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}
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