I am a tool of Satan

November 6, 2004 4:19 PM

Southern Conservativism explained from the inside. "I get very antsy when I see this entire election outcome being blamed on radical conservatism or on ignorance or stupidity. Because really when people talk about "radical" conservativism, what they really mean is Southern conservativism, specifically the kind that originated in the Southern Baptist church in the late 70's/early 80's. And that makes me unhappy. I am an ex-Southern conservative." An interesting read coming out of the election fallout.
posted by FunkyHelix (131 comments total)

Slice and dice it how you will, it's the primitives vs. the moderns, as distasteful as such a simplistic dichotomy is for the moderns to accept.

The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind.
posted by rushmc at 4:29 PM on November 6, 2004

Hey, news flash: the fact that someone disagrees with your beliefs does not make you morally superior.

Get off your fucking high horse.
posted by zelphi at 4:37 PM on November 6, 2004

That was in reference to rushmc's comment, not the post. The first linked to article was very good.
posted by zelphi at 4:38 PM on November 6, 2004

Metafilter always loved a good caricature.
posted by aaronshaf at 4:39 PM on November 6, 2004

Jesus Christ, if this is a true representation of what Christian conservatives think, then the situation is even more hopeless than I thought.

This person essentially admits that facts do not matter to the cultural conservative; it is therefore a waste of time to even attempt to have a debate. When you're right simply because your heart is in the right place, of course you don't need any verification of that; when anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is automatically one of "them" from "the World," how far is this really from the fundamentalism that we have been fighting in the Middle East?
posted by kgasmart at 4:39 PM on November 6, 2004

the fact that someone disagrees with your beliefs does not make you morally superior.

It's easier for people like rush to see things in black and white. Blue good red bad. It's much more simple that way, and convenient of course.
posted by justgary at 4:42 PM on November 6, 2004

when anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is automatically one of "them" from "the World," how far is this really from the fundamentalism that we have been fighting in the Middle East?

And yet rushmc's comment does the exact same thing in reverse. Pot kettle and all that.
posted by justgary at 4:44 PM on November 6, 2004

An Open Letter to the Democratic Party: How You Could Have Had My Vote from From a Sad American.
posted by Dreama at 4:46 PM on November 6, 2004

Dead on dreama, especially 1,4,6,7.
posted by justgary at 5:02 PM on November 6, 2004

An Open Letter to the Democratic Party: How You Could Have Had My Vote from From a Sad American.
Bullshit.

Listen. It's a mistake to characterize anyone who voted for Bush as an idiot, OK? And I agree that the biggest problem with the Democratic party is that, well, what do they believe? It does need to be stated more clearly and in terms that Americans can both understand and empathize with.

But this woman's essay does not compute on dozens of levels:

*She's offended by Bush hate. Uh, honey? Ever hear of Rush Limbaugh? Hannity? Anne Coulter? You weren't dissuaded from voting for Bush because of them - but the same type of contemptuous rhetoric from the other side was too much to bear?

*"You disturbed me with your demonization of the rich." Asking those making more than $200,000 a year to relinquish their tax cut in a time of record national deficits is "demonization of the rich?"

*She doesn't care what Europe thinks about us. Great. Did it ever occur to you that in an age where transnational terrorism is deemed the greatest threat, we might need the help of the intelligence agencies of, oh, I don't know, France to help forestall another 9/11?

If we really adopt an attitude whereby we're going to do what we wish and the rest of the world be damned, we cannot be surprised when the rest of the world ultimately resents and resists our hegemony. Being the biggest kid on the block doesn't entitle you to a damned thing, and it's dangerous to pretend that it does.

*"The pictures of Iraqi children who've lost arms from the bombs my tax dollars bought make me shed tears, but I recognize that the war was the right thing to do, given the information we had available at the time the decision was made."

So it was the right thing to do to blow off the arms of those Iraqi children. That is what this argument boils down to. Is this what you believe?

This essay should have been subtitled, "I would have voted for the Democrats... if they had been Republicans."
posted by kgasmart at 5:09 PM on November 6, 2004

Hey, news flash: the fact that someone disagrees with your beliefs does not make you morally superior.

Get off your fucking high horse.

Is English your second language, or are you struggling some sort of learning disability? No one, other than you, said anything about morals -- those socially-constructed crutches for the frightened and small-minded, if I am to give away my position -- let alone which arbitrary set might be 'superior'.

Pull your hot little resentment back into your pants, and try arguing about what is actually said next time, hmm?

It's easier for people like rush to see things in black and white.

Irony is delicious.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:23 PM on November 6, 2004

Great post. Thanks.

I have a kind of "volition theory" I've been thinking about for about ten years now (heavily influenced by Richard Dawkins' meme theory), and the ideas the linked article brings up help a lot with the concept of cultural inheritance. Us and Them is vitally important to human thought. It may be impossible not to think in that way. Your mind is shaped by your childhood's culture, in a highly complex and sometimes counter-intuitive way. Raised in a different culture, you wouldn't be the same person. Those values you now hold dear: they probably wouldn't even occur to you. My need for "objective truth" would be irrelevant to Ash the Southern Baptist; his need to submit to the will of God is irrelevant to me. I'm Us. He's Them.

So, what can you do? Cultures "convert" (by which I mean, change from a worldview to another worldview), but it happens through people who don't see the new facts dying off and children being raised in cognizance of the new facts. Individual conversion is important here and there, but only as they drive the culture's view. The stronger cultural meme survives. When memes fight memes, the one which is stronger may not be the more "enlightened" (ie, in tune with the values of your own personal culture). But when memes fight facts, they can hold on for a long time and wiggle around a lot (consider special creation vs evolution theory) but the facts will triumph in the end (consider disease as demonic influence vs germ theory).

Us and Them also neatly explains exceptions to prejudice, the "I hate {those people}, but you, you're OK". People you like get crammed into Us whether it's sensible or not. People you dislike get pushed into Them even when, from an outsider's perspective, you and they are pretty much the same kind of people. This is a very powerful process (consider Stockholm Syndrome, and political party adversarial behavior), which I think partly drives the larger process of cultural conversion.

Anyway, thanks for a thought-provoking link.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:24 PM on November 6, 2004

Metafilter always loved a good caricature.

You wish it was a caricature. I was raised evangelical in the South and this essay is spot on, right down to the kid imagining angels and demons conducting "spiritual warfare" around him.

This is especially insightful:

You guys, you democrats and liberals, have a tendency to blame the people rather than the ideologies they represent. It is my belief that people's lives are shaped by ideologies. But people's lives are changed by other people. My life was shaped by the ideology of the Southern Baptist church. My life was changed when I met Jerry Boles, who died of AIDS in 1994. My life was changed when my best friend came out to me 5 years later.
-----
Re: Dreama's essay:

This essay should have been subtitled, "I would have voted for the Democrats... if they had been Republicans."

My thoughts exactly.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:27 PM on November 6, 2004

I found the essay link Dreama posted to be very condescending towards people that don't think like the author does. More complex ideas apart from black-and-white seem to be lost on her (thinking about her confusion on Kerry's stance on the war in Iraq).
posted by doublehelix at 5:33 PM on November 6, 2004

"Spiritual warfare" -- isn't that what Muslims call jihad?
posted by eatitlive at 5:36 PM on November 6, 2004

they're both right ... evangelicals aren't stupid, they simply have made certain assumptions that they don't question ... much like many on the left ... and kerry flip-flopped and was too vague on things for people to trust ... that's why my mother chose bush over him ... and why i voted for a 3rd party candidate

what's the solution? ... explain to the evangelicals why reckless wars and not caring for our poorer people is basically against what they believe ... quote chapter and verse ... let them see that the spiritual battle is against self-righteousness, harsh judgement and callousness disguised as avoidance as much as it is what they are fighting now ... (i'm not from their particular tradition, but i actually agree that life is a spiritual battle, that people are not naturally good ... but i also believe that the struggle must be fought within oneself, not without)

and for pete's sake let's get candidates that stand for something without waffling
posted by pyramid termite at 5:38 PM on November 6, 2004

"Spiritual warfare" -- isn't that what Muslims call jihad?

Actually Jihad implies you doing something on your own, and not any imaginary creatures fighting around you. It's actually much more sensible and useful an idea that has been misused by terrorist recruiters.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:39 PM on November 6, 2004

Those of us on the left are not telling you red-staters to do a god damn thing. You are the ones telling us that we can't marry who we want, we have to fight your war in Iraq, we have to give our money to your churches though "faith based" programs, and that we have to run a huge debt, which we, in the blue states, paying the vast majority of taxes must make good on. You are the ones telling us that we can't get an abortion. The federal government is not an instrument to advance your religion -- it belongs to all citizens of this country. America was not founded on "christian values." It was founded on enlightenment values, as anyone who has read a decent amount of U.S. history would find obvious. This guy's mom may be friendly and bake apple pies, but there is a spiritual war going on, and we don't like being attacked.
posted by cameldrv at 5:42 PM on November 6, 2004 [1 favorite]

the fact that someone disagrees with your beliefs does not make you morally superior

Well, it doesn't necessarily make you or your views morally superior (I should have thought that was obvious, but since you felt the need to spell it out, I'll certainly concede it). But it can, and it all depends on the nature of the beliefs themselves. My belief that I do not have the right to randomly murder people on the street is morally superior than Jim's belief that he does, and holding a morally superior belief does in fact make me morally superior to him in this regard, for how else would such be judged?

This is what is repugnant about so many Democrats. They don't have the conviction to hold people accountable for demonstrably wrong beliefs and wrong actions (yes, such things do exist in a reality-based world where facts are acknowledged, but go ahead and chime in accusing me of biased "black-and-white" thinking if you feel like missing the point). If all beliefs and actions were equally valid, then you should be equally happy with Bush as with Kerry. It is their Achilles heel, and, among other things, it cost Kerry the election.

If you capitulate to (which is, of course, not the same as compromising with) the other side despite understanding that they are wrong, then you are worse than they are in their misguided ignorance (obviously not all are ignorant that they are doing wrong—some choose to do it for the attendant rewards—but I'll limit my discussion here to those who are). You can choose a pragmatic approach (e.g., dumping support for gay rights because of the political cost), but then you abandon the ethical advantage. By and large, Republicans will stand against the wind to defend their convictions (however appalling they may in fact be), while Democrats lack the courage to do so. Clearly this is because their consituency demands it more than that of their opponents, but the fact remains that cravenness turns off voters more than just about anything else—just listen to them. They're repeating that again and again.
posted by rushmc at 5:43 PM on November 6, 2004

evangelicals aren't stupid, they simply have made certain assumptions that they don't question

You contradict yourself.

And very well said, cameldrv.
posted by rushmc at 5:45 PM on November 6, 2004

Well said, cameldrv.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:50 PM on November 6, 2004

cameldrv in '08.
posted by eatitlive at 5:57 PM on November 6, 2004

Belief systems are not ethnicities or genders. It is not the same thing to say that adherents to belief X tend to do something as it is to say that residents of place Y tend to do something.

The point being made here is that adherents to this belief system that we call evangelical Christianity put much more stock in what they call "faith" than what we call "facts." Indeed, that very belief system profers this behavior. Now, if we can't make predictive judgments about behavior and attitude based on belief systems, shouldn't we just quit doing social science altogether?
posted by aaronetc at 6:00 PM on November 6, 2004

we all make assumptions, rushmc ... each and everyone of us ... and we often don't even realize it ... or question them if we do

are we all stupid?

poorly said, cameldrv ... please explain how my living in a blue state and voting for the green party makes me a red stater

true, american government was not founded on christian values ... but i'm afraid american culture was, for the most part ... hint ... that's why we have so many churches in this country

like it or not, that's our reality ... but only a small minority vote according to their religion ... the rest, including my mother are persuadable ... if you run somebody who can persuade them

the democrats didn't ... and that's why they lost
posted by pyramid termite at 6:02 PM on November 6, 2004

What the hell are you talking about?
posted by eatitlive at 6:08 PM on November 6, 2004

I keep hearing that Kerry was a terrible candidate and THAT's the reason no one voted for him, but it's never explained why. I think it's a bs reason, because there's no rational reason or issue on which to vote for Bush. It's just a popularity contest, where each side voted for whoever was on their side. This election was so SAD. Issuess simply do not matter. It's not the steak, it's the sizzle. That's all I walk away from this with.
posted by xammerboy at 6:27 PM on November 6, 2004

What did the poor ellipse ever do to you? Why must you abuse it so?
posted by FunkyHelix at 6:29 PM on November 6, 2004

what's the solution? ... explain to the evangelicals why reckless wars and not caring for our poorer people is basically against what they believe ... quote chapter and verse ...

Amen, brother. What happened to "love thy neighbor," "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "judge not, lest ye be judged"? I hope true Christians soon realize that their religion is being taken over by forces that are actively subverting the teachings of Christ. There are false prophets in the world.

"As ye have done unto one of the least of these, ye have done unto me." Matthew 25:40
posted by Dean King at 6:33 PM on November 6, 2004

Stupid Canadian questions,

Kerry actually fought in Vietnam and Bush
stayed home hence many Americans feel safer with Bush?

How do you reason/convince/change an adult alive in 2004 who believes in the Devil of anything?
posted by larry_darrell at 6:52 PM on November 6, 2004

I keep hearing that Kerry was a terrible candidate and THAT's the reason no one voted for him, but it's never explained why.

That he recieved more votes than any Democratic Party candidate in American history might have to do with it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:54 PM on November 6, 2004

Email from a 'nutjob' Christian fundy.

Now, my family is very conservative [Mormon], but this is a pretty good example of a crazy one of 'them'. Somehow he got my email address and started spamming me a while back. Since I like to point out when people have very week arguments, I've responded a couple of time. Also, for some reason he thinks I'm hindu.

I dunno how, but here's a couple excerpts of his latest sputtering.

My [Wah], you are such an ELITIST blowhard. I am just wondering which god you
are a warrior of . . . since your beloved Indian religio-philosophy has hundreds, if not thousands of gods. You forgot [Wah], I am a proud HS graduate. I assure you [Wah], I am more learned in the root definition and history of God's name (JEHOVAH) than you might assume.

For one thing, I know it originally appreared in the Old Testamount over 7000 times, in its original vowel form, JEHOVAH just being the closest English translation. Maybe you ought to do some more research on its history, since there are several Bibles published that attest to that fact.

This came about because I have actually quoted scripture to the guy (That Golden Rule thing, and pointed out how pretty much all religions had the same idea at one point). I also tried to point out that JEHOVAH was a somewhat adulterated form of YHWH

Now the bad is that when I try and point out that all Muslims aren't terrorists, and in fact the vast majority are simple, god-fearing folk. Also, I mentioned the 9/11 Commission and Duelfer Reports.

Your hesitency to admit that "demons" do exist on this earth lead me to
believe you do not really believe in God's Word, the Bible, but think that all men and demons are salvageable. That is NOT what God's Word says. Look it up.

Give it up on the WMD baloney. Iraq is just the first of more to come in "exposing and destroying" demon type governments that are holding back the ascention of a Godly World, as promised by JEHOVAH in his Word, The Bible.

Now for the worst part? He hates me because I argue for peace...vehemently...at times.

Lighten up [Wah], your mean streak is not condusive to your claim of
pacifistic integrity. CIAO, Tony Valeri

If you click that google search and find the part where I asked him to stop spamming me, you'll see a post I made about actually calling this guy, on the phone, to try and get him to stop sending me his hate-filled screeds.

The guy is a full grown adult. About 40 or so. He's very comfortable with his 'Christian' values...that absolutely abhor any sense of pacifism.

This guy is an extreme example, no doubt, but I can't even quote scripture to him and point out his general hypocrisy without being branded a 'demon'.

Just so you know that, in fact, the stereotypes *do* exist, and some have figured out email.
posted by wah at 7:04 PM on November 6, 2004

Was Kerry a bad candidate? I think that's the wrong question to be asking. This election was the death of a thousand cuts for the Democrats, and Kerry himself caused a few of those cuts -- I think the question to ask is what were those cuts?

1. Kerry knew he'd be running the day the 107th Congress was called to session and he knew that the votes he made from that day until 11/2/04 would probably be his most scrutinized. Whether or not he voted as he did based on politics or principle (I honestly don't know and don't care which it was), the votes he cast on the big issues before the Senate boxed him into a corner as a candidate. Kerry could never fully come out against the war. He could never fully come out against NCLB. He could never fully come out against the USA PATRIOT Act. Because of this, his campaign was forced to stipulate to the basic premises that Bush had put forth on these issues -- Iraq was a threat to the United States, standardized tests and rigged success measures help kids learn, we need to give the gov't secret powers with no oversight. The details were irrelevant -- he'd ceded the leadership on these things to Bush.

2. For whatever reason, Kerry spent too much running as Not Bush. When he finally started to focus on what a Kerry Administration would look like in its own right, he did a poor job of conveying anything beyond "I have a plan." Even I, a Kerry supporter since the end of the primaries and a devout follower of policy information, don't know how he "planned" to handle Iraq, or how his budget would've added up. (To be honest, I think this campaign posture is reflected in the selection, and subsequent disappearance, of John Edwards -- he was the closest thing they could get to simply not having a running mate.)

Like I said, there are tons of things that can be said to have "caused" this loss. These, IMO, are two of them.
posted by aaronetc at 7:11 PM on November 6, 2004

I keep hearing that Kerry was a terrible candidate and THAT's the reason no one voted for him, but it's never explained why.

right on! goddamit, i'm sick of hearing that.

if the results had been flipped, people who are making that sort of statement would be warning the democrats not to get complacent b/c the high number of votes bush got indicates that the republican message is reaching a significant number of people.

but b/c the results are what they are, we have to hear bullshit about how kerry was a terrible candidate and no one voted for him. good grief.
posted by lord_wolf at 7:17 PM on November 6, 2004

Another little factoid I picked up, the majority of swarthy Arab-Americans targeted by racial profiling are Christian. This actually is not very surprising to me, given that Arab Christians found themselves caught in the middle of many of the conflicts in Palestine and Lebanon.

In my experience, there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on. Some of the largest excuses about the economy and 911 center on decisions made by the Clinton administration. It is an article of faith that Bush's economic policy will eventually turn around and become positive. I think that a lot of people are forgetting that the fact that Saddam Hussein was a very bad man can be used to rationalize the war in Iraq, with the argument being that Saddam Hussein was a modern-day Hitler, and if mistakes were made in justifying the war, the results are worth the cost.

I do think that cultural conservativism was a major factor. On the other hand, I think we need to look at otherwise left-leaning people like Christopher Hitchens as well. Bush supporters have managed to frame the issue in terms of failing to support the war is support for Islamic fascism.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:30 PM on November 6, 2004

The more I read opinions like the one linked, the more I get the feeling that people who voted for Bush voted for a caricature they have a of him and against a caricature of Kerry. To them it was a choice between the Platonic Bush, and the cartoon Kerry. Facts just get in the way.
posted by euphorb at 7:32 PM on November 6, 2004

Bush supporters have managed to frame the issue in terms of failing to support the war is support for Islamic fascism.

If you don't fight the demons, the demons fight you!

Invading the demon homeland and destroying the nest is the only way to be sure.

I've got another atheist libertarian that I argue with, and that's his general argument.

He was also a vet and couldn't even say John F. Kerry without replacing the John the F. or the Kerry with 'fucking asshole cocksucker' or some such. Yea, I attract the happy people.
posted by wah at 7:33 PM on November 6, 2004

How do you reason/convince/change an adult alive in 2004 who believes in the Devil of anything?

You marginalize them so they can't do any harm and you educate their children.
posted by rushmc at 7:34 PM on November 6, 2004

Wow. Bringing this up seems to have brought up a lot of intense feelings, judging by the first thirty or so posts.

As it should.

I belonged to a cult for a few years, and am familiar with this us-vs.-them mentality. The fact that evangelical Christians are so numerous does not, in my mind, excuse them from cult status.

A sad moment in time for our country.

In 1646, Puritans made it a capital offense to deny that the Bible was the Word of God.

Not predicting a theocracy, but...ya gotta remember yr roots.
posted by kozad at 7:36 PM on November 6, 2004

wah: Invading the demon homeland and destroying the nest is the only way to be sure.

I think in addition to that, I think there is a psychological phenomenon in that the more committed you are to something, the less likely you are to be critical down the road. So people who really felt that regime change was necessary in Iraq, are more willing to accept the interpretation that the WMDs snafu was an honest mistake, or that it did not matter.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:43 PM on November 6, 2004

explain to the evangelicals why reckless wars and not caring for our poorer people is basically against what they believe

Oh, and by the way, immoral godless heathens, whatever you do, don't be condescending or act as if you think you're smarter than them, even though you have to explain to a FUCKING CHRISTIAN why "reckless wars" are "bad", and "caring for poorer people" is "good".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:46 PM on November 6, 2004

Well, it is clear what we need to do, then. We need to start converting people, especially young people, one at a time and with the same kind of organization and same kind of zeal that conservative Christians do.

If you've ever had somebody try to convert you, they do it in friendly, sometimes even fun, ways. They invite you to parties (with Christians), they avoid arguing with you, they try to find common ground. Most of the time, they don't go around yelling and screaming "you're so stupid!"

Thus, if we want their votes, we need to convert them.

Since Christianity can be used to justify almost anything, I propose we start a kind of Christianity that supports, say, freedom and tolerance and kindness and peace. It will be easier for them to swing over into our church if we already claim we are Christians. Plus, we can ask them to behave in the way that, you know, Jesus actually suggested people behave.

Problem solved. Let's get to work.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:49 PM on November 6, 2004

This was a good find. The essay is dead on, from everything I can tell. I've lived around southern conservatives all my life, and this is a pretty spot on definition of how they think.

The problem, from my perspective, is how incredibly spooky it is, and how many people believe it. Actually, it's not the believing thing I have a problem with, it's the enforcement of their rules upon everyone else.

Maybe it is time to consider allowing states to secede, and the half into the holy war thing can have their theocracy and the rest can have a representative republic. (Abortions for some, shiny flags for others...)
posted by dejah420 at 7:59 PM on November 6, 2004

The essay is not completely spot on. My mother's a devout - I cannot stress that word enough - Southern Baptist, and she voted for Kerry. I seriously doubt she's the only one, even if she's in a minority. The thing you have to understand here is that the author is talking about the white south. And once you understand that, you have to consider the impact of underlying secular or civic culture. The white evangelical church long ago made peace, and became the servant of, the existing social order. Blacks are still primarily Democratic in the South for that very reason, even if they still come off as pretty conservative when you talk to them and are pretty darned churchy, as a population.
posted by raysmj at 8:08 PM on November 6, 2004

Great idea Joey Michaels - it's called Unitarianism. Except that behaving the way that Jesus actually suggested we behave means not going around trying to convert people to your way of thinking. Sucks, doesn't it? Your suggestion is perfect example of fighting your enemy by becoming your enemy. I'm now imagining a 3-way war for global dominance between fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, and fundamentalist secular humanists. Good times!

And yes, I know of one Baptist minister who recently delivered a sermon to his flock, telling them that if they are "pro-life" then they cannot in good conscience support the war in Iraq. Every population has a few outliers on the bell curve; I thought the essay was spot-on.
posted by junkbox at 8:17 PM on November 6, 2004

I am routinely awed by the voices I encounter on Metafilter. Awed, actually, in both ways - by the clarity of thinking and profound integrity of some of you, and by the witlessness of others.

Tonight I'm in awe of people like Dreama and Sonserae, who seem from their profiles to be not uninvolved with information technology - technology ultimately derived from and built on centuries of painstaking, empirical effort. They benefit, in other words, from the fruits of a culture they are in the end passionately opposed to.

I guess I just find the irony heartbreaking, and I guess I'm about come around to a way of thinking that says we should let them have what they want. Let them have their theocracy, their platitudinous, empty "morality" and the hypocritical piety of their "values." Let them teach their children about "intelligent design" and "spiritual warfare." Let them have their day, let them shrivel, let them run down like a mainspring unwinding, let them shudder to a halt.

What great discoveries will they make? What great insights will arise out of the heart of their culture? I cannot begin to imagine. "Dreama" indeed.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:21 PM on November 6, 2004

Facts just get in the way.

For those who are never taught to value them, they absolutely do.
posted by rushmc at 8:29 PM on November 6, 2004

A couple replies...

I think there is a psychological phenomenon in that the more committed you are to something, the less likely you are to be critical down the road.

Yea, this is something I've been hammering away on. The concept is 'cognitive dissonance' and it's been all over the place lately. However, if you look around, it goes both ways. Both sides have been using the term to explain the 'stupidity' of the other.

The term 'reality based community' captures it quite well, IMHO.

In my defence, I started asking a PhD phychologist (my best friend's wife) about it a while back when I noticed that despite all evidence to the contrary, people were still supporting the war, still thinking Saddam attacked us (very, very sad photo), and that the world supported our actions (see PIPA studies). She explained it pretty well, and it does fit into what I still think is something of an open conspiracy (see, "Power of Nightmares" and wikipedia). So as KirkJobSluder mentioned, the thing is rampantly running around.

As to the solution...

Well, it is clear what we need to do, then. We need to start converting people, especially young people, one at a time and with the same kind of organization and same kind of zeal that conservative Christians do.

If you've ever had somebody try to convert you, they do it in friendly, sometimes even fun, ways.

This is kinda where I get a bit freaky myself. My general conception of the solution and the reality we find ourselves in, falls more in line with the term 'pantheism'. Albeit a 21st century definition of the term (not the one Bruno got burned at the stake for). Currently I'm working on something of a 'proof' of the concept, based loosely on quantum physics (and history, cognition, linguistics, art, and anything else I can find). I've been working on this proof for a good long while, but took a stop off in 'stoned slacker land' for a few years. This, quite naturally, slowed me down for a while, but hey, there's no time like the present (well, ignoring the fact that ALL time is like the present...)

Anyway...I've been drinking and it's been an emotionally trying day. Thinking and feeling like someone on the other side of the world is possible, but it requires massive amounts of effort/energy and frankly, hurts deep inside.

So I'll stop for a moment. However, before I do, I think this is the right way to fix the problem. It is not more violence that is called for, but more understanding.

On preview someone mentioned the 'Unitarians', and I think they have a faith along the same lines, but I've never read their reasoning for accepting it, so I can't really speak on it.

Finally, and BTW, I'm a Texas boy myself, and the description of Southern Baptists is dead-on accurate.

Getting to the 'next generation' is very important. Both Christ and Max Planck agreed on that one..
posted by wah at 8:33 PM on November 6, 2004

Those of us on the left are not telling you red-staters to do a god damn thing.

This certainly is not the view of a lot of middle America. In fact, a good deal of middle America - and not only evangelicals - have felt for some time that they were under assault by an utterly morals-free culture, championed by Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and largely supported by urban liberals. They perceive this elite to have almost complete control of the nation's schools and universities (which they largely do), and a good deal of the expenditure of social funds. They will tell you what words you can and can't say. What is politically "correct" and what isn't. They'll see their tax dollars spent to teach 6th graders how to use condoms. They see anything but Christianity permitted to be taught in schools.

You are the ones telling us that we can't marry who we want ...

No ... you've never been able to marry "who you want". Marriage is a very, very old tradition that has always (in virtually every culture - current and historical) been understood as a union between a man and a woman. The courts are now starting to completely re-define that - and the legislation in the last election was a means of preempting that. (And, by the way, this isn't a red/blue issue. Kerry came out against gay marriage, and one of Clinton's critiques of Kerry was that he didn't make a big enough deal of his opposition).

we have to fight your war in Iraq ...

As blue state taxpayers had to fund any military choices Clinton made. And Kennedy. Etc., etc. The President is the Commander in Chief. This is a democracy, that can vote the President out of office if it believes a war he starts is not justified. This country did not vote George Bush out of office.

we have to give our money to your churches though "faith based" programs

The red-state response is that they have long had to give money to (largely liberal) unionized federal bureaucrats in the "helping professions", who absolutely adamantly refused to permit any of those funds to be dispersed through churches (that, as a practical matter, have often proved far more effective at delivering actual services). The money going to faith-based programs is a tiny fraction of what goes to social services. You are the ones that vigorously resist any of it going to churches. Freaking Kwanza is celebrated in schools, but a Christian nativity scene is illegal - and you claim you are not "telling anyone to do a god damned thing"?

and that we have to run a huge debt, which we, in the blue states, paying the vast majority of taxes must make good on.

Economies go through booms and busts. The economy was tanking before Bush took office. The internet bubble had collapsed - and 9/11 would have hit the economy hard no matter who was in office. Bush is a conservative, and his approach to the recession was tax cuts - the basic view being that the government can't create jobs, businesses create jobs. And the "vast majority" of taxes are paid by those in the top 10% of the country - whether they live in red or blue states. Close to 50% of the population (in red or blue states) pay virtually no taxes at all. You accuse conservatives of being "selfish". what is more "selfish" ... conservatives insisting they have the right to keep more of the money they earn, or liberals insisting that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have more of a right to take it and spend it than those who create it in the first place? You cannot tax your way out of a recession.

You are the ones telling us that we can't get an abortion.

And you're the ones saying we should keep our mouths shut even if we believe it is deeply wrong. Free speech and the use of political sphere is fine as long as you tow the liberal party line - that has now come to be established as the norm - but is apparently wrong if anyone else dares assert an opinion. When liberals deluge the culture with standards that assert that there are no standards (other than "anyone can do anything they feel like at the moment") they seem utterly blind to the fact that they are imposing a powerful environment on everyone - even if they deeply dislike it.

Yet when a serious reaction not only builds, but manages to win, suddenly it is "stupid fanatical evangelicals" that are "imposing" themselves of you. Go ahead and whine. A good number of people in the red states (and a not inconsiderable number in the blue) are feeling a bit affirmed right now - because for several decades they've had to live under an ideology that - to them - has been as extreme and subtlely brutal as the fanatics of any religion can be.

The federal government is not an instrument to advance your religion -- it belongs to all citizens of this country.

Nor is the federal government an instrument for advancing your ideology - regardless of whether that ideology is organized around a religion or not. And for a good number of people in the "red states", the perception is that an ideology every bit as focused and domineering as any religion has had almost complete control of the country for quite some time. These people would say the same thing to you - they are every bit as much "citizens" of this country as you are. They have every bit as much right to advocate their positions as you have to advocate yours. Yet somehow, when you are in power and vigorously asserting your value systems and priorities on them, "democracy" is fine. But when they win, suddenly it is an evil theocracy that you have to pay for, a value system is being "imposed" on you, and you start talking about moving to Canada.

America was not founded on "christian values." It was founded on enlightenment values, as anyone who has read a decent amount of U.S. history would find obvious.

Also obvious would be the fact that America was founded on the assumption that "rights" are inextricably linked to "responsibilities". It is fine to say that the founding fathers would not affirm the current view of evangelical christianity - that is a correct statement. But the founding fathers also would not affirm gay marriage, or abortion, or any one of a dozen other pillars of the liberal faith.

This guy's mom may be friendly and bake apple pies, but there is a spiritual war going on, and we don't like being attacked.

The attacking is certainly not one-sided. I realize you're pissed that you lost, and don't understand why (now you know how conservatives felt when Clinton got re-elected). But your attacks were every bit as low, and nasty, and vicious, and the Republicans. Politics is bloodsport - but at the end of the day, the post-election attitudes say a good deal about why you lost. It is not because Americans are stupid, or because evangelicals want to rule your lives, or because Bush=Hitler. You lost because the radical left in the country (and, by the way, on MeFi) has come to so completely believe that they owned the country that they utterly forget that the country is composed of ordinary people living relatively modest (or, to you, boring and conservative) lives.

They get up and go to work. They buy houses. They get married and try to raise children. They don't believe Hollywood represents their value systems, that Michael Moore or MoveOn represents their ideology, or that all ethical standards are equal (as the old saying in libertarian circles goes, libertarians believe drugs and prostitution should be legal - until their daughters start selling their bodies to buy crack).

To try to set a standard in which the norm is that anyone should be free to do anything they want - and anyone that dares argue should be accused of "telling you what to do", or trying to control you, is just not selling in the US anymore ... because for several decades, whether you want to accept it or not, you've been imposing a value system on everyone else.

The attitudes of the Hollywood folks, and the rock stars and extreme left in the country were almost the height of arrogance both leading up to the election, and even after it. You are so utterly convinced you are right about everything that even after losing the basic response is not to reflect upon the fact that to govern in a democracy you need to understand and affirm the majority of the population you wish to serve, but rather, to call that majority stupid fanatics, and tell them they you are disappointed in them for not living up to your standards ... and openly contemplate such things as violence (intellectual or physical), or moving out of the country (geez - talk about having "made assumptions that you don't even question").

I personally have no problem with any of rhetoric going on on MeFi, or the larger democratic circles. Go ahead, keep condemning the country for your loss (instead of looking at yourselves). Call a significant portion of the population you claim the right to govern "stupid". Get even more radical. Turn up the heat. Threaten violence. Threaten to move. Make your statements even more extreme than they were before the election. Rest content in your superiority. Use all manner of passive-agressive tactics to kick anyone out of your circles that dares dispute the rightness of your position in even a mild way (as you've certainly managed to do on MeFi). And continue to claim all the while that that you are warm, compassionate, open-minded people that only want the best for "everyone". Keep at it, and you'll lose election after election.

I'm certain all sorts of folks here will pick apart everything I've said, and probably launch a few gratuitous personal attacks (which is why it is not worth it to post on MeFi anymore). You lost the election (after taunting the few token conservatives here ceaselessly for months about how Bush was going to get tossed out totally). And you lost big time. Not just the popular and electoral votes in the Presidential election, but seats in Congress as well. In the end, objective reality trumps rhetoric.

For whatever it's worth - I believe that truth of the matter is actually fairly simple, but may not be too palatable. You didn't lose because of Diebold, or that evil Karl Rove, or because America is "stupid". You lost (I believe) because we live in a representative democracy, and you not only differ with a significant percentage of the people you want to represent, but actively condemn them as stupid fanatics with closed minds - merely because they differ with you.

If you really want to understand why you lost, simply read the post-election posts on MeFi - and ask yourself whether you deserve to govern a country who's majority you hate.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:34 PM on November 6, 2004

That has to be the longest straw-man argument I've ever read.

What "permissive, anything goes" culture do you mean precisely, Midas? Was it a "permissive, anything goes" culture that made Jimmy Swaggart and Jack Ryan and David Smith and Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush and Jim Bakker do what they did? Or did Hollyweird and Jew York weave some woeful spell over them?

I think the last time any authentic member of the American Left, such as it is, asserted an ethos of "do what you want, as long as it feels good" may have been 1969, maybe 1970. (The Big Dog doesn't count. There's no "L" in "Ricky Ray Rector.")

Really, the stench of hypocrisy in here approaches that of the men's room at CB's at closing on Sunday morning.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:49 PM on November 6, 2004

I propose we start a kind of Christianity that supports, say, freedom and tolerance and kindness and peace.

it already exists. it's called quakerism. and you can learn about it here.
posted by glenwood at 8:55 PM on November 6, 2004

And calling someone's post a "straw man argument" has got to be one of the oldest tactics on discussions boards for dismissing something without thinking about it. As I said, I certainly invite you to maintain your sense of superiority. I sort of like it when my side wins elections.

I was actually attempting to get a point across that a few of the more moderate liberals here might consider to be worth looking at. Probably not though. Oh well, carry on ... I'll leave y'all to your preaching-to-the-choir filter.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:58 PM on November 6, 2004

Freaking Kwanza is celebrated in schools, but a Christian nativity scene is illegal

and, as most red staters seem to view it, kwanza is a holiday made up by black people because "those people" just have to be contrarian.

never mind that the history behind kwanza is taught in some schools, not celebrated, and that it's not a religious holiday. good grief.

They'll see their tax dollars spent to teach 6th graders how to use condoms.

nevermind that the preponderance of evidence suggests that teaching young people about sex reduces the incidence of std's and teen pregnancy (look up data on european countries that aren't as sex-negative as the u.s.a.)

been understood as a union between a man and a woman

nevermind that,for quite some time, in much of the land area of the Greatest Democracy on the Planet(TM), it was understood (i.e., legally defined) to be between a man and a woman of the same "race," and that eventually this understanding changed.

You didn't lose because of..[snipped]

and i'll repeat something i said in a different thread: if the results had been flipped, people like you would have been advising the democrats that they can't be complacent because the high number of votes bush got indicates that the republican message is reaching a significant number of people. but b/c kerry lost, you kick this bullshit idea that the democrats are elitist and out of touch. as we said in the old neighborhood back in the day, don't step to me with that weak shit, money.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:59 PM on November 6, 2004

adamgreenfield,

I think the last time any authentic member of the American Left

There is no such thing as what you have just described. Because 'the left' is so disjointed, and so relativisitic in their 'values' and so .... diffuse, no real expression of 'liberal values' has been expressed in the last 30 years.

As such a thing doesn't exist, you can't really blame 'the right' for missing it.

BTW, 'the left' WON when their last set of values resonated (racial tolerance, more rights for women, ending Vietnam...)

You also miss Midas' most cogent point (IMHO).

You lost because the radical left in the country (and, by the way, on MeFi) has come to so completely believe that they owned the country that they utterly forget that the country is composed of ordinary people living relatively modest (or, to you, boring and conservative) lives.

For these people, the threat to these simple lives (terrorism, socialism/communism, high taxes) resonates deeply.

The girl who asked Kerry about Abortion in the debates is the one we (I'm left handed.) need to convince that our vision for the country won't make her hate the place.
posted by wah at 9:00 PM on November 6, 2004

"PRESIDENT Bush and Vice President Cheney make reference to "Massachusetts liberals" as if they were referring to people with some kind of disease. I decided it was time to do some research on these people, and here is what I found......The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.

But don't take the US government's word for it......"
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on November 6, 2004

This woman's list makes it clear that she fell, hook, line, and sinker, for every single talking-point put forward by Fox News. It's clear that she did no research whatsoever before she voted.

I hope that the images--if we get to see them--of blown up babies in Iran make her cry even harder.
posted by interrobang at 9:02 PM on November 6, 2004

Midas, just because calling someone out on their straw-man tactics is a time-honored gambit does not invalidate *my* calling *you* out on *your* straw-man tactics.

Nice try, though.

I also find it adorable when you, of all people, accuse someone of smugness.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:05 PM on November 6, 2004

interrobang.

It's clear that she did no research whatsoever before she voted.

Yes she did (in her mind). And she did so by watching Fox News. I know, I know, that makes you seethe, but it's what happened. Bush won by pretty much exactly the number of daily FNC viewers.

The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households, CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.

But what can you do? We still believe in Voltaire, don't we?
posted by wah at 9:08 PM on November 6, 2004

Midas, just because calling someone out on their straw-man tactics is a time-honored gambit does not invalidate *my* calling *you* out on *your* straw-man tactics.

Yes, but it would help if you actually made sure you were facing a straw-man argument before calling it what it (in this case) isn't.
posted by oaf at 9:13 PM on November 6, 2004

Wow ... I've never seen anyone actually try to justify a cheap rhetorical trick in quite such a fashion. Nice work.

Whether I personally accuse anyone of smugness or not is beside the point (which hardly matters, as its clear you aren't even going to make the attempt to get the point - though I'm certain you'll continue to be really cute and clever in your attempts to dismiss it). As smug, or arrogant as I - as a token conservative here - can get, it will be but a mere drop compared to the oceans full of hateful, arrogant rhetoric that has poured out in a number of posts over the past few days.

It seemed like it might just be worth it - to those who actually want to figure out what went wrong with the Democratic party - to step back for a moment and really look at what the genuine opinion is that it holds of the majority of Americans.

(Personally, I have a vested interest in seeing a solid, competitive, two-party system work in the US. I don't want either party to control the government without a good fight ... and I'm actually a bit worried that as things currently stand, the Democratic party is partway to self-destructing).
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:17 PM on November 6, 2004

The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households

Yes, I understand this, but it doesn't fully explain everything; though I'm not a Nielson Household, I watch Fox News pretty regularly, just to see what Karl Rove's up to. So do these people.

I think Fox's ratings are a little bit skewed because a good number of people watch it to follow the false narrative the Bush Administration puts forward. That's why I watch it, and I can't possibly be the only one.
posted by interrobang at 9:22 PM on November 6, 2004

it will be but a mere drop compared to the oceans full of hateful, arrogant rhetoric that has poured out in a number of posts over the past few days.

Yeah, well, we don't have our own State-controlled television station like you guys do. We do what we can.
posted by interrobang at 9:27 PM on November 6, 2004

My general conception of the solution and the reality we find ourselves in, falls more in line with the term 'pantheism'.

Pantheism doesn't work when the other guys' god tells them you are evil and not-to-be-tolerated.

you not only differ with a significant percentage of the people you want to represent, but actively condemn them as stupid fanatics with closed minds - merely because they differ with you.

Repeating that claim ad infinitum will not make it any less false. No one is "condemn[ing] them as stupid fanatics with closed minds" because they differ from us. We're not. We're condemning them as such, if we are, because we have concluded for a myriad of reasons that the description is apt.

Try again.
posted by rushmc at 9:29 PM on November 6, 2004

Reality-based America cannot reach a woman who thinks Air America radio is the best outlet for current liberal thought. Nor should it try to reach a woman who read all the PNAC essays, they scared her, and she still voted their proxy because someone on the radio made her feel bad. If that's the level of thought rational voters can expect from people voting for their religion, then we need to simply split up. Reality-based America cannot reach faith-based America, because faith-based America does not want to be reached.

"... there is a human scale to political order, that a great state is not necessarily a large one. Liberals are forever telling us that America is a country of change; they celebrate the rapid mobility of labor and capital and the massive influx of immigration, legal and illegal. We are told that we must get used to change and that the dissolution of traditional American society is the price we must pay for a freer and more universal society. We never notice that the change they celebrate is in the service of greater centralization on the part of the state and of corporations. Change always heads in the direction of gigantism -- of the Tower of Babel. Fredom and human flourishing might require not more unity and centralization but more division, separation, and diversification. The day may not be far off when the centralizers, having flourshied for three centuries, will have to learn to live with change." -- Donald Livingston
posted by raaka at 9:30 PM on November 6, 2004

You wish it was a caricature. I was raised evangelical in the South and this essay is spot on, right down to the kid imagining angels and demons conducting "spiritual warfare" around him. from way up thread

That was my thought exactly when I saw this. If you've never been to the South, you have no idea how different some residents can be. And stubborn. I have my own problems with the culture of the South, but I feel I've a bit more room to talk since I spent a great amount of my life there. It's a strange quandry of agreeing with the people who look down at the wingnut fundies and wanting to defend the place I grew up because my childhood was not horrible. Not all together unpleasant, but a quandry nonetheless.
posted by somethingotherthan at 9:43 PM on November 6, 2004

rushmc,

Pantheism doesn't work when the other guys' god tells them you are evil and not-to-be-tolerated.

It does work when you can explain how their god and your god share a curious number of isomorphisms. It's the difference between semantics and meaning. Different spoken or written words are used to describe the same internal conception.

The main one being the concept of 'light' that is so inherent to both Christianity and Quantum Mechanics.

There are always those that will simply reject it. It cannot be helped, that's where Planck's Khunian quote comes in. The natural revolution of cultural generations is where the differences can be resolved. Beyond a certain age, everyone has already checked on the cat, so to speak.

We all share the same genome, but the information that it processes is where the main difference in our conceptions lay.

raaka,

Nor should it try to reach a woman who read all the PNAC essays

Very, very, very few supporters of Bush from the evangelical side even know about PNAC. During another exchange with a number of Texan conservatives, I mentioned PNAC and they had never heard of it. It's not something that any of the MSM really talks about, at least in the U.S. of A.
posted by wah at 9:52 PM on November 6, 2004

Midas, your whole argument seems to be based on a bunch of stereotypes the right wing nuts like to perpetuate. Rush Limbaugh, and his ilk have been attacking anything to the left of them for years, and folks just seem to believe what these folks say, and rarely question it.

Midas, I always thought you were a free market fundie not a religious fundie?

And another thing, fuck it, we lost, and in 4 years when the country is deeper in debt, and still no better off for the adventures in the middle east the tide will shift back. I think the real reason Kerry lost was we aren't too far enough removed from Sept 11 2001, and Bush's swagger and tough talk, and his resolve are what people want now, right or wrong. And to be honest, Kerry or any of the other Dems who ran were going to have a tough time beating Bush, Dean was too loud and obnoxious, Lieberman was too much like Bush, Gephardt would have been backpedaling from the Iraq vote just like Kerry, Edwards too, and Kucinich was just nuts, Sharpton has a bad history. The Dems needed a Barak Obama, but they didn't have that on a national level.

The Left needs a steady message of strength, calmness, and rationality right now. The reason the right wingers get away with attacking liberals is that liberals come across as whiny people who defend things that normal working class folks find uncomfortable, the left needs to come from a place of faith, of belief in country, and a belief that we Americans are the best, the left likes to point out the faults, and like it or not the messenger does get killed, stop pointing out the bullshit, or find a way to do it that doesn't put the average citizen on the defensive.

Now I don't want to sound like a little bitch it isn't all our fault, the right wing rich guy propaganda machine of the Heritage Foundation, the National Review, Fox News, and all the other right wing nut think tanks, and propagandamedia need to be marginalized, but marginalized in a way that doesn't make the people who occasionally listen to them defensive.

The best example of the point I'm trying to get across as I sit here rambling on a Saturday night half stoned on Nyquill is the Barak Obama speech from the DNC, he was liberal, but in such a way that was mainstream and easy to swallow for most Americans.

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who cant read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who cant pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief—I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper—that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
posted by jbou at 10:01 PM on November 6, 2004

MidasMulligan's character praises the ignorance of "middle america" (whatever the fuck that means) in the same way as a colonialist praises the noble savage.

Anyway, the problem with the democrats' problem is they estimated how much of Midas' romanticized middle america really really hate people that are different from them.

(and before you start in on 'calling all republicans racists draw yourself a fucking Venn diagram.)
posted by Space Coyote at 10:02 PM on November 6, 2004

Wow ... so it clearly wasn't worth it to say anything. Sorry 'bout that folks. I'll leave you alone in your closed circle.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:19 PM on November 6, 2004

I'll leave you alone in your closed circle.

They don't seem to have quite yet accepted the present, and the failure of looking down on the winners.

Maybe the Diebold stuff will shake out, and we'll be vindicated...but my hopes are no predicated upon such an event happening.

Thanks for sharing. I don't agree, obviously, but I believe you at least to be honest in your statements.
posted by wah at 10:46 PM on November 6, 2004

It does work when you can explain how their god and your god share a curious number of isomorphisms.

They lynched you as soon as you said "isomorphism." Too many syllables, you damned elitist.

I'll leave you alone in your closed circle.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

This is what the capitulation crowd is really advocating.
posted by rushmc at 10:57 PM on November 6, 2004

I'll leave you alone in your closed circle.

On the contrary Midas, thanks for sharing another viewpoint, I may not agree with you, but it's fascinating.
posted by jeblis at 11:01 PM on November 6, 2004

I apologize for everything I believe in. May I go now?
posted by homunculus at 11:06 PM on November 6, 2004

Well, it was nice of midas to share, and some of the comments made in reply are weird, but ... could you stick to the actual article a little better? And since when has politics not been a forum for advancing one's ideas? Ideologies are dangerous, sure, but ideas informed by a vague worldview, yet carefully considered and informed by empirical analysis when possible are not. If I believe there to be a need for universal health care, and and after much analysis of this (from comparative studies, cost-benefit analysis, what have you) conclude that there should be some role for the government in this, I'm taking part in the policymaking process. Others are free to disagree with me, and they should be respected as long as their arguments are well-reasoned. So we'll hash out our ideas in the political arena, complete with warring cost-benefit analyses and whatnot.

When you advance a view strictly on faith, however, when you base your ideas strictly upon religion, you're not likely to do much good for the whole. Religion and ideology are very similar in this way, certainly, but arguments based in favor of universal health care and greater environmental protection aren't based on ideology alone or any sort of faith alone. Well, in most cases they aren't. There is plenty of data and analysis to back up a good case for both.
posted by raysmj at 11:06 PM on November 6, 2004

Marriage is a very, very old tradition that has always (in virtually every culture - current and historical) been understood as a union between a man and a woman.

I'm pretty sure love fits in there somewhere. Of course, up until this century love had very little to do with marriage. Things change.


Bush is a conservative, and his approach to the recession was tax cuts - the basic view being that the government can't create jobs, businesses create jobs.

Now that's just silly. The public sector accounts for over a third of the GDP. Government jobs accounted for a huge chunk of the job gains under Bush's tenure. He takes credit for them all the time.


And the "vast majority" of taxes are paid by those in the top 10% of the country - whether they live in red or blue states. Close to 50% of the population (in red or blue states) pay virtually no taxes at all.

That's essentially correct. I hadn't known that.
posted by euphorb at 11:31 PM on November 6, 2004

Wow ... so it clearly wasn't worth it to say anything. Sorry 'bout that folks. I'll leave you alone in your closed circle.


Sore loser.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:02 AM on November 7, 2004

Midas, how can you not understand this:

Liberals do have values. We do believe some things are right and some are wrong (the only people who don't are sociopaths and certain philosophy students).

We are not hollywood. We do not align ourselves with hollywood, even with if some hollywood actors align themselves with us. We think hollywood puts out entertaining, hyperviolent dreck, and worry about the effects the media has on culture. (TV Turnoff Week is a mostly liberal movement.)

When liberals deluge the culture with standards that assert that there are no standards (other than "anyone can do anything they feel like at the moment")

I already responded to this point, but I'm so pissed off I'll do it again:

What? What? Are you out of your mind? Please point me to someone who's saying there are no standards. Nobody's saying it.

This is why people said your post was a strawman argument. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that liberals have no sense of right and wrong?
posted by Tlogmer at 12:04 AM on November 7, 2004

On preview, I agree with jeblis. Don't stop posting here.
posted by Tlogmer at 12:06 AM on November 7, 2004

stavros:

No one, other than you, said anything about morals -- those socially-constructed crutches for the frightened and small-minded, if I am to give away my position -- let alone which arbitrary set might be 'superior'.

If you think certain things are better than other things, or that certain policies are better than others, or if you find the google censorship "a little disturbing", you have what Midas means by morals.
posted by Tlogmer at 12:13 AM on November 7, 2004

Midas - Thank you for your post. Though I do not agree with you entirely, I think you are right on your analysis of how many conservative people have reacted to certain things in the left. And you've made one of the most rational and thought provoking posts in the thread.

That said, I think Tlogmer makes a very good point about "who" the left are. They are not Hollywood (nor is Hollywood largely supported by urban liberals - I would have thought elitists would prefer independent film), not are they necessarily gas mask collecting anarchists, any more than conservatives are Landover Baptists. Liberals also work, raise children, buy homes (when they can afford to, which doesn't actually include anyone in my family).Sometimes we all find ourselves with fellow-travellors. Sometimes we disagree on goals, sometimes we agree on goals, but not tactics.

I really liked this article (the one at the top, I know it's been a while) because of its refusal to find simple answers to difficult questions. The author was confronted with his wn beliefs, but also with the conflicting beliefs of someone he respects and loves dearly. I actually have a great deal of respect for faith - it seems to me to take more courage to believe in something you cannot touch, see or hear than it does to be a skeptic. But at the same time, I can see the social conflict inherent when both sides feel that their lives are being affected negatively by the beliefs of the other.

I know that when confronted with an elderly and religious relative who was very against gay marriage, I did not try to tell her that she should approve of it. I did try to say how someone else's life would not (should not?) affect her, that no gay person was trying to "flaunt" their gayness or make her uncomfortable by getting married, that no church would be forced to preform gay marriages. I don't know if I suceeded in changing her mind - I hope that maybe next time, she might think a little differently, unlike her husband, who just declared that marriage was between a man and a woman and that was the end of the conversation. I wouldn't want her to change her faith - but just recognise that it could co-exist with another.
posted by jb at 1:29 AM on November 7, 2004

MidasMulligan, I owe you a beer for that comment. That was absolutely spot-on--well, I might quibble with one or two details, but thank you for posting that.

Look, I'm not especially religious; I'm not even a Christian. No one in my family except for my aunt has ever lived in a Red State in the 120+ years we've been in this country (not even for our college years, not in six generations, not unless you count my grandfather's two years doing Army Air Force training in the South during WWII). Heck, my husband's family are even actual stereotypical Hollywood liberals. But I am a Republican. We exist. You may think our opinions are seriously wrong. That's fine! My husband's a Democrat and voted for Kerry; we argue a bit, but get along great. That's because there's a crucial difference between I think position X is wrong and thinking that we're all, every last one of us, seriously stupid, or brainwashed, or ignorant, or uneducated, or whatever word makes you feel more superior, as opposed to just being on the other side of things. It's the same intolerant itch that makes otherwise nice people, people I even consider my friends, blurt things like "but you seem so nice!" when I tell them I'm a Republican, and truly not see their own prejudices. Swap in "smart" or "normal" and you'll get the same idea.

It's this utter condescension that sticks out the most at us, and stinks. Maybe I feel it more because, like I said, I personally don't share any attributes with the frustrated, angry words that are commonly being thrown about this week: hillbilly, hick, fundie, uneducated, whatever. But I'm certainly not the only one who has noticed this alarming tendency to disparage the other side's brainpower rather than to possibly, maybe, understand that we do understand what the Democrats were selling this year, quite well in fact, but we just weren't buying it. If the fundamental reaction to this year's loss is to be "well, it just goes to show that Americans are stupid crazy idiots", that's, uh, not exactly a winning strategy. It will soothe your egos, though, and at the moment, that appears to be more important.

In the same vein, I care less that Democrats are upset about the election results (well, who wouldn't be, when your side lost?) than that they seem somehow shellshocked by them, as if to say how could this have happened?. If you were pro-Kerry, temporary depression about the election results seems like a normal, albeit unpleasant result. But wouldn't you agree that this widespread utter confusion and incomprehension, this casting about for scapegoats, is symptomatic that liberals have walled themselves off from the larger American culture to the point that they seem mystified and scared when reality comes crashing back in? (And, er, what's this I read about a "reality-based culture"? There's that smug superiority complex rearing its head again.)

But I also agree almost completely with jbou's comment, especially this part: "The Left needs a steady message of strength, calmness, and rationality right now. The reason the right wingers get away with attacking liberals is that liberals come across as whiny people who defend things that normal working class folks find uncomfortable, the left needs to come from a place of faith, of belief in country, and a belief that we Americans are the best, the left likes to point out the faults" It's a good prescription for slogging uphill and getting yourselves out of the mire the Democrars have sunk into.

For example, when he says "Dean was too loud and obnoxious, Lieberman was too much like Bush", etc., you're so close to truth and yet can't see it: I and many other people would have gladly voted for a Democrat for the first time ever had it been Lieberman on the ticket against Bush. (And no, in my case it's not because of the Jewish thing either.) Lieberman is exactly the kind of guy the Democrats need. Strongly moral (not to be confused with religious, though the two do seem to often travel hand-in-hand). Willing to stick up for unpopular positions (I still remember his answer at the Democratic primaries debates when he was the only guy willing to firmly say that deposing Saddam was the right thing to do and that he stood by his vote, even though he must have known that saying that would sink his candidacy). In a word: character. I get the same good strong gut feeling about Obama, whom I look forward to voting for someday. And even hardcore Republicans like Peggy Noonan and the National Review guys/gals who reviewed his speech all saw it too; you can't hide that kind of light under a bushel.

I truly do hope the Democratic party pulls itself together and finds its soul again. We have immensely frightening problems in the world now and for perhaps the next twenty years--and I'm sure, people on the Left who read that will automatically think "...most of them caused by Bush", while I and people on the right would sincerely think "...most of them caused by a dangerous unwillingness to confront terrorism, despotism, tyranny, and other Bad Shit." But regardless, the future is too important to be left to any one political party, even if I do think mine would, on the whole, handle it better. We need a counterweight, a check, but most of all we need your help and support for getting through the CrapFarm of the next few years. I hope you guys get over your sulking and put together a kickass campaign in 2008.
posted by Asparagirl at 2:49 AM on November 7, 2004

Wow.

I honestly don't mean to be snarky, but I never imagined the day would come when Republicans and conservatives would be so... well, "touchy-feely". All this talk about "character", "arrogance", "faith", and other such things.

Am I the last guy in the USA who expects my state and federal employees to do their job and actually run the country, not be my f*cking friend?

[/no party affiliation]
posted by PsychoKick at 3:50 AM on November 7, 2004

midas - "In fact, a good deal of middle America - and not only evangelicals - have felt for some time that they were under assault by an utterly morals-free culture, championed by Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and largely supported by urban liberals."

i think that's somewhat of a misperception, though ... there are few places in red state america where you can't find pornography for sale or people to buy it, for example ... many of the people you work and live with support this culture, not just the urban liberals ... and the morals in popular culture argument is usually centered around sexual behavior, when there are things such as violence and greed which are also expressed and not as strongly criticized ... the solution is to come up with creative work that expresses an alternative viewpoint ... which a lot of people have been doing

"They perceive this elite to have almost complete control of the nation's schools and universities (which they largely do), and a good deal of the expenditure of social funds."

indeed they do, but the solution is not to set up another elite that will do the same thing for conservative viewpoints ... the solution is community based, bottom up control by the people that is tolerant of minority viewpoints

"When liberals deluge the culture with standards that assert that there are no standards"

i think it'd be more precise to say that some liberals pretend neutrality and tolerance while governing according to a certain set of standards that they aren't willing to express as clearly ... that's got to change

i'll skip the rest of it, except to say you've done a fairly good job of describing how some middle americans feel about it ... except that you haven't touched upon how uneasy they are about their economic future and our country's standing in the world ... things that the democrats failed to exploit effectively and the republicans seem to think "will all work out"

"If you really want to understand why you lost, simply read the post-election posts on MeFi - and ask yourself whether you deserve to govern a country who's majority you hate."

it's my belief that the inspiration and leadership for the future may well come from the upper midwest, where red and blue have had to work and live together and compromise on things

asparagirl ... "We have immensely frightening problems in the world now and for perhaps the next twenty years--and I'm sure, people on the Left who read that will automatically think "...most of them caused by Bush", while I and people on the right would sincerely think "...most of them caused by a dangerous unwillingness to confront terrorism, despotism, tyranny, and other Bad Shit."

it's my belief that most of the coming problems are going to be caused by a culture of governence that both parties have created ... and by a world that's becoming rapidly unstable and irrational, which is beyond our control

the isolationist right have made the best arguments against the iraq war, not the left ... and it seems that no one is arguing any solution for the coming economic crisis besides "buy lots of gold"

by 2008, and certainly by 2012, we will look back on this election and wonder at how irrelevant much of it was to what was actually happening around us
posted by pyramid termite at 3:59 AM on November 7, 2004

Midas, for a free-market kinda guy you seem strangely obsessed by the Hollywood thing: are Hollywood movies subsidized by lib'rbul politicians? cause I was under the impression that America's free market made Hollywood very, very rich. it's only corrupted Blue State lib'ruls who go see Hollywood movies? really?
what about porn then? a huge industry. only Blue States must support it, I guess
also it's interesting how Hollywood movies' are considered liberal by people like you: their fetish for guns, violence, half-naked young women who always play a hal-mute "girlfriend" of the (generally white) male lead make Hollywood movies vehicles for jingosim, sexism, etc. hardly a liberal platform.

also, you must be more careful with the "Freaking Kwanza" slurs. they betray who you really are Midas. watch out around the office tho -- a comment like that, and a dark-skinned PC lib'rul janitor or secretary will, like, ruin your week/month. really.
satanic trial lawyers and stuff, you know. sensitivy training, anybody?
:)

________

Asparagirl's friendly advice: "you should have run Lieberman". right on: Lieberman's the man to carry the South for the Democrats. good idea. Mississippi's gonna be his. Alabama and the Carolinas, too.
with friendly advice like that, who needs enemies, really.

I hope you guys get over your sulking and put together a kickass campaign in 2008.


I hope you guys put together a kickass campaign in Falluja next week (possibly, without committing any further war crimes, but that's probably wishful thinking by liberal appeasers).
but yeah, I guess if the US officially loses in Iraq it will be Kerry's fault, somehow. he didn't bleed enough in Vietnam, after all. and his wife talks funny.

________

Wow ... so it clearly wasn't worth it to say anything. Sorry 'bout that folks. I'll leave you alone in your closed circle.

tha bad lib'ruls hurt his feelings!
really thin-skinned, for a self-described "Wall Street player"

*snickers*
posted by matteo at 8:20 AM on November 7, 2004

p_t: Too painfully true, and better put than I'm capable of expressing.

Midas, oaf: as you of course know, a "straw man" is putting forth a characterization of your opponent's beliefs that is other (and, especially, weaker) than that opponent's best statement of their actual position, and then arguing against your own characterization.

You cannot do that, object when I point it out, and then claim that I do not understand what a straw man is as a way of further muddying the waters. Midas said a lot that was foolish and worthy of challenge, and I cherrypicked perhaps the most naked mischaracterization of anyone's actual position he offered.

If you want me to accept that this is not, after all, a straw man argument, show me the consequential, influential, self-consciously "liberal" movement against values. Document that for me, and I'll accept we're arguing about something real. In the absence of same, I call bullshit on you.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:25 AM on November 7, 2004

Asparagirl: You're coming at this from the perspective of a blue stater, with blue state-only family going back generations and no outside experience. Midas is a blue stater too, although he tried to put himself int he shoes of an idealized one. So people in blue states look down on you? Have you tried living as a Democrat in a primarily red area? How do you know you won't get the same treatment there, much of the time? Well, you will. I tire of condescending politics and behavior on all sides too (and the parochial regionalism and stereotyping needs to go, from whoever), but you'll be looked down upon the same in heavily white evangelical areas for the reverse. Or it'll be more like exasperation expressed to you, or a long face or a "you're not a good person" sort of look, when you fail to join in the Democrat-bashing. (You'll have a good chance of getting the same treatment if you're a white Republican going into a black neighborhood. For the record. And those are church-going folk too.)

I'm upset about the results of the election, by the way, because I know it means a takeover of the sort of people the author discusses - ones with whom you have very little familiarity, or at least have not had to live with on a day-to-day basis. At least condescending liberals depend on empirical analysis and reason, or are more likely to do so. I also know it means continuing huge deficits, and a possible sudden decline in the dollar. It means we'll continue to be hated by much of the rest of the world. It means another possible war somewhere, even when Iraq's not going well and the military's already stretched thin. It means gosh knows what all. Many problems almost certainly would've continued under Kerry, and major threats would still have been there. I voted for him thinking of him as the equivalent of sticking a finger in a dike. And part of what's coming from behind that dike is a deluge of evangelical power. It is only right to fear this, and to mourn.

We do need someone to help unite the country, to bring some sanity to politics, and it wasn't Kerry who was going to do the full job by any stretch, given his lack of a moral appeal (I'm not talking about personality morality here). But what we have now has the potential to be far worse than you imagine. I hope we are able to recover. The country's been through worse, and good luck seems to arrive when we least expect it sometimes, but I'd be lying if I said I felt upbeat.
posted by raysmj at 8:32 AM on November 7, 2004

Asparagirl,

"We have immensely frightening problems in the world now and for perhaps the next twenty years--and I'm sure, people on the Left who read that will automatically think "...most of them caused by Bush", while I and people on the right would sincerely think "...most of them caused by a dangerous unwillingness to confront terrorism, despotism, tyranny, and other Bad Shit."

Umm, it's going to be longer than that. Yes, we will be able to thank Bush for a good deal of it. And Rumsfeld for his actions 20 years ago, and the CIA for arming the Mujaheedeen to fight the Russians then leaving their country in grinding poverty. What kills me about "ya'll" is that you seem the think the only way to 'confront' evil is bomb it, shoot it, and crush it. You miss the fact that we supported Hussein when it served our interests, and then invaded when he decided to work more directly toward his own. This is why we invaded, much, much more than 9/11 was.

Also, I still hate, with a passion, the 9/11 RNC Campaign of 2004. They danced on the graves of the people that voted overwhelmingly to kick their incompetent asses out office.
posted by wah at 8:44 AM on November 7, 2004

"you should have run Lieberman"

Well, yeah...cause then virtually no democrat would have bothered to vote. Seriously, I don't know a single liberal that would have voted for Lieberman. I think everyone would have voted Libertarian or Green, or not voted. It would have been a Bush landslide. Think Reagan vs Mondale level of defeat. Lieberman, to most Dems, is just a few steps left of Zell Miller, and as clueless as the Dem Party seems to be, at least they weren't *that* stupid.
posted by dejah420 at 9:15 AM on November 7, 2004

Midas:

It's called a straw man because rather than engaging in the issues, you choose to argue based on stereotypes that are misleading or completely in error.

This certainly is not the view of a lot of middle America. In fact, a good deal of middle America - and not only evangelicals - have felt for some time that they were under assault by an utterly morals-free culture, championed by Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and largely supported by urban liberals.

Actually, the left has been sounding out about the level of violence and inappropriate sexual content in mass media for my entire life. In my anecdotal experience, liberals are more likely than conservatives to live a TV-free lifestyle. This is one place where there is an opportunity to find common ground.

They'll see their tax dollars spent to teach 6th graders how to use condoms.

I hate to tell you this, but parents seem to be approving of teaching contraception to kids with numbers ranging between 3-1 and 4-1. Even an overwhelming majority of the Focus for the Famly Zogby poll reported that information on contraception should be in schools. In addition, most states have mechanisms by which a parent having moral or religious objections to a part of the curriculum can have their children abstain. A majority does favor nondevotional instruction of religion in schools however, which is probably the way it should be. If you are going to teach religion, teach comparitive religion. I suspect that the complaint here is not that religion is a part of social studies (it was, the last I visited schools) but that schools were still concerned about devotional prayer. Questions about church and state do not just fall along secular/religious lines. I've read great essays about Jews who have every historical reason to be concerned about what is really meant by "under God." Many protestants from second-wave denominations have concerns because devotional curriculum is too close to the loyalty oaths to the Church of England that led to the exodus to the U.S..

As another example, you bring up the drugs issue. I'll present an economic argument as to why conservatives have serious problems on this. Every $1 spent in rehabilitation programs returns $2 back into the economy. Our high rate of incarceration will eventually have a serious problem in terms of our economic productivity. This is not an either/or problem. I have no concerns about locking up producers and dealers. But treating the drug abuse epidemic as a public health problem helps to solve two of the major issues with the war on drugs: the excessive abuse of civil liberties, and the vast economic and racial disparities where ethnic minorities are disproportionatly targeted by drug enforcement efforts.

Now granted, you are dead on in that there seems to be this huge ethos of biting the hand that feeds you. But the 49% of voters who cast ballots for Kerry also own or rent homes, go to work and struggle to raise kids. In other words, you are just as guilty of the fallacy you accuse Dems of engaging in, painting the Democratic party with a huge brush based on its more outspoken representatives.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:38 AM on November 7, 2004

Hey matteo, do you do anything but troll anymore?
posted by Krrrlson at 9:45 AM on November 7, 2004

By the way, check out Gallup's final pre-election poll analysis.

In particular, visit the comparison of Bush's 2000 and 2004 results and check the urban/rural gains and the education level gains.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:57 AM on November 7, 2004

adamgreenfield: You probably would have done better to show where he falsely characterized his opponents beliefs. Rather that just say "straw man" it is more effective to pick specific statements call it a straw man and show why with evidence/examples.
posted by jeblis at 10:25 AM on November 7, 2004

Possibly so, possibly so. I thought I had, actually, and in the very next sentence afterward, but maybe I was insufficiently clear.
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:55 AM on November 7, 2004

where he falsely characterized his opponents beliefs

like, the entire comment? where he blames everything on Hollywood liberals, condoms and Kwanza (ie, uppity Negroes)? come on, I can understand the Republicans gloating for a close GOP 51% win and, finally, a popular vote win (something that escaped the GOP since 1988, remember children).
but that half-assed "we'll teach you why you lost" thing is frankly laughable. if the solution is to run a dead dog like Lieberman or, you know, to abolish Kwanza, well, I'd rather see them simply gloat. rightwinger are generally funnier when they gloat, see BaghdadParamus.

again, an argument against Hollywood can seriously come from the Left only: Hollywood's a PR machine for gun fetish, jingoism, materialism and money/power/beauty worship. right-wingers, especially Wall Street types like Midas, should recognize that Hollywood is about crass commercialism. it gives America what it wants. and it's certainly not Berkeley or Cambridge liberals who make Hollywood crappy blockbusters successful. after all, Hollywood marketing people hardly care about what'll work in the People Republic of Cambridge. they care more about, ahem, "Middle America" enjoying their violent, jingo crap

but yeah, many movie personalities seem to vote Democratic. fuck them Hollywood types who talk politics, right? except Reagan and Schwarzenegger of course. then, Hollywood has a right to speak out apparently. Heston, too

interestingly enough, it's also people who listen to thugghish talk radio hosts who like to lecture Democrats about, of all things, manners... Bush hate? it's the other side of Clinton's impeachment mob, a mob that began right after his election in 1992. don't like bare-knuckle politics? go complain at your local RNC offices, then, before you criticize others.
and enjoy your war, of course. it's a smashing success. I guess Iran Attack -- now there's a "mandate", no? -- will go well, too.

________

do you do anything but troll anymore?
posted by Krrrlson at 6:45 PM CET on November 7

Arguing with you is pointless - only your own body parts, unexpectedly separated from each other by terrorist explosives, can ever serve to shake your hypocrisy. At least if you cared enough to ever act in support of your militant bullshit. By then, however, it will be too late - and another raving hippie will take your place to disrespect *your* corpse by hoisting it up on the battlements of his political agenda.
posted by Krrrlson


*belly laugh*
posted by matteo at 11:00 AM on November 7, 2004

Midas, surely you must have read lord_wolf's response to your little diatrabe, and yet, while you have spent plenty of time responding to the more vacuous comments in this thread, have not addressed any of the points he brought up.

So I'll try.

a good deal of middle America [...] have felt for some time that they were under assault by an utterly morals-free culture, championed by Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and largely supported by urban liberals.

First off, what's with all this talk of the Hollywood liberals? I don't get that at all. You do realize that movie stars and rock stars make up a very tiny portion of Democratic voters, right? You do realize that all of the "sex, drugs, and rock & roll" you see on TV is exaggeration, because it sells so well to people saddled to their sofas (particularly the ones in the Red states).

They perceive this elite to have almost complete control of the nation's schools and universities (which they largely do)

What elite? The Hollywood elite? Geology 101, starring Tom Cruise as Professor Rocks? Or the intellectual elite? The ones who go to hard schools, take learning seriously, write papers, get published, get doctorates, do post-doc work... you mean those snooty-pants think they're somehow qualified to teach at our universities!? Say it ain't so! Let's get Tom Brady to teach our kids instead.

... and a good deal of the expenditure of social funds.

Bzzt! Sorry, that's incorrect. The states that were net beneficiaries of non-military federal spending were overwhelmingly Republican states. The states that contribute more then they receive (New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, California, Washington) usually vote Democrat.

They will tell you what words you can and can't say. What is politically "correct" and what isn't.

You can say "god" and "nigger" and "coon" and "hillbilly" and "fuck" and "dammit" and whatever else you like. Nobody's trying to stop you. The only people that will really take note are the FCC, and they don't seem to be cracking down nearly as hard on Republicans as they do on Democrats. For some reason "kike" isn't a bad word, but "motherfucker" gets you a $1,000,000 fine.

They'll see their tax dollars spent to teach 6th graders how to use condoms.

Or, you could ignore sex education entirely, leaving it up to the parents. And deal with the greater teen pregnancies that will result. Which is a great little catch-22, by the way: outlaw abortion, and make kids more likely to get pregnant. Just what kind of society are you trying to create, Midas?

They see anything but Christianity permitted to be taught in schools.

Christianity is taught in the schools, Midas. The history of Christianity. And the history of a couple other religions sometimes get a mention as well. The actual religious teachings are left to the parents and churches. Isn't that what you want? You wouldn't want the government telling your kids how to pray, would you? After all, they'd probably just shove a bunch of Merry Kwanza candy down your kids' throats.

You've never been able to marry "who you want".

Not exactly true. You've been able to marry "who you want" for several centuries now, provided that person is of the opposite sex and same color. Right -- same color. Until rather recently, we didn't want our white women married to damned niggers. Looks like the fucking liberals won THAT battle.

Marriage [...] has always (in virtually every culture - current and historical) been understood as a union between a man and a woman.

You can have your fancy 'M' word, if you just let them have civil unions. No priests or rabbis necessary. If you still have a problem with that, I suggest you take a closer look at the already-existing gay community. As they like to say, "They're here, They're Queer, Get Used to It." Like marriage, homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. How can two gay people happily living together a thousand miles away from you possibly affect you? What are you trying to protect, exactly? Is it just the notion of two guys fucking each other that you find so distasteful you would strip them of their rights? Is your petty disguist more important, does it carry more weight than the constitution of this country?

(And, by the way, this isn't a red/blue issue. Kerry came out against gay marriage, and one of Clinton's critiques of Kerry was that he didn't make a big enough deal of his opposition).

So what? Clinton was kinda a pussy, don'tchaknow? He also failed to kill Osama Bin Ladin when he had the chance. Know why? Because Republican pundits would have accused him of wagging the dog. My point? Clinton is not the Liberal Jehovah.

This is a democracy, that can vote the President out of office if it believes a war he starts is not justified.

No. The president does not declare war. "Oh, I know that!" you will quickly say. Yet I reiterate for your fucking pleasure because obviously too many people have forgotten this very important part of our government in light of the past four decades:

The President does not declare war.

GET IT?? DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

This country did not vote George Bush out of office.

Absolutely true. No question from me here. I just wanted to keep this part so you understand I'm not trying to be completely unfair with your statements.

adamantly refused to permit any of those funds to be dispersed through churches (that, as a practical matter, have often proved far more effective at delivering actual services). The money going to faith-based programs is a tiny fraction of what goes to social services.

The problem is, it's an irresistable temptation for churches doing any kind of community service to shove the religious aspect down the throat of the person receiving the help. Just about every single damned one of them. The attitude is, "You're hungry/pregnant/poor/homeless/stupid, so you will sit through our little prayer-time before you get whatever it is we're handing out today." Not with federal dollars I won't, fucko.

Freaking Kwanza is celebrated in schools, but a Christian nativity scene is illegal - and you claim you are not "telling anyone to do a god damned thing"?

Your ignorance is astounding. Maybe you were absent from school the day they talked about Kwanzaa. Here, a little Googling to help your culturally-sheltered-ass reveals: "Kwanzaa is neither political nor religious and despite some misconceptions, is not a substitute for Christmas. It is simply a time of reaffirming African-American people, their ancestors and culture."

Economies go through booms and busts.

...that can be exacerbated by poor fiscal policy.

The economy was tanking before Bush took office.

...yet we still held a budget surplus, amazingly.

The internet bubble had collapsed - and 9/11 would have hit the economy hard no matter who was in office.

Certainly. No argument there.

Bush is a conservative, and his approach to the recession was tax cuts - the basic view being that the government can't create jobs, businesses create jobs.

Except that businesses aren't creating jobs here, because labor costs are just too much. So they're taking their newly-aquired capital and investing it in companies that can produce BIG EARNINGS!! An easy way to do that is to take advantage of dirt-cheap labor markets overseas. Fan-friggin-tastic.

Oh, and how's that "businesses create jobs" crap working out, anyway? Hmmmm. Not lookin' so good. Maybe your method is fundamentally screwed? Maybe giving money to people who might actually spend it would work better?

And the "vast majority" of taxes are paid by those in the top 10% of the country - whether they live in red or blue states.

And the "vast majority" of INCOME is made by those in the top 10%. So what's your point?

Close to 50% of the population (in red or blue states) pay virtually no taxes at all.

I'm sorry... are you talking about INCOME tax? STATE tax? PROPERTY tax? SALES tax?

You accuse conservatives of being "selfish". what is more "selfish" ... conservatives insisting they have the right to keep more of the money they earn, or liberals insisting that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have more of a right to take it and spend it than those who create it in the first place?

Money is not created in a vaccuum. If it weren't for the workers, the infrastructure, the roads, the low crime rates, the noticable absence of fires... no one would make ANY money. This shit costs money. Deal with it. If it were up to you guys, everything would be privatized, and you'd have your own special police force surrounding your own little mountain fortress to protect you from the marauding horde of icky, dirty poor people that do all the real work in this country.

You cannot tax your way out of a recession.

But you can sure SPEND your way into one!

And you're the ones saying we should keep our mouths shut even if we believe it is deeply wrong.

You can scream as loud as you want about the BABY KILLERS! But it gets a little irritating when you firebomb our clinics.

When liberals deluge the culture with standards that assert that there are no standards (other than "anyone can do anything they feel like at the moment") they seem utterly blind to the fact that they are imposing a powerful environment on everyone - even if they deeply dislike it.

This is the model that has worked, Midas. It goes something like this: Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to do whatever I want. The more interference, the more the rule of law most come in as arbitrator. You don't have to like other people, other cultures, other attitudes, other political philosophies, other ethnicities -- but if you want to remain a part of a stable world, you'd better start learning how to get along with them.

But that model doesn't fit in a moral absolutist's world-view. You hate moral relativism, hate pragmatism, and in your world there is only one way. That's the exact problem, and it betrays the very foundation of our political system. Because in our system there is no absolute moral certainty. Oh, it sure looks like it, but the simple fact that we can change the system when it no longer reflects the attitudes of the people reveals an inherit mistrust in the inflexible nature of absolute systems.

because for several decades they've had to live under an ideology that - to them - has been as extreme and subtlely brutal as the fanatics of any religion can be.

Bullshit. No one's forcing it down their throats, it's just you now have the option, and that's what really gets their goad. That people, when given the option to marry other races, when given the option to be homosexuals, given the option of rejecting religion, given the option to control their own bodies -- well they take it! How dare they defy us!

Nor is the federal government an instrument for advancing your ideology - regardless of whether that ideology is organized around a religion or not.

The ideology is called "personal freedom" and it's been with us for the past couple hundred years. I don't know if you saw the memo.

But the founding fathers also would not affirm gay marriage, or abortion, or any one of a dozen other pillars of the liberal faith.

"pillars of liberal faith" -- that's hilarious. Yes, one of the founding principles in our little red book -- it's an entire chapter, actually -- is about how we should all be Gay and do Gay things and dress Gay and make sure that Gays have power. It's a pillar for chrissake!

The founding fathers wouldn't have agreed with a lot of things, but at least the founding fathers lacked your fucking hubris. At least they understood that they could be wrong. And surprise, surprise, it looks like a lot of black people would say that the founding fathers had a lot to learn about Right and Wrong. In a hundred years time, the fundamentalists will be derided in history books like 19th century slave owners are in today's.

(now you know how conservatives felt when Clinton got re-elected)

Oh, didn't like the 90's very much, then? What exactly did you hate the most about the years 1992-2000? Please, I'm dying to know.

the post-election attitudes say a good deal about why you lost

I agree. Gloating is pretty ugly.

You lost because the radical left in the country (and, by the way, on MeFi) has come to so completely believe that they owned the country that they utterly forget that the country is composed of ordinary people living relatively modest (or, to you, boring and conservative) lives.

No, we lost because people were more scared of homosexual men putting penises in each other's asses then the economy, the war in Iraq, the lack of accountability (nothing ever seems to be Bush's fault -- just incredible!)

They get up and go to work. They buy houses. They get married and try to raise children.

All of which they can still continue to do while living with gay people!

They don't believe Hollywood represents their value systems

Nobody thinks this, Midas. Please come up with some original talking points.

that Michael Moore or MoveOn represents their ideology

MoveOn isn't an ideology -- it's a method. Simple. Michael Moore, on the other hand, has been so wonderfully vilified by the right wing that many people might forget the amazingly populist documentary that first got him in the spotlight. Michael Moore isn't Hollywood, Midas. Oh, he's certainly rich now, but he wasn't when he made Roger & Me -- but you probably hate that movie for the way it portrayed the Goodly Roger Smith.

To try to set a standard in which the norm is that anyone should be free to do anything they want - and anyone that dares argue should be accused of "telling you what to do", or trying to control you,

No, anyone is free to argue. When you start legislating to prevent me from "doing what I want" -- that's where we start accusing you of "trying to control us", because, well, that's what you're doing.

is just not selling in the US anymore ... because for several decades, whether you want to accept it or not, you've been imposing a value system on everyone else.

It's not selling in the U.S. right now because the educational sytem in this country is so fucked that students graduating can't write complete sentences, let alone demonstrate the critical thinking skills required to separate the published wheat from the televised chaff.

The attitudes of the Hollywood folks, and the rock stars and extreme left in the country were almost the height of arrogance both leading up to the election, and even after it.

"The Hollywood folks and the rock stars". Amazing. I didn't listen to one Hollywood or rock star endorsement this campaign (though I'm sure there were many), and yet I still voted for Kerry. Incredible. I wonder if there were any other Democrats out there like me?

the fact that to govern in a democracy you need to understand and affirm the majority of the population you wish to serve

NO. You must understand and affirm the majority of the population without trampling on the rights of those not in the majority. Go read the Federalist Papers some time if you're not too busy frothing. Here's a quote: " It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

but rather, to call that majority stupid fanatics, and tell them they you are disappointed in them for not living up to your standards ... and openly contemplate such things as violence (intellectual or physical), or moving out of the country (geez - talk about having "made assumptions that you don't even question").

As opposed to calling Democrats "Godless sinners going straight to hell", and (as opposed to merely contemplating) actually exercising violence against those who disagree with you?

I'm certain all sorts of folks here will pick apart everything I've said, and probably launch a few gratuitous personal attacks

Pick apart? It's unavoidable with such a detailed post. Think of it as a complement. Gratuitous personal attacks? Well, I haven't seen too many gratuitous ones just yet, but I'm sure your thick hide will protect you.

(which is why it is not worth it to post on MeFi anymore)

... or maybe it won't protect you.

And you lost big time.

As long as you "folks" keep saying this, you're going to have to keep hearing the automatic response: 51% to 49%. 1% of the vote. 1% of the vote.

Not just the popular and electoral votes in the Presidential election, but seats in Congress as well. In the end, objective reality trumps rhetoric.

I hope you're around in four years, so we can contemplate which Democrats are to blame for the smoldering ruin that is the United States. Or maybe you can just hold out until January, when the wonderful little experiement called Iraq implodes into Civil War. That'll be lots of fun.

If you really want to understand why you lost, simply read the post-election posts on MeFi - and ask yourself whether you deserve to govern a country who's majority you hate.

Hate is too strong a word. You can't really hate the retarded kid who keeps punching you in the arm. But you do have our deepest sympathy. You aren't even lucky enough to back a Great president like Nixon. Instead you have to fall rank-in-file to a guy that has a tenuous grasp (at best) on the English language.

Hey, wait a minute. Maybe he does better represent America!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:04 AM on November 7, 2004

You're actually using logic - that's so cute! Pointless, but cute.
posted by FormlessOne at 11:31 AM on November 7, 2004

*standing ovation*
posted by matteo at 11:32 AM on November 7, 2004

C_D, thanks for the shout-out and for the outstanding post. rock on!
posted by lord_wolf at 11:39 AM on November 7, 2004

Damn, civil, that was awesome.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:42 AM on November 7, 2004

It does work when you can explain how their god and your god share a curious number of isomorphisms. It's the difference between semantics and meaning. Different spoken or written words are used to describe the same internal conception.

yew talk like some commie pinko yankee homofaggot, yew dew.
posted by quonsar at 11:43 AM on November 7, 2004

Oh, it is interesting how the Right is able to reframe these issues at will. I remember before 9-11 it was the left raising warnings about the Taliban on human rights grounds while the right was frequently making apologies for the Taliban for their willingness to fight opium cultivation.

I suspect the Hollywood thing is also a sign of the times with people talking out of both sides of their mouth.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:12 PM on November 7, 2004

It's called a straw man because rather than engaging in the issues, you choose to argue based on stereotypes that are misleading or completely in error

Good grief - you're going to lecture me about "straw men"? It is quite rare for anything even remotely approaching accurate depictions of conservatives to appear on MeFi. The vast majority of posts are - by your definition - "straw men". Bring up "conservative" here, and immediately you hear about Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. I'm a conservative - and I never watch Fox news. Or listen to Rush Limbaugh. Very few of my friends do either (in fact, in my own circles of aquaintences, it is usually liberals that bring up things that Rush said. Weird.)

Conservatives, on the big blue, are either greedy, money-hungry CEO's that screw everyone and pay no taxes, or mindless religious syncophants. and you're going to "call bullshit" on me? Interesting.


And you lost big time.

As long as you "folks" keep saying this, you're going to have to keep hearing the automatic response: 51% to 49%. 1% of the vote. 1% of the vote.

Actually, 51% to 48%. 286 electoral votes to 252. Senate is now 55 to 45. House is 231 to 201 (with 3 still undecided). Governers 23 to 16 (with 1 undecided). It is a Republican country.

tha bad lib'ruls hurt his feelings!
really thin-skinned, for a self-described "Wall Street player"

Don't flatter yourself - you can hardly hurt my feelings. MeFi is made up of really really big tempests in a really little teapot. It has gone so far left that it rarely even worth looking at anymore. It did strike me as very interesting that the post-election FPPs were somewhat striking - in a way that thoughtful liberals might want to take a look at. We live in a representative democracy. Democrats lost in the last election. Lost House seats, Senate seats, and the Presidency. The majority of Americans voted Republican. Bush won by 3.5 million votes.

What, however, was the Democratic response? Was there an immediate look inward? At the thought that they clearly did not produce a message or a candidate that resonated with enough people to win? No - the first reaction was to say that the majority of the country was stupid, religiously fanatical morons that you are "disappointed in". Not even the vaguest thought that intelligent, reasonable people could look at the world and come to a different and equally valid perspective.

It seemed worth a post to mention the fact that in the posts themselves where the question of what happened was being discussed, the answer was sitting there staring everyone in the face. If you want to curse the majority of voters in a representative democracy, and speak in harsh, demeaning terms of their intelligence, character, and religions, then you can not, and should not, expect to be given the right to govern.

Clearly however, it was not really worth bringing this up ... because the post itself generated responses that continued with that very same reaction ("You can't really hate the retarded kid who keeps punching you in the arm. But you do have our deepest sympathy").

I hope you're around in four years, so we can contemplate which Democrats are to blame for the smoldering ruin that is the United States. Or maybe you can just hold out until January, when the wonderful little experiement called Iraq implodes into Civil War. That'll be lots of fun.

I suspect there's an equal chance that in four years the Iraqi people may be living under a relatively stable democracy, and the economy will be flat out booming again. I, myself, would consider those to be really good things. The strange thing is that the left seems to be rooting for America to dissolve into a "smouldering ruin" ... because an Iraq that has become stable, a world that has actually been made safer, and a country that has become more prosperous would be the worst thing possible for the party.
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:13 PM on November 7, 2004

Compliments to civil_d for this long, well reasoned and interesting answer ; unlike others, including me, civil_d actually spent time writing a well reasoned and detailed response.
posted by elpapacito at 12:16 PM on November 7, 2004

Good grief - you're going to lecture me about "straw men"? It is quite rare for anything even remotely approaching accurate depictions of conservatives to appear on MeFi. The vast majority of posts are - by your definition - "straw men".

Irrelevant, even if true. The topic at hand is not what other people may or may not have posted on MeFi. The topic at hand is your lengthy post above, and my response to it.

Need a scorecard, Midas? You earlier advanced a classically weak straw man position. You lapsed into various sorts of ad hominem appeals when I pointed this out. Now you make a false analogy and try to wriggle out that way.

Whatever anyone else may have posted regarding conservatives is immaterial to determining the validity of your claims with regard to "liberals." Again, you know this.

I find this Rhetoric 101 stuff dispiriting, and as pedantic as everyone else presumably does. I wish I could trust you just to make a good-faith argument, attempt to defend it on its merits, and admit defeat if and when you cannot. It would certainly be the hallmark of an individual with intellectual integrity to do so.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:29 PM on November 7, 2004

I don't think C_D's answer was well reasoned and interesting especially. It was long, though. Midas wasn't arguing that you should think the way he described, he was saying that some do think that way. I thought he was describing a mindset which, regardless of how much it may be a caricature, seems well represented in the United States.

There is a great deal of reluctance among liberals and conservatives to try and understand the other side's point of view. "Understand" does not mean "agree with"; rather it means to grasp the larger value systems that shape right or left wing discourse. A common early mistake is to assume that either system is shallow, stupid, or entirely wrong.
posted by tss at 1:29 PM on November 7, 2004

matteo: *belly laugh*

It's pretty funny that you have nothing on me besides an angry comment made a year ago during another one of your trolling sessions - one that you've since lied about repeatedly.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:52 PM on November 7, 2004

What adamgreenfield said. You're not usually quite so sloppy in your reasoning, MidasMulligan.
posted by rushmc at 5:22 PM on November 7, 2004

"Closet Tolerants"
posted by amberglow at 5:35 PM on November 7, 2004

It's easier for people like rush to see things in black and white.

Irony is delicious.

Stavros, if you think my views are as black and white as rushmc, you either have me confused with someone else or your firmly in your loony left mode. Either one is possible.

Label a whole group and shit hits the fan, unless you're southern. You should tattoo hypocrite on your forehead.
posted by justgary at 8:17 PM on November 7, 2004

Midas wasn't arguing that you should think the way he described, he was saying that some do think that way. I thought he was describing a mindset which, regardless of how much it may be a caricature, seems well represented in the United States.

So. What?

Just because a lot of people think something that at its heart limits the rights of other, non-believing elements does nothing to lend validity to their arguments. What Midas, Paris, Konolia and others are basically arguing for is to impose a solid, unwavering morality to our system of government, and their argument keeps circling around "A lot of people think this." So-fucking-what? A lot of people thought slavery was fine, too. A lot of people voted Hitler into power. Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:28 PM on November 7, 2004

What Midas, Paris, Konolia and others are basically arguing for is to impose a solid, unwavering morality to our system of government

I don't get that from his post at all, which is one of the reasons your vitriol seems so misdirected to me.

Midas isn't saying you have to agree with the people on whom he based his caricature. He's outlining a list of attitudes that make these people resistant to contemporary Democratic ideology. Ignoring these attitudes, or worse yet, condemning them outright, regardless of their validity, is not an effective way to begin changing minds. You will only make more people resistant to your ideas. That's what I think Midas said.
posted by tss at 8:55 PM on November 7, 2004

Do we condemn the attitudes of those we as a society convict as criminals, tss? Or do we acquiesce to their crimes, thereby making ourselves complicit? If your child is torturing neighborhood cats to death, do you agree to disagree with him?
posted by rushmc at 9:28 PM on November 7, 2004

Having different opinions isn't a crime, rushmc.

Changing someone's opinions isn't meting out punishment.

If you confuse these things, you won't get very far in winning someone over to your side.
posted by tss at 9:54 PM on November 7, 2004

:::watches as his point ZOOMS over tss's head:::
posted by rushmc at 9:20 AM on November 8, 2004

:::watches as my own point ZOOMS over rushmc's head:::

I don't expect you to thoughtfully entertain the convictions of, say, a murderer.

There are interesting extrema to the "careful consideration" philosophy I'm proposing here. Yours is not one of them. To proffer the kitty torture example as a meaningful example case is either misguided or intentionally inflammatory.

Our conservative friends are not murderers. If we take the time to figure out what they think and why, we can take meaningful steps to framing our own points of view in the perspective of their interests. This is how we start changing their minds. Midas gave a few good examples of "what and why" in his caricature, but rather than say, "You know, maybe we could convince someone that this point is mistaken if we [etc.]" all we get is people like C_D bellowing their objections. The only thing I can imagine this will do for anyone is increase the speaker's own sense of self-righteousness.
posted by tss at 9:54 AM on November 8, 2004

If you still think I've missed your point, then by all means explicate.
posted by tss at 10:10 AM on November 8, 2004

Maybe the difference is that people on the left are more inclined toward argument and debate to begin with*, but just as likely to fall into single-mindedness or self-righteousness as anyone else. So while the single-minded or self-righteous right wingers preach to their choir, or hold their views privately, the equivalent on the left chatter back and forth to one another (neither as an authority preaching, nor a stoic shaking his head at the mistaken). So in that sense any percentage of self-righteousness on our side is much more available for everyone to see since it's in contexts that proclaim themselves as open to dialogue, etc. I see this issue of following the form but not the essence in teaching classes on critical thinking. Pretty much anyone who signs up for (an elective) class on critical thinking seems to already think they are a critical thinker - they just don't get that they have to be critical of themselves as well!

* - not trying to make a 'we're better than you' claim here; I think the right wing tends to play this up as our weak side - we dilly-dally talking to each other instead of trusting a leader to move ahead, take action, blah blah blah. This helps explain why there might be a larger percentage in journalism or higher education that lean liberal. It also makes it clearer why there's more infighting (or basically, "active dialogue") among dems than repubs.

Another thing to consider: the left might accuse the right of being stupid more often that the right accuses the left of that; but I'm sure the right accuses the left of being immoral more often than the left accuses the right of that. So while I think, and most people think, that there are stupid and/or immoral people on both sides, we will probably disagree about what criteria fulfill those condemnations. Repubs will more often look for "street-smart" and "absolute morality", while dems will more likely think of "intelligent" and "ethical" - it isn't that these terms mean things that different from one another, but - well, in a sense it seems like republicans are willing to accept many and varied sorts of intelligence, while liberals think that's pretty clear-cut, and on the other hand, repubs think there's only one way to be virtuous, while democrats think that's a matter of deliberation and conversation.

or something like that...
posted by mdn at 10:22 AM on November 8, 2004

In Thursday’s Times, a front-page news analysis argued that “it is impossible to read President Bush’s reëlection with larger Republican majorities in both houses of Congress as anything other than the clearest confirmation yet that this is a center-right country—divided yes, but with an undisputed majority united behind his leadership.” That is certainly true in institutional terms. But it is not true in terms of people, of actual human beings. Though the Republicans won nineteen of the thirty-four Senate seats that were up for grabs last Tuesday, for a gain of four, the number of voters who cast their ballots for Republican Senate candidates was 37.9 million, while 41.3 million voted for Democrats—almost exactly Bush’s popular-vote margin over Kerry. When the new Congress convenes in January, its fifty-five Republicans will be there on account of the votes of 57.6 million people, while the forty-four Democrats and one independent will be there on account of the votes of 59.6 million people. As for the House, it is much harder to aggregate vote totals meaningfully, because so many seats are uncontested. But the Republicans’ gain of four seats was due entirely to Tom DeLay’s precedent-breaking re-gerrymandering of the Texas district lines.

The red-blue split has not changed since 2000. This is not a center-right country. It is a center-right country and a center-left country, but the center has not held. The winner-take-all aspects of our system have converged into a perfect storm that has given virtually all the political power to the right; conservative Republicans will now control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate so firmly that the Supreme Court, which is also in conservative hands, has abruptly become the most moderate of the four centers of federal power. The system of checks and balances has broken down, but the country remains divided—right down the nonexistent, powerless middle.

— Blues by Hendrik Hertzberg/New Yorker
posted by y2karl at 12:13 PM on November 8, 2004

If we take the time to figure out what they think and why, we can take meaningful steps to framing our own points of view in the perspective of their interests. This is how we start changing their minds.

Please, by all means, explain how a liberal can convince a conservative they are wrong on the issue of abortion.

Please, by all means, explain how a liberal can convince a conservative they are wrong on the issue of the death penalty.

Please, by all means, explain how a liberal can convince a conservative they are wrong on the issue of gay marriage.

You can only reason with someone to a certain point, and that point is when the argument has devolved into a set of base ideological statements. Once you have reached that point, further discussion is fruitless. With a few topics, they are not interested in interests. There is no ground to be given for a moral ideologue.

And on a side note, I find it pretty incredible that you would on one hand suggest we must open a dialogue with those we disagree with, then on the other insult my very attempts to do that as merely "bellowing objections." If you found any of the particulars of my arguments wanting, then it might be more useful to address them specifically. What you are doing (writing me off) is exactly the same thing you rail so hard against.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:29 PM on November 8, 2004

Please, by all means, explain how a liberal can convince a conservative they are wrong on the issue of [X].

Did you know that the average Appalachian stream erodes about three dump trucks worth of rock and soil every year, or that it sometimes took months or even years to quarry the paving stones for Roman roads?

The kind of change I'm hoping for isn't immediate. A series of gradual concessions on minor issues, over years or even generations, will steer minds toward more liberal ideology. As an example, you may not be able to get far on abortion issues, but maybe you CAN change minds about stem cell research, an issue that does appeal to interests. And from there...? It's an incremental shift in someone's worldview, but it's progress. Beliefs do not exist unto themselves; they form and draw support from an entire system, a context. If you change the context slightly, you also undermine slightly the more incompatible beliefs.

For this reason, I believe that dialogue can act as a slow, constant, irresistable pressure. The buildup of this pressure can lead to events that cause social change, or at least it can cause a relaxation of strongly-held convictions over time.

Besides, you would recommend instead... yelling at the conservatives?

And on a side note, I find it pretty incredible that you would on one hand suggest we must open a dialogue with those we disagree with, then on the other insult my very attempts to do that as merely "bellowing objections." If you found any of the particulars of my arguments wanting, then it might be more useful to address them specifically.

Oh, it's just astonishing!

Good sir, after scanning your message again, I think I agree with every single one of your arguments! I just don't think your presentation will be the least bit effective, and at the very least it was misguided at MidasMulligan, who was effectively saying, "This is what you're up against."

Besides, you were bellowing objections! Your post is full of, well, objections, and they're full of <cosby>the cussin' and the stampin' and exclamation points and all caps and such</cosby>. Look at it, for goshsakes! Hey, not that I mind, it's an entertaining read. But this kind of show is toxic to a good-natured discussion. I think it's safe to write off your style (not you or your opinions) when I'm considering ways to convince my cousin, or my work friends, or folks I see at church to support stem cell research.
posted by tss at 2:24 PM on November 8, 2004

Besides, you would recommend instead... yelling at the conservatives? [...] But this kind of show is toxic to a good-natured discussion.

Well, yes, you're right. But I guess each side needs their raving lunatics.

As for the Grand Canyon theory of change/discourse, I unfortunately don't see this working in the liberal's favor. It's very hard to "convert" people under a proud banner of "Moderatism! Pragmatism! Reason!" when they're, well, stupid. An appeal to emotion will almost always resonate better with the ignoranti, and (as I said in my bellowings) with the sad state of the education system in this country, I worry that civilized discourse in this country will be seen as weakness, and critical thinking will be seen as wavering, unresolute, flip-flopping.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:21 PM on November 8, 2004

I'd say that we simply don't have time for that approach.

I guess I feel like we're right up against some pretty major inflection points in human history, and have almost no time to act if we're to avoid the systems we've grown up assuming would last forever toggling over into some mightily unpleasant states.

Aside from things like Arctic melting, I really can't substantiate this feeling. It could very well just be me, sure it could. But somehow I don't think so, and that's why I don't think we as a species have time for the foolishness of fundamentalism.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:49 PM on November 8, 2004

Those are worrisome points. So what do we do instead?
posted by tss at 7:06 PM on November 8, 2004

Me?

I'm giving up, I think. Silence, exile, cunning: you know the drill.

This is breaking my heart, this year is. I wrote on some other site this morning that I did not expect to be, in 2004, contemplating a world in which the Dominion squats athwart much of North America and the Caliphate extends to the shores of the Seine.

Now that's hyperbole, of course. We're not there yet. But we're not so very far off, either. Or at least that's what I read in the wind: your mileage, as they used to say, may vary.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:47 PM on November 8, 2004

A series of gradual concessions on minor issues, over years or even generations, will steer minds toward more liberal ideology.

You make me want to laugh. And cry. Don't you see at all that this approach is precisely what the other side hopes you will take, because their program of direct action by any means necessary will RUN RIGHT THROUGH IT?

Anyway, I find your attitude (which seems more self-congratulatory to me than either of the other positions) tiring, so I'm going to take a pass on this one. Except to agree with adamgreenfield that those who think time is an unlimited resource are almost certainly mistaken (and will discover so sooner rather than later) and to note that a moral stance postponed is a moral stance declined.

I understand that you are looking for a productive way to break this deadlock—and I respect that—but what you advocate strikes me as terribly naive and idealistic.
posted by rushmc at 9:03 PM on November 8, 2004

You can only reason with someone to a certain point,

I'll take it even further - you can only reason with someone capable of reasoning. The fundamentalist right has willfully allowed their ability to reason to atrophy into some kind of vestigial organ. On the other hand, they have built up their ability to take things on faith.

While tss is allowing his Appalachian stream to erode the soil, the fundamentalist right has an army of construction equipment building the Hoover dam upstream.

Adam is right, time is running out.

I am reminded of Heinlein:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck."

posted by bashos_frog at 9:25 PM on November 8, 2004

New to the legislative process: Pray-Ins-- Several Christian groups announced Friday that they would conduct a "pray-in" to protest the possible appointment of Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. ...
In an interview with CNSNews.com, Mahoney said Evangelicals, pro-family and pro-life groups are not comfortable with Specter chairing the Judiciary because the confirmation of judges is a key component to the Christian social agenda.
posted by amberglow at 9:38 PM on November 8, 2004

We need to get some buses to send to red America where we can stage Gay-Ins to protest all their crap. Like that guy who sang show tunes on the subway. Only we'll sing (and maybe sin) in front of their churches and diners and football stadiums. And we'll promise to go away only if they'll promise to keep their religious crap out of our legal system.
posted by bashos_frog at 10:20 PM on November 8, 2004

So what do we do instead?

Well, there are two schools of thought.

The first one says, "When the ship is sinking, go grab a bucket and start bailing." Educate people, take the higher ground, turn the other cheek, etc. Wait for public sentiment to turn in your favor.

The other says, "When the ship is sinking, get on a lifeboat." Move away. Let the morons ruin the country, then buy it up when the price is cheap.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:45 PM on November 8, 2004

yew talk like some commie pinko yankee homofaggot, yew dew.

Yes, well, I have a healthy respect and fear of what capitalism can force one to do, my father was gay, and I live in New York despite growing up in Texas.

Watch me now....

Please, by all means, explain how a liberal can convince a conservative they are wrong on the issue of abortion.

Like this. Pay Close Attention. It's a subtle understanding. And a long golden braid.

Please, by all means, explain how a liberal can convince a conservative they are wrong on the issue of the death penalty.

Like this. This one is blunt.

Please, by all means, explain how a liberal can convince a conservative they are wrong on the issue of gay marriage.

Sugah, you gots to be kind.
posted by wah at 12:59 AM on November 9, 2004

C_D, there's another alternative to your two. The way Alt Friedrich had it was "That which is falling should also be pushed."

I'm not sure I fully agree, in this instance. I mean, all civilizations have a sell-by date, and if this one happens to be up on its own it wouldn't surprise me one little bit. But I live here and all; it's a hard subject to contemplate in any equanimity.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:59 AM on November 9, 2004

—right down the nonexistent, powerless middle.

That's me. Again.
posted by semmi at 8:27 AM on November 9, 2004