Russian saying that Reagan trotted out? "Trust, but verify." Sure, I'll go for that; but be careful not to give too many chances. That just makes you seem weak. And when dealing with Karl Roves, even the appearance of weakness can be lethal.
It's also very important to continually point out why you're behaving that way: "I'm doing this because we've learned we can't trust you. I'm requiring this because we've learned that you welsh on deals. I'm demanding this level of verification because we've learned that you'll interpret the deal however you need to to get exactly what you want." Don't talk nice about them until and unless they deserve it, then give it out gladly.
posted by lodurr at 9:16 AM on November 4, 2004
abcde -- That book was required reading for me when I started working in rural development in the Heartland. People out here are so misguided, they'd cut their own arm off if you told them it was possessed.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:25 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:25 AM on November 4, 2004
Jon, how would you suggest "winning them over"? I mean, if the Bush disaster isn't enough, what is?
posted by dame at 9:27 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by dame at 9:27 AM on November 4, 2004
I don't reach out to bigoted scum.
Wait, shouldn't you be agonizing over "why do they hate us so much?"
(Broad snarky brush, I know, but so many lefties seem to want to negotiate endlessly with lawless regimes on the world stage, that it's a bit shocking to hear such definitive venom directed at your own neighbors.)
posted by Tubes at 9:32 AM on November 4, 2004
Wait, shouldn't you be agonizing over "why do they hate us so much?"
(Broad snarky brush, I know, but so many lefties seem to want to negotiate endlessly with lawless regimes on the world stage, that it's a bit shocking to hear such definitive venom directed at your own neighbors.)
posted by Tubes at 9:32 AM on November 4, 2004
A few points:
The exit polls said the biggest reasons people voted for Bush were "Morale Issues." That could be any hodgepodge of things, it could also be the echo chamber effect. Bush ran a lot of commercials talking about moral clarity, when pressed for an issue the voter repeats moral issues and doesn't really mean "I hate fags."
It could have more to do with a knee-jerk reaction to having gay marriage shoved down their throat by the media and pols on both sides. They just weren't ready for that big of a cultural shift yet. Too much, too soon (they day is coming when it will be allowed, but I fear that it has been set back 20-30 years).
These are the same exit polls that told you Kerry was going to win.
A lot of people seem to have more hate for the "bigots" than the "bigots" have themselves.
posted by Mick at 9:34 AM on November 4, 2004
The exit polls said the biggest reasons people voted for Bush were "Morale Issues." That could be any hodgepodge of things, it could also be the echo chamber effect. Bush ran a lot of commercials talking about moral clarity, when pressed for an issue the voter repeats moral issues and doesn't really mean "I hate fags."
It could have more to do with a knee-jerk reaction to having gay marriage shoved down their throat by the media and pols on both sides. They just weren't ready for that big of a cultural shift yet. Too much, too soon (they day is coming when it will be allowed, but I fear that it has been set back 20-30 years).
These are the same exit polls that told you Kerry was going to win.
A lot of people seem to have more hate for the "bigots" than the "bigots" have themselves.
posted by Mick at 9:34 AM on November 4, 2004
The exit polls said the biggest reasons people voted for Bush were "Morale Issues."
Truer words were never spoken ;)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:36 AM on November 4, 2004
Truer words were never spoken ;)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:36 AM on November 4, 2004
dame, if I had the complete answer to that, I'd be booking trips to Sweden to pick up my Nobel Prize. But, I'll venture a few of my ideas, anyway.
I think the cheif thing holding back repairing the rifts in our society is fear. Both the red staters and the blue staters fear eachother. I've known people from the south and midwest and I realize that they aren't all the drooling lynch-mob wackos we like to believe they are, just like all New Yorkers aren't crackhead lesbian abortionists. The only thing that'll get past this is more exposure to eachother, as far as I can see.
In more concrete political terms, I think we need to push self-interest harder. Or more accurately, portray to the red states that Bush & co. are not serving their interests. And yeah, it would be nice if self-interest wasn't something we have to appeal to, but let's face it, it is.
Also, we could make some effort to not give of the impression that we loathe them.
posted by jonmc at 9:36 AM on November 4, 2004
I think the cheif thing holding back repairing the rifts in our society is fear. Both the red staters and the blue staters fear eachother. I've known people from the south and midwest and I realize that they aren't all the drooling lynch-mob wackos we like to believe they are, just like all New Yorkers aren't crackhead lesbian abortionists. The only thing that'll get past this is more exposure to eachother, as far as I can see.
In more concrete political terms, I think we need to push self-interest harder. Or more accurately, portray to the red states that Bush & co. are not serving their interests. And yeah, it would be nice if self-interest wasn't something we have to appeal to, but let's face it, it is.
Also, we could make some effort to not give of the impression that we loathe them.
posted by jonmc at 9:36 AM on November 4, 2004
We've already got the "metro" base secure
Are you sure about that? The president got 10% more of the urban vote than in 2000 (up to 45% from 35%).
... 5% more of the female vote
... 9% more of the Latino
... 6% more of the Jewish
... 5% more of the Catholic
These all represent improvements with groups that went Democratic in 2000. All but Catholics still went Democratic in 2004, just not as much.
On preview: Mic, I saw just going to point out those very potential flaws in this whole "moral issue" theory.
posted by probablysteve at 9:38 AM on November 4, 2004
Are you sure about that? The president got 10% more of the urban vote than in 2000 (up to 45% from 35%).
... 5% more of the female vote
... 9% more of the Latino
... 6% more of the Jewish
... 5% more of the Catholic
These all represent improvements with groups that went Democratic in 2000. All but Catholics still went Democratic in 2004, just not as much.
On preview: Mic, I saw just going to point out those very potential flaws in this whole "moral issue" theory.
posted by probablysteve at 9:38 AM on November 4, 2004
Give it a break. They hate us. We hate them. And they are the majority. I've spent my life denying that while fearing it might be true. Time to get real - America is a nation of Christian cowboys who hate gays and baby-killers, and love the flag more than their mothers.
Yeah, but this is my country too. And I don't care if I change their minds about gays and baby-killers. I just want their votes.
posted by jpoulos at 9:38 AM on November 4, 2004
Yeah, but this is my country too. And I don't care if I change their minds about gays and baby-killers. I just want their votes.
posted by jpoulos at 9:38 AM on November 4, 2004
Also, we could make some effort to not give of the impression that we loathe them
Why should we? They're the ones condemning us to hell. They sure as hell give off the impression that they loathe us.
I just think there are other ways of winning the election besides selling out our core beliefs.
posted by jpoulos at 9:41 AM on November 4, 2004
Why should we? They're the ones condemning us to hell. They sure as hell give off the impression that they loathe us.
I just think there are other ways of winning the election besides selling out our core beliefs.
posted by jpoulos at 9:41 AM on November 4, 2004
And I don't care if I change their minds about gays and baby-killers. I just want their votes.
But how are you going to get it? Does anyone seriously think that religious extremists are going to meet us half-way at first-trimester abortions and civil unions?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:42 AM on November 4, 2004
But how are you going to get it? Does anyone seriously think that religious extremists are going to meet us half-way at first-trimester abortions and civil unions?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:42 AM on November 4, 2004
It's a shame to see so much hand-wringing and hatred coming from the left (I voted for Howard Dean in the DC primaries and John Kerry in the general election). Remember: Howard Dean said he wanted to be the guy who got the vote of the pickup-truck set, and it was John Edwards who demagogued him on that issue.
The truth is, many people are persuadable -- even on "foundational" issues.
posted by since1968 at 9:43 AM on November 4, 2004
The truth is, many people are persuadable -- even on "foundational" issues.
posted by since1968 at 9:43 AM on November 4, 2004
poulos, by "them", I meant people living in red states in general, not neccessarily fundies.
posted by jonmc at 9:45 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by jonmc at 9:45 AM on November 4, 2004
This broad brush type of analysis is nauseating in a close election. 2.6 million people voted for Kerry in Ohio, and 2.7 million people voted for Bush in New York. If you want to pick someone to despise, why look across the country when you can look down the block?
This hand-wringing is also totally removed from any temporal context. Most of the same states you're decrying as full of bigoted idiots and rednecks voted for Bill Clinton eight years ago. Is it even (*gasp*) possible that the result should be attributed to something other than the ignorant, evil nature of people in the "hinterlands"? Could it have been the fact that the candidate himself was simply a dud? Or the reluctance of moderates to align themselves with a party energized so obviously by extreme hatred of the sitting President of the United States?
"bigoted scum" / "misguided midwesterners" / "the hinterlands"
Who do people insist on viewing elitism as a positive quality?
This isn't the case. In this case, there are two major groups that voted for Bush: The evil and the ignorant.
And at least one group that voted for Kerry: The insufferably condescending. Stated differently, I know many Bush voters who are neither evil nor ignorant. They voted in line with their honestly held personal values and beliefs. Just as you and I did.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. —Bertrand Russell
What an ironic quote coming from you, rushmc. I've always considered you the MeFi member "most certain of himself." Or does that quote only go one way?
posted by pardonyou? at 9:45 AM on November 4, 2004
This hand-wringing is also totally removed from any temporal context. Most of the same states you're decrying as full of bigoted idiots and rednecks voted for Bill Clinton eight years ago. Is it even (*gasp*) possible that the result should be attributed to something other than the ignorant, evil nature of people in the "hinterlands"? Could it have been the fact that the candidate himself was simply a dud? Or the reluctance of moderates to align themselves with a party energized so obviously by extreme hatred of the sitting President of the United States?
"bigoted scum" / "misguided midwesterners" / "the hinterlands"
Who do people insist on viewing elitism as a positive quality?
This isn't the case. In this case, there are two major groups that voted for Bush: The evil and the ignorant.
And at least one group that voted for Kerry: The insufferably condescending. Stated differently, I know many Bush voters who are neither evil nor ignorant. They voted in line with their honestly held personal values and beliefs. Just as you and I did.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. —Bertrand Russell
What an ironic quote coming from you, rushmc. I've always considered you the MeFi member "most certain of himself." Or does that quote only go one way?
posted by pardonyou? at 9:45 AM on November 4, 2004
Could it have been the fact that the candidate himself was simply a dud?
Well, so was the other candidate, pardonyou.
posted by jonmc at 9:47 AM on November 4, 2004
Well, so was the other candidate, pardonyou.
posted by jonmc at 9:47 AM on November 4, 2004
> Give it a break. They hate us. We hate them. And they are the majority.
y6, you might give slightly closer attention to precisely whom you hate. You may start here:
Most African Americans have been morally conservative even as they've been liberal on social and civil rights issues, he said. But when asked to choose between the two, more and more often, God wins. "African Americans are more opposed to gay marriage than whites are," said David Bositis, senior political analyst for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank. Forty-six percent of African Americans oppose any legal recognition of homosexual relationships, compared with 37 percent of whites who oppose it, he said.
Boil your hand rather than reach out to those nasty Negroes? Am I hearing you right?
posted by jfuller at 9:52 AM on November 4, 2004
y6, you might give slightly closer attention to precisely whom you hate. You may start here:
Most African Americans have been morally conservative even as they've been liberal on social and civil rights issues, he said. But when asked to choose between the two, more and more often, God wins. "African Americans are more opposed to gay marriage than whites are," said David Bositis, senior political analyst for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank. Forty-six percent of African Americans oppose any legal recognition of homosexual relationships, compared with 37 percent of whites who oppose it, he said.
Boil your hand rather than reach out to those nasty Negroes? Am I hearing you right?
posted by jfuller at 9:52 AM on November 4, 2004
Well, so was the other candidate, pardonyou.
Absolutely. But if the Democrats had fielded a non-Dud candidate, he would have beat Bush handily (IMO). My point is that weakens the argument that it's the heathens in the hinterlands and their evil, ignorant ways that should be blamed for this result.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:54 AM on November 4, 2004
Absolutely. But if the Democrats had fielded a non-Dud candidate, he would have beat Bush handily (IMO). My point is that weakens the argument that it's the heathens in the hinterlands and their evil, ignorant ways that should be blamed for this result.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:54 AM on November 4, 2004
But how are you going to get it? Does anyone seriously think that religious extremists are going to meet us half-way at first-trimester abortions and civil unions?
That's my point! We don't have to deal with those people. We only need to present our case a little differently, to appeal to those few voters who would have put us over. I'm arguing against reaching out to the fundies in the GOP base.
We didn't win. We lost. And it is a painful loss and one that will probably result in a lot of damage to this country over the next four years. But we didn't lose by that much. We don't need to scrap everything and start all over.
posted by jpoulos at 9:55 AM on November 4, 2004
That's my point! We don't have to deal with those people. We only need to present our case a little differently, to appeal to those few voters who would have put us over. I'm arguing against reaching out to the fundies in the GOP base.
We didn't win. We lost. And it is a painful loss and one that will probably result in a lot of damage to this country over the next four years. But we didn't lose by that much. We don't need to scrap everything and start all over.
posted by jpoulos at 9:55 AM on November 4, 2004
A lot of people seem to have more hate for the "bigots" than the "bigots" have themselves.
This is the natural result of years of venom spewed from the pulpits and airwaves. When hatred is sown so vigorously, it is only natural that it is reaped back a hundredfold.
[/karma's a biatch]
posted by PsychoKick at 9:58 AM on November 4, 2004
This is the natural result of years of venom spewed from the pulpits and airwaves. When hatred is sown so vigorously, it is only natural that it is reaped back a hundredfold.
[/karma's a biatch]
posted by PsychoKick at 9:58 AM on November 4, 2004
We only need to present our case a little differently, to appeal to those few voters who would have put us over....We didn't win. We lost. And it is a painful loss and one that will probably result in a lot of damage to this country over the next four years. But we didn't lose by that much. We don't need to scrap everything and start all over.
That's what I spent most of yesterday saying, both here and IRL. Nice to be on the same page with you again, j-po.
posted by jonmc at 10:10 AM on November 4, 2004
That's what I spent most of yesterday saying, both here and IRL. Nice to be on the same page with you again, j-po.
posted by jonmc at 10:10 AM on November 4, 2004
there are two major groups that voted for Bush: The evil and the ignorant.
Give me a fucking break. We deserve to get our ass handed to us if that's the kinda self-satisfied cheap hand-me-down self-righteous world view we're gonna wave around.
posted by freebird at 10:10 AM on November 4, 2004
Give me a fucking break. We deserve to get our ass handed to us if that's the kinda self-satisfied cheap hand-me-down self-righteous world view we're gonna wave around.
posted by freebird at 10:10 AM on November 4, 2004
Boil your hand rather than reach out to those nasty Negroes? Am I hearing you right?
It doesn't matter what color they are -- bigots come in all colors. Makes me a little more sad coming from those historically oppressed themselves, but after growing up in the South it does not surprise me one bit.
You have to realize that the religious zealots give money to televangelists exposed as frauds. These people truly don't care about reality and all effort is wasted on them. It is the middle we have to worry about and figure out how to present our side more forcefully.
My mother has a friend who said she "thinks Bush is an idiot" but that "Michael Moore and his ilk" piss her off, so she would vote for Bush. My response is WTF??!?! -- but someone more eloquent needs to draw out the issues of people like her and address them.
posted by zaack at 10:11 AM on November 4, 2004
It doesn't matter what color they are -- bigots come in all colors. Makes me a little more sad coming from those historically oppressed themselves, but after growing up in the South it does not surprise me one bit.
You have to realize that the religious zealots give money to televangelists exposed as frauds. These people truly don't care about reality and all effort is wasted on them. It is the middle we have to worry about and figure out how to present our side more forcefully.
My mother has a friend who said she "thinks Bush is an idiot" but that "Michael Moore and his ilk" piss her off, so she would vote for Bush. My response is WTF??!?! -- but someone more eloquent needs to draw out the issues of people like her and address them.
posted by zaack at 10:11 AM on November 4, 2004
Exactly. They're conservative bigots who happen to be black, which, given the history of civil rights in this country, requires a truly astounding level of cognitive dissonance.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:19 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:19 AM on November 4, 2004
Speaking of which, a classic:
FALWELL: Well, nobody believes John Kerry on that because his voting record, pro choice, his voting record on the family issues, does -- belies his statement. And the fact that he would not support a federal marriage amendment, it equates in our minds as someone 150 years ago saying I'm personally opposed to slavery, but if my neighbor wants to own one or two that's OK. We don't buy that.
Gosh, I wonder how we can reach out to Jerry.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:22 AM on November 4, 2004
FALWELL: Well, nobody believes John Kerry on that because his voting record, pro choice, his voting record on the family issues, does -- belies his statement. And the fact that he would not support a federal marriage amendment, it equates in our minds as someone 150 years ago saying I'm personally opposed to slavery, but if my neighbor wants to own one or two that's OK. We don't buy that.
Gosh, I wonder how we can reach out to Jerry.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:22 AM on November 4, 2004
Boil your hand rather than reach out to those nasty Negroes? Am I hearing you right?
as a negro, i want to climb the highest mountain and holler to the negros who are"more opposed to gay marriage than whites are": FUCK YOU, YOU STUPID ASS CHURCHY-MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!
i'm not reaching out to them -- i've tried, but the "who can spout the most bible quotes in support of their position" game gets real old, real fast -- and i would advise everyone else here not to waste their time.
as for the others, i'm tired of reaching out to them and treating people's honestly held personal values and beliefs like they're automatically sacred and unassailable. a significant number of bush's supporters (and not just in the south) have the "honestly held personal value and belief" that my fiancee, who is white, shouldn't be marrying me. i should respect that? when they don't respect my "honestly held personal value and belief" that people should be free to marry whomever they want?
some of them have the "honestly held personal value and belief" that the u.s. saved the planet in world war 2 and are completely ignorant of the contributions of russia; consequently, they distrust europeans b/c they think europeans aren't sufficiently appreciative of the fact that "they'd be speaking german if it warn't for the good ol' u.s. of a."
etc.
no, there's a significant core of bush supporters who can't be reached and who will cling more tightly to their beliefs and to bush and his ilk when shown evidence of their fallacies.
but some can be reached. how to do it and who they are, i have no idea.
posted by lord_wolf at 10:32 AM on November 4, 2004
as a negro, i want to climb the highest mountain and holler to the negros who are"more opposed to gay marriage than whites are": FUCK YOU, YOU STUPID ASS CHURCHY-MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!
i'm not reaching out to them -- i've tried, but the "who can spout the most bible quotes in support of their position" game gets real old, real fast -- and i would advise everyone else here not to waste their time.
as for the others, i'm tired of reaching out to them and treating people's honestly held personal values and beliefs like they're automatically sacred and unassailable. a significant number of bush's supporters (and not just in the south) have the "honestly held personal value and belief" that my fiancee, who is white, shouldn't be marrying me. i should respect that? when they don't respect my "honestly held personal value and belief" that people should be free to marry whomever they want?
some of them have the "honestly held personal value and belief" that the u.s. saved the planet in world war 2 and are completely ignorant of the contributions of russia; consequently, they distrust europeans b/c they think europeans aren't sufficiently appreciative of the fact that "they'd be speaking german if it warn't for the good ol' u.s. of a."
etc.
no, there's a significant core of bush supporters who can't be reached and who will cling more tightly to their beliefs and to bush and his ilk when shown evidence of their fallacies.
but some can be reached. how to do it and who they are, i have no idea.
posted by lord_wolf at 10:32 AM on November 4, 2004
We can't reach out to the Jerry's of the world, armitage, but in between Falwell and, say, Ralph Nader, there's a huge swath of (mostly well meaning and decent) people whose opinions are all over the place and, I believe, are changeable.
Maybe that means I'm just a naive straight white guy, but I refuse to give up.
posted by jonmc at 10:32 AM on November 4, 2004
Maybe that means I'm just a naive straight white guy, but I refuse to give up.
posted by jonmc at 10:32 AM on November 4, 2004
Could it have been the fact that the candidate himself was simply a dud?
Why was he a "dud"? Because he didn't have Bush's "personality"?
(This part isn't aimed at you, pardonyou?) This is what I don't get about those who say "they both suck!". What part of "war hero who served 20 years in the Senate" don't you understand? The guy is smart, experienced, a family man. What part of that makes these people think he was "just as bad" as Bush?
posted by jpoulos at 10:36 AM on November 4, 2004
Why was he a "dud"? Because he didn't have Bush's "personality"?
(This part isn't aimed at you, pardonyou?) This is what I don't get about those who say "they both suck!". What part of "war hero who served 20 years in the Senate" don't you understand? The guy is smart, experienced, a family man. What part of that makes these people think he was "just as bad" as Bush?
posted by jpoulos at 10:36 AM on November 4, 2004
> Exactly. They're conservative bigots who happen to be black, which,
> given the history of civil rights in this country, requires a truly astounding
> level of cognitive dissonance.
But it's only you, Armitage, who feels the jab of dissonance; not them.
While we're fulminating at the "red states," is it any use asking how you folks deal with Massachussetts? That's surely our most liberal state and, according to returns as they're listed today, for every hundred Mass voters 44 voted for Bush. Why vent your spleen on Oklahoma or Alabama when you've got a despicable troglodite sitting in the chair right next to you wherever in the nation you are?
posted by jfuller at 10:38 AM on November 4, 2004
> given the history of civil rights in this country, requires a truly astounding
> level of cognitive dissonance.
But it's only you, Armitage, who feels the jab of dissonance; not them.
While we're fulminating at the "red states," is it any use asking how you folks deal with Massachussetts? That's surely our most liberal state and, according to returns as they're listed today, for every hundred Mass voters 44 voted for Bush. Why vent your spleen on Oklahoma or Alabama when you've got a despicable troglodite sitting in the chair right next to you wherever in the nation you are?
posted by jfuller at 10:38 AM on November 4, 2004
But it's only you, Armitage, who feels the jab of dissonance; not them.
And? I'm sure Jerry Falwell feels no "jab of dissonance" when he equates gay marriage to slavery either. What could your point possibly be?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:40 AM on November 4, 2004
And? I'm sure Jerry Falwell feels no "jab of dissonance" when he equates gay marriage to slavery either. What could your point possibly be?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:40 AM on November 4, 2004
This just in, I missed Mass and hit Connecticut. Mass was only 37 for Bush in every hundred. But you know, I could see myself reaching out, politely, to those misguided up-east Yankees of whichever little state. Just change 6 votes in 100 with honey and not FUCK YOU STUPID ASS MOTHERFUCKERS and Connecticut goes red. Mmmmm?
posted by jfuller at 10:46 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by jfuller at 10:46 AM on November 4, 2004
Okay, I'm only one person out of the left side of thing but I am sick of hearing about how "elitist" we are. Part of that is our fault in that when we start trashing the "God, Guns & Gays" crowd, we tend to lump people into the dumb redneck bigot category. The truth is that it's more complicated than that.
I would say that it comes down to the Underinformed, the True Believers and the Willfully Ignorant. I would also say that this applies to both the Left and the Right
I would describe the Underinformed as hungry for information but lacking the ime or the knowlege as to how you go about getting information - something that people that come from a middle-class background often have a hard time understanding. I would describe my father, who had an 8th grade education, as an underinformed person - extremely bright and when given enough information from several perspectives, more than capable of making an informed decision, whatever side of the issue he lands on.
The True Believers are people who vote their convictions. They are well informed about the issues, but their knowlege tends to be one-sided. These people can adjust their beliefs to accomodate a new perspective if they are
given a well-reasoned, fact-based argument from the other side and provided that it is presented in a way that is respectful of their beliefs and isn't condescending. They may still disagree with you, but it is a respectful disagreement and they come away with an insight into how the other half thinks.
The last group, the Willfully Ignorant, are pretty much incapable of being persuaded by facts and logical argument. Their beliefs are emotion-based, usually fear or anger, and they have demonized the other side to the point of seeing them as less than human. They delight in throwing inflammatory statements around to piss people off on the other side, but either refuse or are incapable of backing up their statements with solid facts and logic.
When they start losing the argument, they accuse the other side of being close-minded, intolerant hypocrites, and they go off to sulk until the next opportunity to toss a shit bomb into a discussion.
I think we should carefully target the first two groups. The Underinformed really hate it someone comes in acting like they are superior, and are doing them a favor by sharing their precious thoughts with them. As someone who comes from a blue-collar background, this has always been a thorn in my side when dealing with other lefties who are from a middle or upper middle class background. If we want people to act in what we believe to be their best interest, we need to get our mind around the fact that having a high school (or less) education does not equal dumb and not everyone has the luxury of plenty of leisure time (hello working two minimum jobs in order to provide for your family) to peruse the different sides of an argument. We probably can't change the mind of the True Believers, but we can create enough rapport that we can one day reach a reasonable compromise on the issues. The last group is a lost cause and deserve to suffer the consequences of the choices they make as a result of being proudly ignorant.
posted by echolalia67 at 10:46 AM on November 4, 2004
I would say that it comes down to the Underinformed, the True Believers and the Willfully Ignorant. I would also say that this applies to both the Left and the Right
I would describe the Underinformed as hungry for information but lacking the ime or the knowlege as to how you go about getting information - something that people that come from a middle-class background often have a hard time understanding. I would describe my father, who had an 8th grade education, as an underinformed person - extremely bright and when given enough information from several perspectives, more than capable of making an informed decision, whatever side of the issue he lands on.
The True Believers are people who vote their convictions. They are well informed about the issues, but their knowlege tends to be one-sided. These people can adjust their beliefs to accomodate a new perspective if they are
given a well-reasoned, fact-based argument from the other side and provided that it is presented in a way that is respectful of their beliefs and isn't condescending. They may still disagree with you, but it is a respectful disagreement and they come away with an insight into how the other half thinks.
The last group, the Willfully Ignorant, are pretty much incapable of being persuaded by facts and logical argument. Their beliefs are emotion-based, usually fear or anger, and they have demonized the other side to the point of seeing them as less than human. They delight in throwing inflammatory statements around to piss people off on the other side, but either refuse or are incapable of backing up their statements with solid facts and logic.
When they start losing the argument, they accuse the other side of being close-minded, intolerant hypocrites, and they go off to sulk until the next opportunity to toss a shit bomb into a discussion.
I think we should carefully target the first two groups. The Underinformed really hate it someone comes in acting like they are superior, and are doing them a favor by sharing their precious thoughts with them. As someone who comes from a blue-collar background, this has always been a thorn in my side when dealing with other lefties who are from a middle or upper middle class background. If we want people to act in what we believe to be their best interest, we need to get our mind around the fact that having a high school (or less) education does not equal dumb and not everyone has the luxury of plenty of leisure time (hello working two minimum jobs in order to provide for your family) to peruse the different sides of an argument. We probably can't change the mind of the True Believers, but we can create enough rapport that we can one day reach a reasonable compromise on the issues. The last group is a lost cause and deserve to suffer the consequences of the choices they make as a result of being proudly ignorant.
posted by echolalia67 at 10:46 AM on November 4, 2004
Look, it boils down to this:
Those who voted for Bush and cited "moral values" as their chief reason for doing so voted on the basis of abortion and on the basis of gay rights/gay marriage.
The questions the left/Democrats need to ask themselves are fundamental:
1. Given that a majority of the country opposes gay marriage or some form of gay civil union, are you prepared to abandon your support for it in order to gain electoral support?
2. Given that a large chunk of the country, if not a majority, opposes abortion rights, are you prepared to abandon your support for it in order to gain electoral support?
If the answer is "yes," then the Democratic party is weakened, perhaps fatally, becuase while a majority might not consider these two issues important, there is a large percentage of the country that does, and might be looking for a new party.
If the answer is "no," then the Democrats have to be prepared to lose the heartland until these issues are somehow resolved, because they are paramount there.
I mean, I don't like it, but I once had a rural Christian type say to me that "If you consider abortion murder, all other issues pale in importance."
posted by kgasmart at 10:47 AM on November 4, 2004
Those who voted for Bush and cited "moral values" as their chief reason for doing so voted on the basis of abortion and on the basis of gay rights/gay marriage.
The questions the left/Democrats need to ask themselves are fundamental:
1. Given that a majority of the country opposes gay marriage or some form of gay civil union, are you prepared to abandon your support for it in order to gain electoral support?
2. Given that a large chunk of the country, if not a majority, opposes abortion rights, are you prepared to abandon your support for it in order to gain electoral support?
If the answer is "yes," then the Democratic party is weakened, perhaps fatally, becuase while a majority might not consider these two issues important, there is a large percentage of the country that does, and might be looking for a new party.
If the answer is "no," then the Democrats have to be prepared to lose the heartland until these issues are somehow resolved, because they are paramount there.
I mean, I don't like it, but I once had a rural Christian type say to me that "If you consider abortion murder, all other issues pale in importance."
posted by kgasmart at 10:47 AM on November 4, 2004
If one accepts the axiom that a human life begins at conception, then you basically can't be a decent person without making that your central issue.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:01 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:01 AM on November 4, 2004
I just want to know why selfish pocketbook stuff didn't carry the day. "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
The majority of Americans are NOT better off. If that doesn't matter anymore, there's no hope.
You simply can't change people's minds on moral/wedge issues (unless their daughter gets knocked up, or their son comes out, etc, and even then maybe not).
posted by amberglow at 11:07 AM on November 4, 2004
The majority of Americans are NOT better off. If that doesn't matter anymore, there's no hope.
You simply can't change people's minds on moral/wedge issues (unless their daughter gets knocked up, or their son comes out, etc, and even then maybe not).
posted by amberglow at 11:07 AM on November 4, 2004
THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN THERE ARE OF THEM.
Clearly, there are not, and wishing it were so won't change anything.
What an ironic quote coming from you, rushmc. I've always considered you the MeFi member "most certain of himself."
More unprovoked potshots, pardonyou? Nice. In any case, I see no reason whatsoever why I should in any way be deemed answerable to your misperceptions of me.
The battle is lost, people, and pissing in the wind for a few more years will achieve nothing. People had the clearest of all possible choices, and they chose. Now the system—and the society—will be altered and dismantled to the point where it is not recognizable as democratic by any but the most jingoistic and blinded. Fear and greed conquer more noble ideologies, as they ever have.
posted by rushmc at 11:10 AM on November 4, 2004
Clearly, there are not, and wishing it were so won't change anything.
What an ironic quote coming from you, rushmc. I've always considered you the MeFi member "most certain of himself."
More unprovoked potshots, pardonyou? Nice. In any case, I see no reason whatsoever why I should in any way be deemed answerable to your misperceptions of me.
The battle is lost, people, and pissing in the wind for a few more years will achieve nothing. People had the clearest of all possible choices, and they chose. Now the system—and the society—will be altered and dismantled to the point where it is not recognizable as democratic by any but the most jingoistic and blinded. Fear and greed conquer more noble ideologies, as they ever have.
posted by rushmc at 11:10 AM on November 4, 2004
Personally, I think that the Rovian electoral strategy that won this election is going to be bad for the Republicans in 2008. You'll see a serious run to the right on cultural issues in the primaries as the Frists and (God help us all) DeLays work to push the Giulianis and McCains out of the race early on (esp. in South Carolina). A run too far to the right seems likely: moderates will be alienated, losing key swing state votes.
In the long term, I hope that demographic shifts will render the debate over gay rights moot. It's not going to be a winning issue for the Democrats soon, unfortunately. Abortion, also, seems to be a loser now. This might not change until Roe v. Wade is overturned, at which point we'll see a massive backlash.
The Democrats could benefit, perhaps, by advocating some old fashioned federalism. Make these local issues; take them out of the national debate.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:16 AM on November 4, 2004
In the long term, I hope that demographic shifts will render the debate over gay rights moot. It's not going to be a winning issue for the Democrats soon, unfortunately. Abortion, also, seems to be a loser now. This might not change until Roe v. Wade is overturned, at which point we'll see a massive backlash.
The Democrats could benefit, perhaps, by advocating some old fashioned federalism. Make these local issues; take them out of the national debate.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:16 AM on November 4, 2004
The Underinformed really hate it someone comes in acting like they are superior, and are doing them a favor by sharing their precious thoughts with them.
the flip-side of this is that a great number of people automatically feel that way whenever anybody makes any attempt to share knowledge with them, no matter what tone is used.
the minute someone mentions books they haven't read and starts quoting from them, or talks about visiting other countries that they (the person being spoken to) can't find on a map, they start thinking, "this person is putting on airs and thinks he's better than me. but i know i'm a good person:i read the bible and i pray for our president. that's enough to get me through my day. i don't need to read things that are critical of my country and i don't need to visit other countries."
(i'm aware that you can find people like that in any country. but right now we're talking about the u.s.a.)
Just change 6 votes in 100 with honey and not FUCK YOU STUPID ASS MOTHERFUCKERS and Connecticut goes red
i'm not in connecticut, i'm in texas and was born and raised in the south. some of the "stupid ass churchy motherfuckers" i spoke of earlier are blood relatives. some of the dumbass motherfuckers who have ill feelings about interracial marriages are blood relatives. shared genetic material earns them no reprieve from my scorn for their ignorance; shared genetic material did not have any effect on their willingness or ability to listen to my counter-arguments.
and yet...i think shared genetic material has stopped us from hating each other (we'll still attend the same get-togethers and inquire after each other's health, etc) and from causing each other harm. which is why i grow increasingly worried about the red/blue divide among those not of blood....
posted by lord_wolf at 11:19 AM on November 4, 2004
the flip-side of this is that a great number of people automatically feel that way whenever anybody makes any attempt to share knowledge with them, no matter what tone is used.
the minute someone mentions books they haven't read and starts quoting from them, or talks about visiting other countries that they (the person being spoken to) can't find on a map, they start thinking, "this person is putting on airs and thinks he's better than me. but i know i'm a good person:i read the bible and i pray for our president. that's enough to get me through my day. i don't need to read things that are critical of my country and i don't need to visit other countries."
(i'm aware that you can find people like that in any country. but right now we're talking about the u.s.a.)
Just change 6 votes in 100 with honey and not FUCK YOU STUPID ASS MOTHERFUCKERS and Connecticut goes red
i'm not in connecticut, i'm in texas and was born and raised in the south. some of the "stupid ass churchy motherfuckers" i spoke of earlier are blood relatives. some of the dumbass motherfuckers who have ill feelings about interracial marriages are blood relatives. shared genetic material earns them no reprieve from my scorn for their ignorance; shared genetic material did not have any effect on their willingness or ability to listen to my counter-arguments.
and yet...i think shared genetic material has stopped us from hating each other (we'll still attend the same get-togethers and inquire after each other's health, etc) and from causing each other harm. which is why i grow increasingly worried about the red/blue divide among those not of blood....
posted by lord_wolf at 11:19 AM on November 4, 2004
Bush unbound: Winning on fear itself, the GOP is ready to take the country even farther right.
...At his rallies, Bush was introduced as standing for "the right God."...
posted by amberglow at 11:29 AM on November 4, 2004
...At his rallies, Bush was introduced as standing for "the right God."...
posted by amberglow at 11:29 AM on November 4, 2004
If one accepts the axiom that a human life begins at conception, then you basically can't be a decent person without making that your central issue.
The "axiom" that human life begins at conception makes no sense. Sperm and ova are living, human cells long before they ever meet. If one accepts the axiom that all human life is sacred, then you basically can't be a decent person without making the appalling loss of billions of living human sperm to masturbation your central issue.
Anti-abortionism is an inherently arbitrary superstition.
The majority of Americans are NOT better off. If that doesn't matter anymore, there's no hope.
It never did matter to them. They see wealth as a personal matter; the state's job is to get out of their way. If they are not doing better than they were four years ago, that's their problem, not the government's problem.
From a more leftish perspective, this makes no sense, because it's easy to see how much effect the state has on the economy whether you like it or not, but their answer to "the economy sucks" is "so the feds should stop messing with it", not "so we need some feds who will implement policies that will benefit common people like me".
America isn't red and blue. America is purple.
It looks a lot more red and blue when you mark counties individually, instead of blurring whole states together. It is true that even here in King County, a full third of voters chose Bush; I'll bet, however, that most of those live not in Seattle but in the rural eastern half of the county.
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:42 AM on November 4, 2004
The "axiom" that human life begins at conception makes no sense. Sperm and ova are living, human cells long before they ever meet. If one accepts the axiom that all human life is sacred, then you basically can't be a decent person without making the appalling loss of billions of living human sperm to masturbation your central issue.
Anti-abortionism is an inherently arbitrary superstition.
The majority of Americans are NOT better off. If that doesn't matter anymore, there's no hope.
It never did matter to them. They see wealth as a personal matter; the state's job is to get out of their way. If they are not doing better than they were four years ago, that's their problem, not the government's problem.
From a more leftish perspective, this makes no sense, because it's easy to see how much effect the state has on the economy whether you like it or not, but their answer to "the economy sucks" is "so the feds should stop messing with it", not "so we need some feds who will implement policies that will benefit common people like me".
America isn't red and blue. America is purple.
It looks a lot more red and blue when you mark counties individually, instead of blurring whole states together. It is true that even here in King County, a full third of voters chose Bush; I'll bet, however, that most of those live not in Seattle but in the rural eastern half of the county.
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:42 AM on November 4, 2004
bashos_frog pointed to an even better county-by-county map from 2000 in a different thread, which gives a clearer view of the percentages (if you can get past the fact the colors are wrong, all wrong.) Looks like not very much changed from four years ago; the same counties went more or less the same way.
posted by ook at 11:53 AM on November 4, 2004
posted by ook at 11:53 AM on November 4, 2004
Clearly, there are not, and wishing it were so won't change anything.
By "us" and "them", I mean there are more rational "normal" people than there are Christian fundies. And that is reflected in real numbers (most Americans are pro-choice, for example). We will never win the fundies. But we can take back the share of MORs that we've lost since Clinton won in '96.
Again, the present is bleak, but the future is not completely without promise. The Right has spent the last 10 years slandering and discrediting the Left with the most underhanded tactics--from impeachment to swift boats. Should we be surprised that there are those in the middle who don't trust us?
My point is it's not about changing policy--it's about changing packaging. Before we all slip into panic mode, let's just be rational and consider how close we were to winning? Bush took Ohio by--at most--150,00 votes. If 75,000 Ohioans had switched their vote, we'd be talking about what a great job President-Elect Kerry had done.
posted by jpoulos at 12:04 PM on November 4, 2004
By "us" and "them", I mean there are more rational "normal" people than there are Christian fundies. And that is reflected in real numbers (most Americans are pro-choice, for example). We will never win the fundies. But we can take back the share of MORs that we've lost since Clinton won in '96.
Again, the present is bleak, but the future is not completely without promise. The Right has spent the last 10 years slandering and discrediting the Left with the most underhanded tactics--from impeachment to swift boats. Should we be surprised that there are those in the middle who don't trust us?
My point is it's not about changing policy--it's about changing packaging. Before we all slip into panic mode, let's just be rational and consider how close we were to winning? Bush took Ohio by--at most--150,00 votes. If 75,000 Ohioans had switched their vote, we'd be talking about what a great job President-Elect Kerry had done.
posted by jpoulos at 12:04 PM on November 4, 2004
> We will never win the fundies. But we can take back the share of MORs
> that we've lost since Clinton won in '96.
Very possibly you can. But NOT unless you all can bring yourselves to give up 2sheets's attitude. Which was,
> I don't reach out to bigoted scum.
Fuller predicts you will, in the end, choose attitudinizing over winning. But then I judge lefties mainly by what I see on Metafilter, so it's remotely possible I have the wrong impression.
posted by jfuller at 12:17 PM on November 4, 2004
> that we've lost since Clinton won in '96.
Very possibly you can. But NOT unless you all can bring yourselves to give up 2sheets's attitude. Which was,
> I don't reach out to bigoted scum.
Fuller predicts you will, in the end, choose attitudinizing over winning. But then I judge lefties mainly by what I see on Metafilter, so it's remotely possible I have the wrong impression.
posted by jfuller at 12:17 PM on November 4, 2004
Very possibly you can.
Please suggest a compromise position on abortion and gay rights that you think will satisfy Christian fundamentalists.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:22 PM on November 4, 2004
Please suggest a compromise position on abortion and gay rights that you think will satisfy Christian fundamentalists.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:22 PM on November 4, 2004
bigoted scum
Christian cowboys who hate gays and baby-killers
misguided midwesterners
the hinterlands
In this case, there are two major groups that voted for Bush: The evil and the ignorant.
And you can't figure out why these people don't vote for you?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:25 PM on November 4, 2004
Christian cowboys who hate gays and baby-killers
misguided midwesterners
the hinterlands
In this case, there are two major groups that voted for Bush: The evil and the ignorant.
And you can't figure out why these people don't vote for you?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:25 PM on November 4, 2004
And you can't figure out why these people don't vote for you?
I wasn't aware that any of those people were running for office, Steve. People still vote Republican despite the fact that FreeRepublic is full of Nazis.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:30 PM on November 4, 2004
I wasn't aware that any of those people were running for office, Steve. People still vote Republican despite the fact that FreeRepublic is full of Nazis.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:30 PM on November 4, 2004
Steve, half my family is from rural Vermont. I have relatives living in central Illinois. 1 day of hanging around with me would turn every stereotype you hold of liberals on it's head. I don't like the facile generalizations some on the left make about the "red states" either, but all you're doing is turning them inside out for your own benefit.
posted by jonmc at 12:33 PM on November 4, 2004
posted by jonmc at 12:33 PM on November 4, 2004
The "axiom" that human life begins at conception makes no sense. Sperm and ova are living, human cells long before they ever meet. If one accepts the axiom that all human life is sacred, then you basically can't be a decent person without making the appalling loss of billions of living human sperm to masturbation your central issue.
There are people who believe exactly that. And, you know, it is quite possible to adopt axioms that lead to inconsistent conclusions. Logics of this type are called paraconsistent logics. I don't doubt you hold some poorly-supported beliefs yourself, as do I.
The point is, like I said, that IF you accept that premise, for ANY reason, some new scientific discovery or religion or whatever, then you most likely will feel you have no option but to take the anti-abortion side.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:34 PM on November 4, 2004
There are people who believe exactly that. And, you know, it is quite possible to adopt axioms that lead to inconsistent conclusions. Logics of this type are called paraconsistent logics. I don't doubt you hold some poorly-supported beliefs yourself, as do I.
The point is, like I said, that IF you accept that premise, for ANY reason, some new scientific discovery or religion or whatever, then you most likely will feel you have no option but to take the anti-abortion side.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:34 PM on November 4, 2004
Two thoughts.
First, I think there is a real chance of a big implosion in the Republican Party now that Bush senses that he has a true mandate. I think he will push further right on both social and economic issues which may have the effect of opening up a fissure in the party.
A rightward push on social issues will chill the relationship with the socially moderate "fiscal" Republicans, aka the wealthy aristocracy.
A move to the right on economic issues (further shifting the tax burden to the middle and lower classes) will cause hardship to the religious wing of the party.
The more Bush gives to each, the greater the potential for a rupture of the coalition.
Second, the U.S. is getting to be just a little like Israel in that the governing party must have the support of the religious right. However, even with that support, the GOP margin is razor thin. With Bush getting basically all of the "moral" votes ( I doubt Kerry got any evangelical votes) his margin is 2%. That being said, it is no time for the Democrats to abandon their principles.
posted by mygoditsbob at 12:34 PM on November 4, 2004
First, I think there is a real chance of a big implosion in the Republican Party now that Bush senses that he has a true mandate. I think he will push further right on both social and economic issues which may have the effect of opening up a fissure in the party.
A rightward push on social issues will chill the relationship with the socially moderate "fiscal" Republicans, aka the wealthy aristocracy.
A move to the right on economic issues (further shifting the tax burden to the middle and lower classes) will cause hardship to the religious wing of the party.
The more Bush gives to each, the greater the potential for a rupture of the coalition.
Second, the U.S. is getting to be just a little like Israel in that the governing party must have the support of the religious right. However, even with that support, the GOP margin is razor thin. With Bush getting basically all of the "moral" votes ( I doubt Kerry got any evangelical votes) his margin is 2%. That being said, it is no time for the Democrats to abandon their principles.
posted by mygoditsbob at 12:34 PM on November 4, 2004
But then I judge lefties mainly by what I see on Metafilter, so it's remotely possible I have the wrong impression.
If one judges the left by Metafilter's most shrill, it's safe to say the Democrats in their current state are politically finished. Personally, I think the internets are too full of shit and that there is a silent majority of cooler heads out there that will see the light and throw the extreme lefties out on their ass. I also wish for less religious fundamentalism from the right, but that appears less likely at the moment. Leftie nutjobs aren't bringing in votes, they are clearly scaring them away. Religious fundies scare people as well, but they, sadly, also happen to attract votes.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:40 PM on November 4, 2004
If one judges the left by Metafilter's most shrill, it's safe to say the Democrats in their current state are politically finished. Personally, I think the internets are too full of shit and that there is a silent majority of cooler heads out there that will see the light and throw the extreme lefties out on their ass. I also wish for less religious fundamentalism from the right, but that appears less likely at the moment. Leftie nutjobs aren't bringing in votes, they are clearly scaring them away. Religious fundies scare people as well, but they, sadly, also happen to attract votes.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:40 PM on November 4, 2004
I like what this person had to say:
Shining city on a hill
Posted by Chris
Since 9/11 American nationalists have not been shy to tell us about the marvellous things that the United States have brought to the world. And I agree with them. The US Constitution, the struggle against slavery, the struggle for civil rights, the greatest city in the world (New York), the blues, jazz, soul. I could go on and on. I might even, on a generous day, include Hollywood. I love those Americas, and I always will. I’d like to thank them for standing against the strident nationalists and George W. Bush.
— The thirteen original states that brought us the Constitution voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
— The states that didn’t secede and which fought against slavery voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
— Black America which brought us in Martin Luther King, one of the greatest moral exemplars of modern times as well as the blues, jazz and soul voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
— California, home of the modern motion picture industry, voted for Kerry.
These are the great American achievements: the United States’ lasting contribution to freedom, culture and progress. Sadly, that America, the America of which Americans have the most reason to be proud and foreigners have the most reason to admire, just lost. Again.
posted by nofundy at 12:41 PM on November 4, 2004
Shining city on a hill
Posted by Chris
Since 9/11 American nationalists have not been shy to tell us about the marvellous things that the United States have brought to the world. And I agree with them. The US Constitution, the struggle against slavery, the struggle for civil rights, the greatest city in the world (New York), the blues, jazz, soul. I could go on and on. I might even, on a generous day, include Hollywood. I love those Americas, and I always will. I’d like to thank them for standing against the strident nationalists and George W. Bush.
— The thirteen original states that brought us the Constitution voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
— The states that didn’t secede and which fought against slavery voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
— Black America which brought us in Martin Luther King, one of the greatest moral exemplars of modern times as well as the blues, jazz and soul voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
— California, home of the modern motion picture industry, voted for Kerry.
These are the great American achievements: the United States’ lasting contribution to freedom, culture and progress. Sadly, that America, the America of which Americans have the most reason to be proud and foreigners have the most reason to admire, just lost. Again.
posted by nofundy at 12:41 PM on November 4, 2004
Leftie nutjobs aren't bringing in votes, they are clearly scaring them away. Religious fundies scare people as well, but they, sadly, also happen to attract votes.
I guess that tells you which extreme you should be more concerned about, doesn't it?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:45 PM on November 4, 2004
I guess that tells you which extreme you should be more concerned about, doesn't it?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:45 PM on November 4, 2004
« Older You never see him reading, where does he get this... | Just Coffee Art Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by 2sheets at 8:45 AM on November 4, 2004