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: 2004-11-18 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.