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 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.