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 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.