Hope, and a brass ring
Nov. 17th, 2004 08:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe question has been asked, "What's wrong with Kanas?". By which the author What's the matter with Kansas? means, why does the middle of America, once a bastion of progressivism, consitently vote against interest these days.
I've asked this question before, and the answer has always been, somehow they have been sold a bill of good. Orcinus gives a good answer today. The short of it is that, contrary to those who have been buying into the astroturf of the hateful left, the answer is talk radio.
Forget (no don't, but put aside for the moment) all the people ranting that the densely populated parts of the country don't count as much as the more sparsely settled mid-lands (and yes, I have seen that argument, as if, for some reason not having a lot of space means those numbers ought not to matter), and think about the side effects.
Here in San Luis Obispo I have access to more diversions than I can possibly keep up with. When I lived in Los Angeles (or in Seattle, or even in my sojourn in D.C, where I knew no one, and had nothing but my wits and sense of adventure with which to find amusements beyond the library and the television) SLO looked like a barren wilderness.
Transplant yourself to the open spaces of Kansas, or Wyoming, or... and put yourself on a farm, or in a small shop in a small town. How do you fill the empty hours? What do you listen to in the combine, or on the harrow, or waiting for the customer at the store?
Radio.
And what's on that radio?
Limbaugh, and Hannity, and Savage, or the local versions of the same.
And what do they preach? That effete liberals in the cities hate them. When the agribiz gets laws passed that ruin small farms, who got the blame? Liberals. When a scapegoat is needed, Liberals are trotted out.
I don't know what to do. In part we need to find a way to reach them. Remember, despite there being only a few radio stations, and that talk radio is right-wing, a lot of those "red staters" voted against Bush, so it isn't that the hoodwinking is unbeatable, but we have to find a way to preach the message, get the facts of the matter out there, where they can be fairly decided (and I can see the critique now, that I am implying only liberals can be fair. No. When only one side is getting to present the issues, they get to frame the debate, a la Limbaugh's habit of hanging up and then finishing the caller's argument, so he can burn the straw man that isn't a fair airing of the questions).
We can't condescend, but we don't need to pander. We don't need to try and give up what we are in the hope we can make them like us. That won't work, they will see us as fakes, and fauxnies. Which will be worse than being rejected honestly, and more deserved.
And sometimes we need to be less civil. When people say liberals need to be head stomped, or clubbed like baby seals it's not the time to be polite. But telling the south to fuck off, while perhaps an understandable release, isn't really an answer. And becoming the hate-filled people of which we are accused, even less so.
We are half the country, now we need to show the other half why they ought to join us.
I've asked this question before, and the answer has always been, somehow they have been sold a bill of good. Orcinus gives a good answer today. The short of it is that, contrary to those who have been buying into the astroturf of the hateful left, the answer is talk radio.
Forget (no don't, but put aside for the moment) all the people ranting that the densely populated parts of the country don't count as much as the more sparsely settled mid-lands (and yes, I have seen that argument, as if, for some reason not having a lot of space means those numbers ought not to matter), and think about the side effects.
Here in San Luis Obispo I have access to more diversions than I can possibly keep up with. When I lived in Los Angeles (or in Seattle, or even in my sojourn in D.C, where I knew no one, and had nothing but my wits and sense of adventure with which to find amusements beyond the library and the television) SLO looked like a barren wilderness.
Transplant yourself to the open spaces of Kansas, or Wyoming, or... and put yourself on a farm, or in a small shop in a small town. How do you fill the empty hours? What do you listen to in the combine, or on the harrow, or waiting for the customer at the store?
Radio.
And what's on that radio?
Limbaugh, and Hannity, and Savage, or the local versions of the same.
And what do they preach? That effete liberals in the cities hate them. When the agribiz gets laws passed that ruin small farms, who got the blame? Liberals. When a scapegoat is needed, Liberals are trotted out.
I don't know what to do. In part we need to find a way to reach them. Remember, despite there being only a few radio stations, and that talk radio is right-wing, a lot of those "red staters" voted against Bush, so it isn't that the hoodwinking is unbeatable, but we have to find a way to preach the message, get the facts of the matter out there, where they can be fairly decided (and I can see the critique now, that I am implying only liberals can be fair. No. When only one side is getting to present the issues, they get to frame the debate, a la Limbaugh's habit of hanging up and then finishing the caller's argument, so he can burn the straw man that isn't a fair airing of the questions).
We can't condescend, but we don't need to pander. We don't need to try and give up what we are in the hope we can make them like us. That won't work, they will see us as fakes, and fauxnies. Which will be worse than being rejected honestly, and more deserved.
And sometimes we need to be less civil. When people say liberals need to be head stomped, or clubbed like baby seals it's not the time to be polite. But telling the south to fuck off, while perhaps an understandable release, isn't really an answer. And becoming the hate-filled people of which we are accused, even less so.
We are half the country, now we need to show the other half why they ought to join us.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I would
Date: 2004-11-17 05:50 pm (UTC)But what happens is that the liberals that have the means take a "fight fire with fire" tactic. These people arent stupid, they have VALID arguments for beleiveing what they do, and they are patriots as well. if you wish to convince them of something, convince them that liberal issue X is better for the country than thier current one.
It would also help to find the disconnect on OUR parts. We stadily loose, and there has to be a reason other than the other guys cheat.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 06:25 pm (UTC)There's a chance they just fundamentally disagree with the 'liberal message' and fundamentally as liberals disagree with the 'conservative message'.
And when did telling *anyone* to fuck off become an understandable release? I think that's part of the problem: almost across the board, when I ask people who did not vote for Kerry why, then have the same response. No one appreciate being told for 4 solid years they are idiots for having cast a vote. And if they weren't idiots - they were mis-informed. That message was preached from every blog and editorial column in every paper in every city.
It's a message that shows a completely lack of respect - for differeing opinions, and in many cases, for those people's chosen religion. You do not win a vote by telling someone their evil or worse if they disagree with your position.
The left can try any method of reaching the right they want too, but only one of them will ever work:
RESPECT.
And it has been sorely lacking for years, and continuing in the path of the last 4 years will result in a popular vote lost by 7 million next time, not 3.5.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 06:33 pm (UTC)1) The conservative side has also been having a lot of fun labelling liberals as "traitors" and such ever since 9/11, which doesn't get them a lot of respect from liberals, either.
2) A lot of them are misinformed, if for no other reason that that Bush and his cronies lie about everything possible, and so do people like Rush and Hannity. There are probably other reasons, too. See the PIPA study about this for details.
A little more respect could be used on all sides. It's not just about liberals dissing conservatives and non-Christians dissing Christians. The reverse happens as well, and it would be to everyone's benefit for everyone to chill.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 07:20 pm (UTC)Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 06:40 pm (UTC)Oh, I don't know when the Vice President said it was? Which he did, on national television.
What, pray tell, in your opinion, is the "liberal message" with which they so disagree? Because the problems I am discussing have to do with the people who vote conservative getting screwed by the conservatives.
As for your comment on the issue of votes, No you don't, but the Right has been getting a lot of people to vote for them by telling the Left to fuck off. By blaming them and spewing bile and vitriol, and that can only redound to the country's harm, as it has.
For all that you disagree with the it, the Right has had a concerted campaign, for the best part of 15 years, to paint the left as evil, and mean, and hateful. Sadly it has paid off, with things like this, "It's a sad day, indeed, when just under 50% of the US voting population would vote for a treasonous gold-digger, who would dare compare the wonderful work of our US military in Iraq, freeing an entire nation from under the yoke of Sodamned Insane and his Ba'athist Butchers, to the treachery that was perpetrated on the brave Cuban ex-pats, who were hung out to dry by the first *spit* JFK *spit*.
Rope. Tree. Justice.,i> The only three things that Qerry deserves for his "service".
This is not as rare a sentiment as I would like to think. And what is more telling is that the Republican Part isn't repudiating such things. Rather the leadership is praising it. Mary Matalin, one of the Presidents advisors is a huge fan of Limbaugh, so that when people tell me he is a fringe player, only a form of, "entertainment," I have to respond that it's patently untrue. The Party likes what he, and his ilk say, and they encourage it.
I may be forced, just for the sake of the number moving from one column to the other, to re-register as a democrat and let the Republicans know the way they are running the Party, as much as the mess they are making of the country have driven me away.
TK
TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 07:28 pm (UTC)Furthermore, just because Dick Chaney does ANYTHING, that does not make it acceptable for other people to do.
For every nutter on the right, there's one on the left. For every Qerry referrence you've seen on line, I've seen calls for liberal Jihad. For every call of liberal traitor you've heard, I've had my entire family accused of being oppressive hatemongering bigots.
Focusing on the irrational of either side is ignoring the larger problem, and the solution.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 07:36 pm (UTC)That is a fundamental, and crucial difference.
The comment about Cheney was to point out that those who are so in arms about some of the left telling people to fuck off, were praising Cheney for doing it. Double standards are evil, not only are they inherently unfair, they lead hypocrisy (as with the present attempt, almost certain to pass, to change the Ethics Rules which would force DeLay to step down if he is indicted in Texas {which looks very likely}. That rule was passed by the Republicans to force Rostenkowski out of his office, and now they say such things [grand jury indictments] are political, and shouldn't be used to force an otherwise good man out of his role as a House leader, gotta love the way they bring morals to the Gov't).
When the Left gave the respect you seem to think they lost, they didn't get respect in return, they got the Savages, and the Brooks, and the Norquists (bi-partisanship is another word for date rape). They got the smear campaigns against Anita Hill, they got the millions spent to attack the President.
Rolling over and saying, do me again, please, is not repsect. It's giving up.
TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 08:07 pm (UTC)I don't think I claimed 'hate' and disrespect are ONLY on the left. To claim hypocracy and double standards are found only on one side of the ailse isn't very fair, or true. True - the right has not rebuked every frothering idiot. Has the left? The left didn't rebuke the NAACP for comparing Bush to Hitler. Don't even get me started on Moore.(Personlly, I think he and his ilk are one reason the left lost)
And frankly, claiming the republican party encourages assassination tells me you might know a bit less about them than you think you do, hon. How is that any different than the right claiming anti-war lierals were traitor? The point is it's not any different.
I think one reason the left lost this election is because the messages "We'd rather leave the country than live with YOU PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR BUSH!" or "Only the *insert condesending terminology here* would vote for Bush anyway" was far more prevalent than the message of equality, liberty, and mutual respect that the modern democratic party was founded on.
From my perspective, that message was utterly lost in the bitterness of losing the whtehouse 4 years ago. It was replaced with more anger and petualance than I (being only 26) remember seeing on the other side of the aisle. Oh, I remember the Clinton scandals, but they made the right look stupid in the end. I just can't help but wonder WHY the left decided to employ the same soulless tactic immediately after claiming it was so despicable in their opponents.
:(
There comes a point when you aren't fighting fire with fire anymore, and you start making the problem worse. We passed that point in 2002.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 09:27 pm (UTC)When someone on the left is the slightest bit less than supportive, the press, and the right get in a tizzy (recall the reaction to Mrs. Kerry telling a reporter, who had abused her in print before to, "shove off." It went on for a week, and was brought up occaisionaly, right up to the election).
Kerry told MoveOn.org to pull an add which was, though mean, truthfull. Bush said the Swift Boat Boys had an opinion, and it ought not be stifled. But he'd asked Kerry to get the MoveOn ad pulled.
Cheney tells Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself and not a whisper of outrage. When he told Tucker Carlson he felt better afterwards, they chuckled.
Do I think the Republicans advocate killing Kerry, had he been elected? No, but then again the Secret Service didn't knock on those doors, the way they have for people merely saying they prayed God would take Bush (which isn't exactly a sentiment I agree with, but that's a different issue).
I have not said there is no venom on the left, what I have said is the imprimature the Republican Party gives it, makes all the difference in the world.
And the Left hasn't been pursuing Bush the way Clinton was pursued.
Here is my opinion, personal, and not, so it would seem, shared by the Democratic party. Bush has committed impeacable offenses. His use of the authority granted him by Congress was not done in accord with the legal requirements of that authority, and his wilful misuse of intelligence to paint a picture which was known to be false (which the preparations I saw on the ground in Kuwait and Iraq, as well as the reports coming in from the field in the days prior to the invaision make more than clear. If the Army was that certain there was no risk from NBC, than the CIA was damned well aware of it) certainly rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
As for bitterness about the election in 2000... I think not enough was made of it. Forget the totals, we have no way of knowing at this point, what they might have been, but the Republican Party made a point of stopping the count. They didn't want to see the numbers, and they did a great deal to stop it.
They filed the first law suit. They imported people from Washington to stage a small riot at counting locations, and then had the gall to say the count couldn't be allowed to continue because it was causing public unrest, so Bush ought to be given the win to prevent the disturbance they caused.
That sort of blind lust for power, combined with the effects of his administration, bothers me. It shows a lack of respect for the people and the law. That, as much as anything else is why I'd have been willing to hold my nose and vote for Lieberman.
TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 06:42 pm (UTC)That "leaving America" for spite thing is also idiotic.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 07:28 pm (UTC)TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 09:58 pm (UTC)I know I can come up with examples of blogs and newspaper editorials that are respectful of conservatives. I bet you can, too. I have a question for you, though:
What is the liberal message?
Most respectfully meant,
K.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 11:14 pm (UTC)We assume the average liberal voter casts his or her ballot to the left because they disagree with what they see as the 'conservative message', or because they find themselves in agreement with what they perceive to be the liberal message.
It seems to me that very few on the left want to admit that reverse possiblitity to be the case when it comes to why they lost the election.
The general message of the left I saw this year was very mixed: It was Part "BUSH IS TEH EVAL!!", Part "Bush is Hitler(in all seriousness. He really is and this is why: )", Part "We'll vote for anyone but Bush", Part "We shouldn't have gone to war", Part "We support Civil Rights, but not Gay Marriage... ok fine, civil unions(but not too loudly, because we want the Catholic vote)", Part "We don't want to live here anymore if our guys doesn't win", Part "The world hates us because of Bush"...
There were occasional mentions of other issues and platforms - and god, were they needed, if only to make Bush answer for himself at last! But everything paled in comparrison to TEH EVALNESS OF TEH SHRUB WHO STOLE TEH PRECIOUS WHITEHOUSE/GOODWILL OF THE WORLD/IRAQI OIL message.
59 million were unconvinced John Kerry wold be better - and those are just the ones who voted! ; ) I'd say the problem was 2 fold: It wasn't just the lack of inspiring message, it was how what message there was played out in the hearts and minds Kerry needed to win in order to move into the whitehouse.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 11:31 pm (UTC)What is it that liberals stand for? What are liberal values? What does liberal mean in America today? What, I guess, is liberalism?
K.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 08:32 am (UTC)If you listen to the things the candidates said, the Obamas and the Kerrys what you got was, Fair pay, fair taxes, health care, actual humility; and deliberation in foriegn policy. Putting our budget in order, looking after the ill and the the weak.
Equality in justice, a real effort to look at the security issues the present threats have made more known(they were always there, just ignored; by pretty much everyone but the military and the special details of the FBI, but no one listens to us).
But that isn't what the campaign was about. No, it was about the events of a war that ended thirty years ago. It was about accusations of shifting positions, and it was about fear, fear of what might happen the next time around.
Fear of another dramatic attack, a fear the White House used, by saying Kerry was the favored choice of terrorists. Fear that Kerry would raise the little guys taxes (which he said he wouldn't) Fear that somehow the idea of fairness for homosexuals was somehow immoral, or that having a respect for the law in the public sphere, and allowing people to make choices in the private (rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesars) was somehow akin to heresy.
Those were the issues I saw being laid at the feet of the left. Not true, or things which were distorted, IMO. But now I hear that, because of how the Left was protrayed, they; we, are full of hate.
And yes, for all the reason you say you dislike the way you percieve the left, I dislike being told I don't count, and that unless I can make nice (which quality seems sadly lacking from a Party which accuses John McCain of being daft, and of having an illigitimate, black, love child, and tells a triple amputee he lacks patriotism (and those were campaign tactics) I can expect to have my opinions discounted. Well they are being discounted now.
And some of it is decidedly personal. My family has suffered physical attack, bordering on attempted murder, because of not having the right political bumper stickers, so being told that it's a fringe thing, well that fringe seems larger than I'd like to think.
TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 04:35 pm (UTC)I think I got the traditional equality message from Obama, but he wasn't running. Kerry's messgae included a lot of what I heard from my friends, and he didn't score any points for trying to paint Bush a lair or failure by lying himself. If some un-educated blond fan girl like myself can catch him at it, I suspect my fellow, uneducated red-state pig farmers noticed it too. *wink*
I'm a bit worried about how you condemn the right for their frohing maniacs, but you don't seem to see any justice in any right wing voter doing the same with the left.
If this election taught me anything, it was that bigotry, intolerance, and hatred isn't confined to the right. I'm begining to suspect it never was. And if it's not, then both of those party's ought to be equally condemed for it, and my vote decided on other issues, which is what I did. ; )
Now, I hear a TON of conservatives rallying to wrest away what power remain to the religious right. But the left seems to have not discovered that giving the majority of power & press to their own frothing lunatics is one big reason why they lost.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 10:29 am (UTC)I haven't read many people answering your (or, what I read as your) real question.
While I agree that mutual respect is the best chance we have at true communication, the respect you're talking about may very well be in short supply because it's flow is all but non-existent in the opposite direction.
More importantly, though, I think your point can also be addressed by a comparison of the "values" in question... A comparison nobody has been successful at getting you to join into thus far.
The supporters of the right seem to have, on a very basic level, a remarkable lack of this "respect for differing opinions" you mention. I feel pretty safe in saying, without the hard numbers at hand, that the majority of people who voted for Bush believe in my freedom to live as they see fit... Not as I see fit.
("you" meaning the right in general... I obviously don't know where you personally stand on these things) I respect your right to not have an abortion, but my willingness to allow another woman to have one is evil. I support your right to marry a man, but my desire to marry the woman I love is immoral. You support prayer in school, but only protestant or evangelical christian prayer. You support tax structures that favor white christian women staying home and having more babies, but penalize anyone else. You support laws that not only take away reproductive rights on an abortion level, but allow christian doctors to refuse even contraception to single women.
The position of the left is, in general, to allow everyone to have their own values, so long as those values harm no other. The position of the right is, in general, to allow everyone to have christian caucasion male values. You can't be satisfied with having the freedom to live your life as you see fit... You have to try to ensure we all live our lives as you see fit, as well.
I don't know if you're really not capable of seeing this, but that's not equality and freedom and mutual respect... It's not what this country was founded on... That's a blatant attempt to vote into power a religious autocracy.
And you wonder why we react with incredulity to the numbers in which people voted for this man? Ignore the idiots who type funny or regurgitate mindless generalities... This is America, so both sides are bound to have them in abundance. The rest of us... We're giving you the benefit of the doubt. We're thinking such a person must be either mentally deficient or criminally misinformed, because on a very basic level, we just can't imagine intelligent, informed, freedom loving people being willing to vote for someone like that.
We are, on a deep, emotional level, laboring under the delusion that all intelligent, decent people are in favor of life, liberty, and justice for all... Not just for those who agree foursquare with the christian ruling class.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 04:22 pm (UTC)I think that's as unfair a characterization as if I considered say, Maureen Dowd or Michael Moore to speak for the whole of any who'd vote against a republican.
I don't think either of those characterizations are fair, but they were embraced by both parties - only I feel it was embraced more on the left than on the right. Only about 20 million of the people in this nation who voted for Bush were evangelicals christians, folks who might hold the prejudices you oppose in your response...
...
which means about 40 million only agree in part, or simply disagree more with the left this cycle than the right. But John Kerry didn't need the 20 million evangelicals to win the whitehouse. He only needed 4 million of the rest, and they still rejected his message.
And what was that message? Well, I'm not sure. But I know that while it was never going to win the bigoted on the right, it DID alienate those in the middle for some reason- the one who agree with you on a lot of civil liberties issues.
Maybe they thought Kerry was over stating the threat of Bush to civil liberties? I'm in that camp myself. ;) So what if Bush allowed the religious righties try and ammend the constitution? Let them try and fail and loose status int he porcess. Let them alienate socially-liberal conservative voters, because it's never gonna happen. I firmly believe that aspect of the traditional 'religious right' is in decline right alongside the church it comes from. They got a few state ammendments passed, which will in their own time be rejected.
But the message of the left was not 'My friends, can't you see how such things compromize our commitment to treat all citizen fairly because of race creed or color?'
The message was that they were too stupid, were worse than terrorists or nazi's for holding to a religious beliefs in the voting booth (while watching the same folks objects to people trying to stifle political expressions of s *different* religion)... some people don't even want to live in the same country as people with their faith. THAT'S a message of tolerance? That the other side is too associate with, let alone vote for?
The democrats didn't to offer a different message than the one on the right, they just preached the mirror image of it, bigotry and all.
That was why the other 40 million didn't think Kerry would be any better, but possibly a whole lot worse. Because in his adminitration, Bigotry would OK, if it was directed at the 'intolerant' right.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 06:01 pm (UTC)Just a thouht, you might want to look at this take on the communications gap Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels
You keep arguing a circle, the Left is full of hate, but the hate from the right, which goes to the public top, is only reflective of the fringes of the right.
And I keep harping on the part which bothers me most, the public top of the Republican Party condoning, at the very least, the hate-mongering of its adherents, and condemning the repudiations the Democratic Party makes as not enough.
The organised bigotry and attempts to legislate hate on the right are tolerable, but what you see as the reverse is so bad you will put up with other evils to avoid it.
A side which declares its interest in legislating inequality, preventing greater equality and which claims broad powers to invalidate the law (the president's nominee for att'y general says the presidency contains an, "inherent right," to ignore laws with which it disagree), has held people incommunicado, and without charge, justifies torture; and wants to make it legal, by saying that only pain which leads to organ failure or death counts as torture, which lies to its people to wage a war it didn't need, and wasn't able to win, that is something to be given more respect than they have gotten. And that is just the gov't. It leaves out the Michelle Malkins, who are arguing the internment of Arabs would be justified, and being priased for it, even having people like John Leo, of US News, and World Reports, writing op-ed pieces saying it might be a good idea.
Something you seem to be unable to understand a strong, even hateful, reaction to.
But the flip side, that the people who argue those who don't agree with them, or who have the temerity to question those policies, those are traitors, or un-american, or immoral, and that, while you don't agree, isn't enough to make public demurrer needful; but the "good liberals" need to disavow anyone who isn't saying the right is full of good people pursuing personal belief.
Yet you aver that Kerry has bigotted positions he would attempt to enshrine into law. What are they? Because if he uttered such policy recommendations I would love to see them, becauase then I might better understand those who said (and I have several friends who did this), "I don't like Bush, but Kerry scares me." Well, to be honest Bush scares me. Deep down and grimly. Bush scares me. His policies, his restrictions of civil liberty (both enacted and reformed) his shifting of the burdens down the chain, and his ruination of the economy, those scare me.
TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 06:19 pm (UTC)I don't think the text supports that conclusion. The phantom voter in question is not simply someone who would vote against a democrat. I'd vote against a democrat in a heartbeat, if his positions were wrong. What we're talking about isn't someone who'd vote against anyone... We're talking about someone who'd vote for George W. Bush... Since those are the values he holds, quite publicly.
We're talking about a man who has an almost singular inability to differentiate between right and wrong on a governmental level, substituting a strong religious sense of right and wrong... Which is, by it's very definition, governmentally wrong.
Although I don't think it's a very valid response, people have said, in the case of every president I can remember, if he wins/since he won, it's time to move to another country. You honestly think the fact that there are orders of magnitude more of them this time is only an indication that we, as a culture, have become more petulent? Isn't it just possible that, in this case, the president so abhorred is simply that much more abhorrant?
I would hate to leave my country because of a shift in political/legal climate... But I have been forced to recognize that, due to a series of choices the American people made on the 2nd, it may very well come to a time in the next twenty years where it's simply illegal for me to exist here. I'll have to decide at that time whether it's worthwhile to fight that injustice and risk myself, my "wife", and our children... Or simply flee.
You're so sure the imbalance is self-correcting... And I tend to think so as well. If I didn't, I'd be making plans to leave already. But I think you're grossly underrating the huge civil rights set-backs this administration can very easily cost us, and by extension, the world. Yes, eventually, there will be some equality again - I have to believe that. Still, with a conservative majority in the legislature, a radically conservative executive branch, and the possibility of four - count 'em - four conservative appointments to SCOTUS, which could also, at least in part be quite radical... With the possibility of so many radically conservative appointments to be made in this, his second term... the term where traditionally, all the stops are pulled out since the sword of damocles or re-election is gone... the term where this already dangerously religious man feels he's been vindicated if not sanctified by the mandate and annointment of the people...
It doesn't take an laureled scholar of constitutional law and supreme court opinions to see that the damage that could be done in the next four years could very easily take literally thrity years to even diagnose... Let alone begin to heal.
I do agree with you in part, that political discourse has become far too generalized, venemous, and simplistic... But I don't expect it to get better before it gets worse. Not in a country where religious faith satanizes intellect and secular education and intellect and education openly ridicule blinkered religious faith.
And speaking of religious faith... Holding to a religious belief in the voting booth may not be comparable to "nazism" (even presupposing we assume nazism as a whole to support the concentration camp nightmares the name calls to mind), but it's certainly and demonstrably unamerican.
"The democrats didn't to offer a different message than the one on the right,"
You're joking, right? The vast evidence available to refute this obviously unsupported allegation is so mountainous that I'm going to assume, for the moment, if for no other reason than to save some typing, that you are, in fact, joking.
CNN (at least I think it was CNN) had a lovely comparative up, during the pre-election extravaganza that has become a sad excuse for Amreican civic responsibility... It clearly delineated each candidates position on something like 20 major issues.
Only two of them were similar enough to be called "not offering a different message"
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 07:01 pm (UTC)I can fully understand the worry that the Bush administration may be able to appoint conservative judges to the SC. What I don't understand is the intolerant, aggressive treatment of people who voted (or would vote)for him because of that *possibility*. It's an ugly reality, but it is still a hypothetical. It's be like bedviling all Kerry voters because of the possibility that he will begin prohibiting the practice of religion the left considers intolerant.
And so now it is unamerican to vote based on one's personal creed? I thought all the whole idea of a republic was that folks could believe/live/vote for who they want to and still be treated equally... then again, I'm of the uneducated, red state american variety, so I could be wrong. ; )
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 08:12 pm (UTC)I quoted the active half. The back half was an adverb phrase that was demonstrably untrue. It's inclusion would have, in no way changed or invalidated my response. The whole quote:
The democrats didn't to offer a different message than the one on the right, they just preached the mirror image of it, bigotry and all.
I say again... The democratic and republican platforms were markedly and obviously differentiated on most major points. In the case of some points, the differences were small but no less extant. In no single platform point of platform "message" was either side's positin the "mirror image" of the other. Please feel free to point out an example to the contrary.
I can fully understand the worry that the Bush administration may be able to appoint conservative judges to the SC.
Can you? Besides losing your reproductive freedom, how much legal "tolerance" of your basic, unchangeable being will you have to kiss goodbye when it happens? Because barring some major miracle, it will happen.
And on the subject of tolerance... Heh. On one hand, we're talking about people who want to criminalize me for something I'm no more in control of than my skin color at birth. On the other hand, we have the "good" side... the "moderate right"... At least in public, they say I should be "tolerated" for the way I was born... The same way, I suppose, they "tolerate" blacks, jews, and hispanics. America is not about tolerance. It's about and freedom and equality.
What I don't understand is the intolerant, aggressive treatment of people who voted (or would vote)for him because of that *possibility*. It's an ugly reality, but it is still a hypothetical. It's be like bedviling all Kerry voters because of the possibility that he will begin prohibiting the practice of religion the left considers intolerant.
This is a wholly inaccurate, innapropriate illustration. First, it's not hypothetical in any real sense. Justices will retire, and it's the President's job to appoint the new ones. While I would certainly hope a responsible, freedom minded jurist would cling to his position from the inside of his iron lung, waiting for a more fit President to appoint his replacement, That's just not going to happen in ever case.
Second, your comparative is far afield of logical reality. Who or what "the left considers intolerant" is not at issue... Either someone or something is intolerant or it's not. For now, there are legal checks in place to keep that religious intolerance in safe suspension, in the realm of belief and out of the realm of action. Simply put, at the point one person's "religion" allows or requires them to harm another person, in the US, that religion runs afoul of the law.
Third, we're concerned about a constitutional certainty, and you're comparing it to an imaginary and illegal threat.
And so now it is unamerican to vote based on one's personal creed?
Always, always has been. Although it doesn't go against the laws of this country, it absolutely goes against the founding principals of this country to vote for someone for a religious reason... This same founding principals, paradoxically, ensure that it should not ever be against the law.
The idea is that everyone is free to hold their own religious beliefs. Given that that freedom is, as nearly as possible, constitutionally guaranteed, when you vote your religion, you're not voting for you to remain free to live as you please, you are, by definition, trying to enforce your religious beliefs on others... And that is as unamerican an idea as can be discussed.
...more... damned full quotes...
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 08:13 pm (UTC)I thought all the whole idea of a republic was that folks could believe/live/vote for who they want to and still be treated equally...
Actually, the whole idea of a republic is that a few people are selected to make governing decisions on behalf of the population at large... But, given the status quo of American education systems, I can see how you might get confused. ;-)
then again, I'm of the uneducated, red state american variety, so I could be wrong. ; )
So... In frustration at my refusal to sling mud at you, you've decided to sling some at yourself? Well, I don't think it fits. There's a difference between being uneducated and failing to question and verify the information you've been indoctrinated - er... that is to say, educated with. *my turn to grin and wink*
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 09:10 pm (UTC)And THAT'S exactly the lack of respect I mentioned in the first post - that someone who has arrived at a different conclusion has either been indoctrinated, is possessed of ill intentions towards their fellow counrtymen, or is intellectually lazy in arriving at that conclusion. THAT is the problem I see on the left, that I see less of on the right. The right thinks the left is wrong for entirely different reasons...
You make some great points, ones I'd prolly debate if I wasn't already give out on explaining every idea and nuance as if I'd wronged the very idea of liberty and justice by voting for a republican. Maybe I'll sneak back here when I'm a little less dissillusioned. :)
I don't know TK all that well, but he comes highly recommended, so I thought I'd share my perspective here. But I've lost track of who's read what into my replies, and I'm just not gonna keep arguing about it. I like LJ, but this is the sorta stuff that really sucks the fun out of it for me, so thanks for the attention you guys gave my remarks, but please stop now, K? Enough of this is in my inbox in less than 24 hours.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-19 05:19 am (UTC)I'm also sorry for any personal attacks. I, for one, have never said you were evil for how you chose to vote. I also haven't said anyone else was. I think the effects of those votes are an evil. But the unintended consequences are just that, for most, and as such not evil, per se.
I also never said you don't think there are bigots, and evil people, on your side of the aisle, any more than I pretend there aren't on mine. I shan't repeat the places in which I think the behaviour of the two parties differ, because I've said it enough alrady and repitition would</I border on abuse. . I can only hope this was not so painful to you (and it was painful to me too, for different, and similar, reasons) that you choose to stop reading me. If for no other reason than I hope my writings, and referrals may persuade you, in two/four years, that this is an administration not to be borne, and the Party which they support (and vice versa) needs to be brought to heel. TK
...I'm sorry...
Date: 2004-11-19 05:19 am (UTC)First, yes... I assumed you were joking about the mud-slinging. I tried to use enough smiles and winks to ensure you could tell I was joking back.
Second, "...as if I'd wronged the very idea of liberty and justice by voting for a republican."
That's where I feel you're missing my point. Speaking for myself, as I've said, it's got nothing to do with voting for a republican. I've voted for some replublicans. It has everything and only to do with voting for George W. Bush. He'd be singularly wrong for the job whether he were calling himself republican, democrat, libertarian, centrist, whig, or bullmoose.
That's where I keep wondering how an informed, intelligent person could vote for him... I know there must be reasons, because a lot of informed, intelligent people did. But none of them has, as yet, given me so much as one verifiable, logical, sound reason... As much as I've asked.
Mostly, I just wanted to say yes, I was joking back... I'm very sorry I pushed it to the point where you ceased to enjoy it, and if you ever want to discuss any of it, to any depth, you know where to find me.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 05:59 pm (UTC)Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 06:32 pm (UTC)Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 06:57 pm (UTC)I think
For me what saddens me is this, "I'm a bit worried about how you condemn the right for their frohing maniacs, but you don't seem to see any justice in any right wing voter doing the same with the left. because in the first place I haven't said that.
What I have said is I don't see equivalence between the organised campaign of the right (and I commend "What Liberal Media", "The Bush Dyslexicon" and "Blinded by the Right" as primers on that organised campaign) and the, recent, reactions such as "Dude, Where's My Country" to such things as "Treason", "Bias" and suchlike.
I have condemned (in fact it was your reaction to some of that condemnation which sparked all of this) over reaction. Have been condemning it for years (and for most of my short time here on LiveJournal) but that seems to be not good enough.
So, how do you define the "Respect" you feel the Dems, "owe" the Republicans?
And second, what do the Republicans have to do to keep it? Because if one side gets to sling shit, and the other has to eat it, that isn't respect, its tribute.
TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 07:14 pm (UTC)I think people of almost every creed are owed respect. It's not about earning it or keeping it, its about giving it even when you disagree with someone, even when you think they probably don't deserve it.
I think the left had the opportunity to take the high road after the right embarassed itself over how it railed against clinton, and instead, they took a lower one - they didn't just tar the president, they did it to every tax-paying american who dare vote against them. They accused the right of playing dirty(and they were) but then they played dirtier.
I don't think that's belittling anything done by the right of the political divide. It's sharing what I preceived to be a failure of democratic party leadership in the 2004 election cycle.
Shoot me for having an opinion on the matter, I'll make sure not to in the future.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 08:34 pm (UTC)I think the tarring of our current president is not so much a pay-back for some imagined or real malign against Clinton, but an individualized reaction to his... jeez... how many ways can it be said? His blatant, radical, reactionary, small-minded, dangerous, and laughable singular lack of qualification for the job he holds.
Yes... It's a sad fact of human nature that most people, especially in large groups, are little better than ill-behaved children. When they notice someone being teased, they're as likely as not to join in, whether or not they understand the reason. But that doesn't invalidate the reality that our current President so very richly deserved to be teased, criticized, and removed bodily from office.
Unfortunately, in the real world, when you vote for someone like that, you're gonna catch some grief for it... Especially when you can't offer a single, verifyable, defensible reason to have done so... If "He's not a democrat" or "He's not Kerry." or "I'm a sheep and I believe the propaganda without question." is a voter's best defense, even though it may not be very nice, they're going to get made fun of.
It's like someone taking a bite of a wax fruit because it looks good... After the first bite, we'll probably gently tease him for not looking closely enough. When he insists it still looks pretty and continues to eat the whole damned thing, we're probably gonna call him stupid.
Well... Now, our imaginary voter has just gone back to the table and grabbed another wax fruit... And he's picked up a few for his wife and kids, as well. What do you think we should say this time, besides "What in the name of... What were you thinking?!? Were you thinking?!?"
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-18 08:36 pm (UTC)The right in this country are very organized and committed. This book will open your eyes to just how committed they are to their agenda.
I'm jealous of this ability of the right to do this. The liberals aren't as organized, and that's one of the reasons why I think they lost. And if they don't learn how to organize well, they'll continue to lose.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 06:47 pm (UTC)One is that some fire needs to be met with fire. The most vocal of the right (and the nastiest) are not going to respect anything less than being treated as the bullies they are. Yoshida, for example, has a convenient glitch in his blog which causes it to be commenting to be unstable when he gets a lot of heat for things like advocating murder, or the use of Democratic women as sex slaves for Republicans. However such writings don't get him censured in the press, nor do they stop his paycheck from the Wash Times. Which is the sort of thing I am writing about.
Second, and more to the point, the people you we are discussing, they don't get to give Liberals the benefit of the doubt. No, they get told John Kerry is a euro-snob, who is too rich to appreciate, "real Americans" and as an American (one of the half of the Nation who was against Bush being re-elected) being called a fake American, and told to, "get over it" and accept that I am a second class moron, who doesn't have what it takes to be a Real American pisses me off.
It especially pisses me off when I get told that, because of the skewed reportage they get, that I am called intolerant, because they percieve all those on the Left of the present Right (and I used to be slightly right of center, but the parties have drifted, a lot) are all snobs who think them stupid hicks.
It ain't so.
TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 06:58 pm (UTC)Since we are assuming that these are intelligent people we are adressing, we don't need to be loud, that is not the "trick" with intelligent folk, and as we have already seen, it does not work.
It seems that we can have it one way or the other. if the people we want to reach are stupid and just beleive what they hear, loud is the way. But if we think they think, we have to mee them like you would with anyone else with a valid viewpoint that disagrees with you.
I don't accept that just because they are told that you ( in the larger sense), think that they are stupid hicks and \are intolerant, does not mean that they beleive it. i feel that the best way to mee that is not by shouting " the right radio LIES" as much as it is I see your point, dis agree with you, and here is why.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 07:28 pm (UTC)TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 07:47 pm (UTC)Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 07:55 pm (UTC)Why, because I think this adminstration (and this is the only one I'm looking at) and the people surrounding it are bad for the country, and especially bad for the middle.
Someone is going to have to pay for the debt. Right now the red states get more federal money, per head, than the blue states. Which means when the money runs out, the red states (already suffering) will take another hit.
The core values of the nation, personal freedom; mind your business, and let your neighbours mind theirs, equality, a fair days pay for a fair days work, these are all heartland values. And they used to be reflected in the heartland vote. The progressive movement didn't come from Chicago, it came from Topeka. But, as all things do, when they had won (the minimum wage, the income tax, the vote for women-- Wyoming was the first, New York among the last) they got complacent, and the politicians they elected moved to Washington (and the advent of AC is probably the worst thing to happen to the U.S., because it means they can legislate all year) and they lost focus.
And now the focus has shifted to making them look bad.
TK
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 08:11 pm (UTC)I cannot say if it is the progressives that, (in continuing to progress), have forgotten to take along their core, or if progession only speaks to you if its YOUR issues that are being adressed.
i agree that the current admin is bad, I also think that we don't do a good job in making other people see why. REALLY see why.
On a different note, i also think that progressives need to rebel a bit against the party, make them EARn the vote. We rail on Bush about his stance on guns, gays and other social issues, but it was not as if Kerry was gonna make any changes either.
Re: I would
Date: 2004-11-17 09:41 pm (UTC)22 percent of the electorate said that was what decided their vote. Most of the 22 percent, would have voted for the Anti-Christ if he could convince them he was Born Again (yes, I am painting a stereotype, but I know people, a lot of people, who voted for Bush, for no other reason than his religion). Bush mocks the doomed (please don't kill me) and they don't care.
He paints the world in Manichaen tones, and they don't care. The dollar is tanking, he is going to do away with someone's social security, he's breaking MY army, and making more enemies, while he fails to fight the actual risks we face, and they don't care.
He flip-flops, and they don't care.
But that's 22 percent of the people who voted for Bush, which means it's only 11 percent of the country.
The rest, they've been told that being allowed to sue someone who lets little girls have their intestines sucked by a swimming pool manufacturer is why they can't get health insurance. That high premiums are from lawsuits (when it's actually from a crappy stock market). They've been told they are getting a tax-cut (when they aren't) and that trickle down will work, this time.
They need to be told that when people have money to spend (the people at the bottom and the middle) that companys do better. They need to be told that the SS system, right now, will last for 60 years, and that gives us time to actually fix it, instead of putting it into the stock market (which has a 3 trillion dollar price tag, and guarantees no one, but the companys who get capital, anything).
They need to be remined that fair for one, means fair for all.
And they need to be reminded that the Prgressive is fighting for the little guy, which they are being told is false. They get told sob-stories of welfare queens, and that the cities are stealing their tax dollars (which isn't true). They are told the Left is full of Godless heathens, which is false.
And we need to be able to tell them that, so they can hear it.
TK