Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand it was a program designed to remedy bigotry. I think it's morphed into something else. But I don't have any great desire to argue its substance either. I'm just noting that the DEMs use this as a wedge issue, and I believe many of the assumptions behind it are racist (see e.g., the fact that there is no means test).

Democrats don't use race as a "wedge" issue. Race is not a way to drive a wedge in the GOP coalition.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
If you feel the need to go down that road, I'm sure the more radical people in the red states have the same intractible views about "Godless Heathens", "Socialists" and "Baby Killers".

coRRECT! No common ground.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well, in 2000 if Gore had come out strong for hand gun control, instead of promising not to take anyone's guns away, I might have voted for him. But I think you'd lose more of your base with that stance.

Does anyone here understand what a wedge issue is?

With this campaign, Kerry was shooting a shotgun and Bush a rifle. Kerry wanted to talk about everything- Bush had fucked up everything and Kerry was going to fix it all. Other than the people who hated Bush, I didn't see anything that would motivate people to go vote.

Kerry was going after swing voters, and the exit polls suggest he did it well.

Gay rights, or stopping them more accurately, is not the type of single issue that a Candidate cannot overcome. The column i linked on the Detroit churches and their reactions shows people who BELIEVE gays are evil can still be convinced to vote Democrat. You just need to come up with a candidate that has a message and who delivers the message in a believable manner. But the Dems better recognize the reality and get ready with some message by 2006.

The genius of the way that the GOP used the gay-marriage issue is that they didn't tie it to the presidential campaign. As that e-mail that I posted last night suggested, the GOP was using the issue to fire people up, but Bush stayed above that fray. The ballot measures (for example) got a lot of people all fired up to vote, and those people tended to vote for Bush. I suspect that there were relatively few people who would quite say, "I'm voting for Bush because of gay marriage." But that's not the point.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not exactly sure who you have in mind when you refer to the left's culture warriors, but presumably you are thinking of figures who are not particularly political. E.g., I suspect you are annoyed by speech codes at colleges and universities, but the Democratic Party has little or nothing to do with those.

Left's culture warrior groups off the top of my head:

Gun control
Pro-choice
Very, very strict and thorough separation of church and state
Anti-death penalty
Pro-stem cell research
Anti-creationism
Pro-preventing natural resource exploitation in certain areas

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
An idiot or a New Yorker:

_____________________

"I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland," Dr. Joseph said. "This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country - in the heartland."

"New Yorkers are more sophisticated and at a level of consciousness where we realize we have to think of globalization, of one mankind, that what's going to injure masses of people is not good for us," he said.

His friend, Ms. Cohn, a native of Wisconsin who deals in art, contended that New Yorkers were not as fooled by Mr. Bush's statements as other Americans might be. "New Yorkers are savvy," she said. "We have street smarts. Whereas people in the Midwest are more influenced by what their friends say."

"They're very 1950's," she said of Midwesterners. "When I go back there, I feel I'm in a time warp."
____________________________________

But some New Yorkers feel less hostile - that all the Heartland needs is a sincere and loving hug:

_________________________

"If the heartland feels so alienated from us, then it behooves us to wrap our arms around the heartland," she said. "We need to bring our way of life, which is honoring diversity and having compassion for people with different lifestyles, on a trip around the country."

_____________________________

excepts from: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/nyregion/04york.html

I read an article this morning in the NYT discussing New Yorkers' feeling of alienation after the election. The article, titled "A Blue City Bewildered by a Red America," notes that New Yorkers overwhelmingly voted for Kerry and then quotes New Yorkers talking about how different they feel they are from the rest of America. One says she describes New York to her European friends as "an island off the coast of Europe." Dr. Joesph, as quoted above, has some unkind words about the Heartland, which are echoed by his formerly Heartland-dwelling friend. Dr. Joseph in particular seems to believe that New Yorkers are intellectually and culturally superior than the "rednecks" in the Heartland.

Then, I saw Debt Slave paraphrase (or maybe parody) Sebastian's rant against what he believes to be Red State idiocy. Yet, this paraphrase/parody [i.e., the veiwpoint she ascribed to Sebastian and criticised as misguided] struck me as the very same attitude that this article appeared to ascribe to New Yorkers as a whole. So, I posted quotes from the article and, I fully admit, noted that this was portrayed in the artcile as the attitude of New Yorkers. I have had some communications from New Yorkers who apprently believe I went out of my way to find unflattering quotes from New Yorkers and then quote them out of context to vent my distaste of New Yorkers. This was not my intent. I think the quotes I posted accurately portray the tone of the article, but the article was not written by me, and I do not adopt its message or tone. Some of my best friends are New Yorkers. But, I will say that you New Yorkers are lucky that the majority of the rubes in the Heartland are not educated or sophisticated enough to read the New York Times, because if they did, this article might further deepen the cultural rift that appears to be growing in this country.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
Look, I don't know what other NY'ers feel (well, other than a few friends and I suppose the dude quoted in this article), but it's not that people think Rs are too stupid to know what's good for them (the imbecilic characterization that DS keeps trying to foist upon us); it's that the RR (religious right -- not sure if that's a "common" acronym, or one I've been using on PM) is purposefully pushing an agenda that is based upon their religious beliefs. lt's not that I'm just disappointed "my guy" didn't win -- I am disheartened that "values" are being forced down the throats of people who don't hold them.

Well thats the nut of it. I don't want to tell the red staters what they can or can't do, but they seem dead set on doing that to me... for reasons that still have not been explained to me. I mean, really... they don't like me, I don't like them... why can't they agree to leave each other alone? I leave them alone. What do they care about how I live?

SHFM may be right. We probably need to let the states decide on social issues so we can all do what we like in our own communities. But let me ask SHFM a question:

SHFM, if we take your course and we do allow social issues to be decided at the state level, will you agree to honor that concept and not try to get Constitutional amendments or Fed laws to force your views down my throat? Will you agree to leave abortion legeal in the states that vote as such? And if you would honor such a bargain, what percentage of the Right do you think would be with you?

My fear is if we give the Right the states' rights they seek, they'll still try to interfere with the other states which do not follow the red state moral agenda.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by cheval de frise
I think you're sticking your head in the sand by re-defining my question to avoid the facts. One of the Democrats' major, public themes was hatred for Bush. Prominent supporters repeatedly mocked his (and by extension, his supporters') general stupidity, incompetence and backwardness. Michael Moore did it. Moveon.org did it. George Soros did it. Countless PAC's, advocacy groups and door-to-door volunteers did it. All this accomplished was to help energize the people who felt differently to go to the polls. And there are a lot of them, as we found out.

(Parenthetically, the box office take of "The Passion of the Christ" roughly tripled that of "Fahrenheit 911." Food for thought.)

Jesus. H. Christ. My point was the difference in this election can be traced to the right's move to make hate part of their platform. If you want to bring all this other shit in (the movie analogy? wtf?), feel free. But you either agree that the reps did that or you don't. If you don't think people who are pushed to the polls for this reason are stupid, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by cheval de frise
Being a "bigot" isn't limited to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other immutable characteristic. A "bigot" is a person "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition.) Under this definition, most of the more-strident posters here are bigots. And this bigotry was definitely used to rally the Democrats' base. Don't pretend otherwise - you're smart, and I know you're not naive.

Gee, thanks Chevy. (And I'm the one being condescending.)

I'm glad you found your dictionary. But you're changing the point. The question is: What drove people to the polls and why did the reps win? If you think the people who think Bush is stupid (and there's no shortage of evidence on that point -- oh wait, he has a syntax problem right? Sweden, Switzerland, whatever) were bigoted towards the reps in the South, feel free to think that. I think that the reaction your seeing now is that people (like me) had no idea that one could drive people to the polls in such large numbers based on their hate of other people. It was surprising to me. And it is very disappointing.

Originally posted by cheval de frise
As others have already said, there is a way to explain things to people to get them to see issues your way. Couch civil unions/gay marriage as a matter of equal rights, and use touching anecdotes (the sick partner in the hospital, etc.) to humanize the people and issues involved. Etc., etc., etc. It isn't going to be easy, and it's frustrating that people don't just "see the light" on their own. But if you (not you personally) want to achieve a result, go about it the right way. Solely standing your ground on moral absolutist grounds isn't gonna get it done. The other side is equally absolutist, and more of them tend to go the polls.

If you want to talk your big game about understanding those people because they outvoted the side who didn't use hate to win, then come up with some suggestions of how to do that. Don't lecture me about how I should look at someone who votes based on hate.

Originally posted by cheval de frise
Everyone should get off their goddamned high horse, be pragmatic, and use their brains. People are not inherently evil. Some of them are just harder to bring out of their own little bunker (on 80th and Park in Manhattan, or in Cincinnati, Ohio), than others.

Well then why won't our current leadership work towards that end instead of trying to fucking fan the flames of hatred and division? Oh wait. I forgot. That's up to the losing side to accomplish. Give me a fucking break.

TM

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not exactly sure who you have in mind when you refer to the left's culture warriors, but presumably you are thinking of figures who are not particularly political. E.g., I suspect you are annoyed by speech codes at colleges and universities, but the Democratic Party has little or nothing to do with those.

They have as much to do with them as the CR does with the GOP. Both are indoctrinated young people in a way that we both can agree is detrimental.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Democrats don't use race as a "wedge" issue. Race is not a way to drive a wedge in the GOP coalition.

It is a way to drive their turnout and keep the GOP coalition from being a bigger tent. The DEMs systematically push the myth that the GOP is the party of the rich white man and is anti minorities. AA is one way in which they do it. Illegal immigration (or whatever the correct term is this year) is another.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I read an article this morning in the NYT discussing New Yorkers' feeling of alienation after the election. The article, titled "A Blue City Bewildered by a Red America," notes that New Yorkers overwhelmingly voted for Kerry and then quotes New Yorkers talking about how different they feel they are from the rest of America. One says she describes New York to her European friends as "an island off the coast of Europe." Dr. Joesph, as quoted above, has some unkind words about the Heartland, which are echoed by his formerly Heartland-dwelling friend. Dr. Joseph in particular seems to believe that New Yorkers are intellectually and culturally superior than the "rednecks" in the Heartland.

Then, I saw Debt Slave paraphrase (or maybe parody) Sebastian's rant against what he believes to be Red State idiocy. Yet, this paraphrase/parody [i.e., the veiwpoint she ascribed to Sebastian and criticised as misguided] struck me as the very same attitude that this article appeared to ascribe to New Yorkers as a whole. So, I posted quotes from the article and, I fully admit, noted that this was portrayed in the artcile as the attitude of New Yorkers. I have had some communications from New Yorkers who apprently believe I went out of my way to find unflattering quotes from New Yorkers and then quote them out of context to vent my distaste of New Yorkers. This was not my intent. I think the quotes I posted accurately portray the tone of the article, but the article was not written by me, and I do not adopt its message or tone. Some of my best friends are New Yorkers. But, I will say that you New Yorkers are lucky that the majority of the rubes in the Heartland are not educated or sophisticated enough to read the New York Times, because if they did, this article might further deepen the cultural rift that appears to be growing in this country.

2.

I sometimes forget how much disdain the coasts have for the middle, and how unnecessarily divisive -- not to mention fucking annoying -- it is. Especially considering that large numbers of people in each of the red states actually voted for Kerry, and that margins may have looked higher for Bush in states that were definitely going to go red, because people who would not have voted for Bush may not have bothered voting at all, since he was going to win anyway. Having coastal (well, NE and pretty much all of the West coasts) people lump all people in red states together and label them "rube redneck morons" tends to be a bit alienating. I would think it would be better to reach out to the substantial minorities in the red states that agree . . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does anyone here understand what a wedge issue is?

Do you realize you keep defining words? The last few months you've been explaining how the words Kerry used were not really inconsistant? The average voter doesn't spend 15 hours a week reading blogs so that he "understands" what was meant.

I thought a wedge was an issue to get a traditonal Rep guy to vote Dem. Gun control would do it for me, but its not the answer to your party because its going to cost you millions of union voters.

Kerry was going after swing voters, and the exit polls suggest he did it well.

Have you checked what your Ouija Board says?

The genius of the way that the GOP used the gay-marriage issue is that they didn't tie it to the presidential campaign. As that e-mail that I posted last night suggested, the GOP was using the issue to fire people up, but Bush stayed above that fray. The ballot measures (for example) got a lot of people all fired up to vote, and those people tended to vote for Bush. I suspect that there were relatively few people who would quite say, "I'm voting for Bush because of gay marriage." But that's not the point.

I didn't actually see any Bush speeches, but I've heard they contained a few straight-forward messages. One of the messages is homosexuals shouldn't get married. If that is true, how was he above the fray?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm quite convinced you could win on the stem-cell issue nationally if you actually couched the question properly (and fairly).

The stem-cell question has been couched "properly and fairly" in any number of media stories and campaigns. To get what you want, you need to get your people to stop sending out the message that it kills cute innocent cuddly soft helpless babies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They have as much to do with them as the CR does with the GOP. Both are indoctrinated young people in a way that we both can agree is detrimental.

I still have no idea who or what you're talking about. Notwithstanding fringey's post, I suspect you're not irked by the anti-creationists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It is a way to drive their turnout and keep the GOP coalition from being a bigger tent. The DEMs systematically push the myth that the GOP is the party of the rich white man and is anti minorities. AA is one way in which they do it. Illegal immigration (or whatever the correct term is this year) is another.

I'm trying to avoid discussing the merits of this issues, so I will just say that what you're talking about has nothing to do with what is meant by a "wedge issue." Driving one's one turn-out is something entirely different.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
2.

I sometimes forget how much disdain the coasts have for the middle, and how unnecessarily divisive -- not to mention fucking annoying -- it is. Especially considering that large numbers of people in each of the red states actually voted for Kerry, and that margins may have looked higher for Bush in states that were definitely going to go red, because people who would not have voted for Bush may not have bothered voting at all, since he was going to win anyway. Having coastal (well, NE and pretty much all of the West coasts) people lump all people in red states together and label them "rube redneck morons" tends to be a bit alienating. I would think it would be better to reach out to the substantial minorities in the red states that agree . . . .

The point of the New Yorkers with whom I communicated was that the article (and I, although I disagree) does not accurately represent the attitude of all or even most New Yorkers. I agree with them. Some of my best friends are New Yorkers, and I am more elitist than they are. But, the fact that the New York Times publishes an article about how New Yorkers cannot fathom what makes the red states tick (they are "bewildered") and then quotes New Yorkers calling red states rednecks and unsavvy rubes probably will not help to heal the rift.