That's a swell set of values you got there

[pecunium]

I'm sick and tired of the implication that I am not possessed of values, or somehow not taking them into account when I vote. I say this because I keep hearing the same old sorry trope that "values voters" favor republicans, didn't vote for Kerry, etc.

It's bullshit. I have values, they just aren't based on hatreds or limiting people's rights. I value choice, opportunity and equality.

On the other hand, reports from the Value's Voters Summit make it plain to me there is a significant portion of them who are racist scumbags.

While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama's politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.

On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens." The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"

If those are the values they respect, they can keep 'em, and the candidates who court them.

Comments

[shekkara.livejournal.com]

Have you seen this article? What Makes People Vote Republican?. It's by a professor of pyschology who explores this exact issue of how liberals and conservatives define morals.

[daedala.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link to the article. It explains a lot of things I've been thinking.

ETA: And it makes me think of the Five Geek Social Fallacies. "The miracle of turning individuals into groups can only be performed by groups that impose costs on cheaters and slackers. "

[shunra.livejournal.com]

Thank for the link to the article! It was interesting. I read it though, and I must say it made me feel very uncomfortable. The writer is a member of the group which would suffer least from a return to "traditional" values: a straight, white, adult male.

While he wasn't advocating a return to such values, he expressed an understanding for them (and enjoyed, in his anthropological practice, the benefits of that status).

Moreover, the third "extra" scale he mentioned, the us-vs.-them scale, tribe vs. not tribe, leads to dehumanization of the not-tribe-members and tends to lead to genocide when resources (of various kinds) get scared.

190+ million people were killed in genocide-type attacks during the 20th century. Killed by people who were attacking them because of that tribe/not-tribe dichotomy.

It is important to respect the people who hold those views. It is equally important to sustain a polite disagreement with them.

[daedala.livejournal.com]

I think the essay has a problem in that it mixes the descriptive (this is the way I think people are) with the prescriptive (this is what we should do about it). It's easy to make it sound like "this is how people should be" -- and yeah, saying that people should be like that is really uncomfortable. I don't think he means to, but in a few places it does sound a little like that.

I think what he's trying to get at is that we need to find some nice progressive methadone to substitute for the heroin of Republican morals. Ok, that's a terrible analogy, but it made me laugh.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I think the problem with that is partly that and partly his blindness to the problem of what the effects of the way the Republicans think is.

It's all very well to be outside a group one is actually outside. It's all well and good to say, "This cultural trait is interesting, I will record it," when the results of that neutrality are, in effect, neutral.

I can't be that sort of neutral. What the Republican party is doing affects me. That changes the relationship. Are there well meaning people in the Republican Party? Of course. Does that make a damned bit of difference if the result of "understanding" them means I will never have healthcare again? Means my loved ones won't be able to make choices about their bodies? Means the economy goes further in the tank?

Not a bit. Where is the appeal to them? Where is he standing and saying.. "Hey, I've gotten to know you and why the hell can't you realise the "liberals" are well meaning people, and some understanding and tolerance of their sincerity is in order?"

He's asking me to be nicer to the bastard who is abusing, and says plans to continue abusing me, and mine.

That doesn't work with indivdual abusers and it sure as hell doesn't work with institutional abusers.

They can be nice people all they want. I won't meet them halfway, nor make concessions.

[daedala.livejournal.com]

Maybe I misread it, then -- I didn't hear him saying, "be nice to the abusers," I heard him saying, "here is how to help them hear you." Because sometimes people are abusive because they're abusers, and sometimes it's because they're dumbasses. And I do think we need ways to explain to Republican voters just _why_ healthcare is good for everyone, and that the people they are trying to keep in the out-group can be part of the in-group, and so on.