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 07:47 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