I have a hard time being charitable with people whom used discrimination, bigotry and fear to win an election. I also am having a hard time being charibable that people actually voted because of their bigotry and fear.
Give me a few days. I might be able to work up some humility and move on. Or I might go postal. I don't really know.
Oh, Hell. I'm not going to go postal. But it sure is fun to contemplate.
But I do, in my better moments, want to understand the sorts of considerations that motivate Bush voters, and I want to understand them in as charitable a way as possible.
On foreign policy, sure. On the economy, maybe. On the issues on which this election seems to have been decided...what's to understand? At what point do you say, those are bigots, and it's too bad there are so many of them?
I was a Bush voter. I can't lay a specific finger on why I preferred Bush to Kerry - though if you go to my blog you'll see plenty of attempts to do so.
I can say that I don't find a lot of what the conservatives are pushing to be good. I would have voted against a gay-marrieage ban if I had lived in one of the states that had it up. I am personally thrilled about the news articles that have been stating Ashcroft is plannign to resign. But I think that gay marriage is something the judiciary is not a proper venue to decide; and given the choice between Ashcroft and Reno, I'd choose ashcroft.
The Democratcs had a chance at my vote when Lieberman was a candidate. Possibly even Gebhart. But Kerry didn't make me want to vote for him. And I didn't.
There is room for people being factually misled on "social issues" too. I bet a lot of people think their church will have to perform gay marriages if activist judges get their way. I bet a lot of people don't understand that the Democrats supported the partial birth abortion ban if it included an exception for the mother's life--which it NEEDED, if it was going to be upheld by the courts. I bet a lot of people thought Kerry actively supported gay marriage. I bet a lot of people think the marriage amendment allows civil unions. I bet people don't understand that stem cell research only can occur on embyros that were created for another purpose, and will be frozen forever or disposed of if not used for research.
The trouble is, with this as with foreign policy, people are at some level choosing to be misled. They have decided they don't like liberals and the newspapers are liberal and the Democrats lie, and they will just trust their church and the president and Fox News and talk radio. So I'm not sure we can reach them.
One upside is we don't need to reach all that many of them.
Also, even if they are bigots, they need not stay that way. Someone needs to make the case FOR gay marriage. People jump all over Newsom, but whenever there are real people being denied their rights, they get all defensive and "I'm not prejudiced but...." It embarrasses a lot of the right into silence, and it fires up the liberals. I used to be a fairly lukewarm gay marriage supporter-- I thought it was an easy issue but not a very important one. Not anymore.
It's no coincidence that public support for hate crimes laws, allowing gays in the military, anti-discrimination laws, has all climbed in recent years. Civil unions are the moderate position supported by a majority of the entire U.S. now, when a few years ago Howard Dean was getting slurred and threatened at every campaign stop in VERMONT. People want to prove it's something other than bigotry. "I'm not prejudiced but".
We're not even at the point where we are with race, where many people are still racist, but most people are embarrassed to be racist. But we're getting there. Or we could get there.
Public opinion on this issue CHANGES. I've seen it in Mass. First the public was ambivalent, but leaned towards supporting gay marriage, and there was a very large majority for civil unions. Then the Democratic leadership ran away from the issue, or actively opposed gay marriage, as did Romney, and the Catholic church was a built in infrastructure for organizing opposition while supporters had no comparable infrastructure. In the next polls a good sized majority opposed gay marriage and there was even some danger of opposition to civil unions. Then we got ourselves organized, and they masterfully played on the factions of gay marriage opponents at the Constitutional Convention to prevent an amendment from passing in one month, and then limiting it to a ban that guaranteed civil unions. I'm not sure we could have done this had Newsom not put himself on the line.
Then the marriages started, and the couples looked happy and the world did not end, and everyone found their own marriage unaffected. The polls shifted back in our favor. We had a big stroke of luck when the anti-gay House Speaker resigned, and was replaced by a strong gay marriage supporter. Then not only did we not lose any seats in the legislature to gay marriage opponents, we picked up a few seats. The constitutional amendment probably will be defeated before a referendum. Even if it gets to the ballot, I think we can beat it. The polls are good and are improving, and I cannot see my state voting to tear up people's marriage licenses.
So you can win these battles, if you show up.
We have four years before another presidential election race. It's the lowest risk time to start this fight. Or rather join this fight--it's been going on for a while without most of us because we didn't want to hurt Kerry.
It may be time for civil disobedience and public protest. But it has to be done with all the decency and good strategy of the civil rights movement, not the chaos and counterproductive tactics that are so common in the antiwar movement.
I never disclaimed responsibility for my decision to vote for Bush. It didn't matter in the end; my state went for Kerry.
But I also voted against my incumbent conrgessman, stricly because he co-sponsored the FMA. (The bastich got re-elected, unfortunately).
Don't mistake my support for Bush on foreign policy for comfort with the gay-marriage-banners in domestic policy. OTOH, don't expect me to be disappointed when Bush' makes his tax cuts permanent - I like having more money in my pocket, especially when I make too much to get help, but only enough to get by.
abc, the more you talk, the younger I imagine you are.
tax cuts = higher interest rates cuts in programs and entitlements = unless you're effing rich, the tax cuts are costing you money. You can argue, but only out of ignorance. The numbers are against you.
I don't get ANYTHING from the federal government. Not a damn thing. I got EITC one year because I was flat-broke unemployed for most of that year; and it didn't do me that much, because by the time tax-time rolled around I had obtained a job. And I got some education loans that meant my college could raise their tuition through the roof and I would be left in debt to the feds at 8-10% interest.
So don't talk to me about entitlements being cut. The only way taxing for entitlements works is if most people pay in more than they get. This is why Social Security isn't working out right now; too many people are retired for the working class ot be able to support. I have 0 expectations of actually getting any of the money Im paying into social security back.
I keep fairly good track of my finances (I have to, I barely make enough money to live where I am); and the tax cuts made me money. And like most, if not all middle-class americans, I didn't use that money to light up the fires and cigbars, I spent it. That means it went into the hands of other people, made more jobs, and made all of us a little more rich.
Talk of taxing me because entitlements are underfunded isn't going to make me happy. Teh ony entitlements anyone gets are in the consitution. And I see no-place in the constitution where the federal government has the power to run any kind of welfare program. (EITC doesn't bother me in this regard, as that's a "negative tax" and congress does have the power to tax "without regard to apportionment". It does mildly bother me because there's no incentive to work, but there's not much disincentive, either.)
Finally, I don't hate liberals. I don't hate gays. I don't hate non-protestants. I'm not personally religious myself, I'm don't even really consider myself christian. I deplore the passage of the gay-marriage bans - I think government should be out of the business of deciding who's married at all. So saying that I hate you isn't an effective tool to change my mind. Liekwise, telling me I'm ignorant, when I give up the time I could be playing computer games on a rig that I bought for that purpose to read news and opinions from all over for a couple of hours each day is also self-defeating.
I'm in college too, so I have a lot of empathy for your position. But you're paying student loans, right? A lot of people are betting that interest rates are going to have to go up because of the deficit (which is driven by the tax cuts), which could affect your loans.
As to SS, I'm doubtful now, too. They would have to raise some taxes to fund it. But I'd also be worried about medicare and medicade - all 3 have been put in jepordy by these tax cuts.
Tuitions rose at public institutions in all of the 37 states responding to a recent nationwide study, almost all due to federal/state budget cuts in the state budgets.
State budget cuts were a direct result of the tax cuts.
The latest Bush tax bill/budget proposes a 3% decrease to federal grants to states, a $16 billion decrease in state tax revenues - all while proposing between $23-$82 billion in unfunded mandates.
There's more at issue here, but in a way it's a moot point - Kerry wasn't going to raise your taxes. He pledged to repeal the tax cuts for the rich, which would have helped you.
Sorry, Ian, but that is horseshit. Do you drive on the federal interstate system? Did you get vaccinated against childhood diseases? Guess where the research money to develop them came from. Do you worry about contracting small pox or polio? Guess how those threats were eliminated. Do you eat unsafe food or drink unsafe water? Do you get a lunchbreak when you work a full day?
I could go on and on, but the fact that the benefits you receive from the federal government don't arrive wrapped with a bow on your doorstep doesn't mean they aren't there. You just take them all for granted.
Did I advocate the elimination of the federal government or the elimination of taxes? No. I am advocating the cutback of federal government. Not the elimination of it. Peddle your scare tactics elsewhere.
I've been out of college for years now, and already consolidated. I'm stuck with my interest rate. The interest rate I got in the supposedly excellent economic '90s...
Medicare and medicade suffer from the same problem that social security do - too many consumers, not enough producers.
Kerry was planning on raising taxes on small-business owners. And I wouldn't bet on him not raising taxes on me, either. I may be just getting by where I live, but my family income isn't all that small. And income taxes don't have COLA.
I went to a private college, not a public one. tuition increases at private colleges has exceeded the inflation rate for almost a decade - try blaming THAT on the current president.
I have a hard time being charitable with people whom used discrimination, bigotry and fear to win an election. I also am having a hard time being charibable that people actually voted because of their bigotry and fear.
Give me a few days. I might be able to work up some humility and move on. Or I might go postal. I don't really know.
Oh, Hell. I'm not going to go postal. But it sure is fun to contemplate.
Posted by Rook | Link to this comment | 11- 4-04 10:21 AM
But I do, in my better moments, want to understand the sorts of considerations that motivate Bush voters, and I want to understand them in as charitable a way as possible.
On foreign policy, sure. On the economy, maybe. On the issues on which this election seems to have been decided...what's to understand? At what point do you say, those are bigots, and it's too bad there are so many of them?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 4-04 11:12 AM
I was a Bush voter. I can't lay a specific finger on why I preferred Bush to Kerry - though if you go to my blog you'll see plenty of attempts to do so.
I can say that I don't find a lot of what the conservatives are pushing to be good. I would have voted against a gay-marrieage ban if I had lived in one of the states that had it up. I am personally thrilled about the news articles that have been stating Ashcroft is plannign to resign. But I think that gay marriage is something the judiciary is not a proper venue to decide; and given the choice between Ashcroft and Reno, I'd choose ashcroft.
The Democratcs had a chance at my vote when Lieberman was a candidate. Possibly even Gebhart. But Kerry didn't make me want to vote for him. And I didn't.
Posted by Ian Argent | Link to this comment | 11- 4-04 11:32 AM
"I can say that I don't find a lot of what the conservatives are pushing to be good."
And yet you voted for it anyway. The choice was clear. You made your choice, for which you are now responsible.
Posted by mcm | Link to this comment | 11- 4-04 12:01 PM
There is room for people being factually misled on "social issues" too. I bet a lot of people think their church will have to perform gay marriages if activist judges get their way. I bet a lot of people don't understand that the Democrats supported the partial birth abortion ban if it included an exception for the mother's life--which it NEEDED, if it was going to be upheld by the courts. I bet a lot of people thought Kerry actively supported gay marriage. I bet a lot of people think the marriage amendment allows civil unions. I bet people don't understand that stem cell research only can occur on embyros that were created for another purpose, and will be frozen forever or disposed of if not used for research.
The trouble is, with this as with foreign policy, people are at some level choosing to be misled. They have decided they don't like liberals and the newspapers are liberal and the Democrats lie, and they will just trust their church and the president and Fox News and talk radio. So I'm not sure we can reach them.
One upside is we don't need to reach all that many of them.
Also, even if they are bigots, they need not stay that way. Someone needs to make the case FOR gay marriage. People jump all over Newsom, but whenever there are real people being denied their rights, they get all defensive and "I'm not prejudiced but...." It embarrasses a lot of the right into silence, and it fires up the liberals. I used to be a fairly lukewarm gay marriage supporter-- I thought it was an easy issue but not a very important one. Not anymore.
It's no coincidence that public support for hate crimes laws, allowing gays in the military, anti-discrimination laws, has all climbed in recent years. Civil unions are the moderate position supported by a majority of the entire U.S. now, when a few years ago Howard Dean was getting slurred and threatened at every campaign stop in VERMONT. People want to prove it's something other than bigotry. "I'm not prejudiced but".
We're not even at the point where we are with race, where many people are still racist, but most people are embarrassed to be racist. But we're getting there. Or we could get there.
Public opinion on this issue CHANGES. I've seen it in Mass. First the public was ambivalent, but leaned towards supporting gay marriage, and there was a very large majority for civil unions. Then the Democratic leadership ran away from the issue, or actively opposed gay marriage, as did Romney, and the Catholic church was a built in infrastructure for organizing opposition while supporters had no comparable infrastructure. In the next polls a good sized majority opposed gay marriage and there was even some danger of opposition to civil unions. Then we got ourselves organized, and they masterfully played on the factions of gay marriage opponents at the Constitutional Convention to prevent an amendment from passing in one month, and then limiting it to a ban that guaranteed civil unions. I'm not sure we could have done this had Newsom not put himself on the line.
Then the marriages started, and the couples looked happy and the world did not end, and everyone found their own marriage unaffected. The polls shifted back in our favor. We had a big stroke of luck when the anti-gay House Speaker resigned, and was replaced by a strong gay marriage supporter. Then not only did we not lose any seats in the legislature to gay marriage opponents, we picked up a few seats. The constitutional amendment probably will be defeated before a referendum. Even if it gets to the ballot, I think we can beat it. The polls are good and are improving, and I cannot see my state voting to tear up people's marriage licenses.
So you can win these battles, if you show up.
We have four years before another presidential election race. It's the lowest risk time to start this fight. Or rather join this fight--it's been going on for a while without most of us because we didn't want to hurt Kerry.
It may be time for civil disobedience and public protest. But it has to be done with all the decency and good strategy of the civil rights movement, not the chaos and counterproductive tactics that are so common in the antiwar movement.
Posted by Katherine | Link to this comment | 11- 4-04 3:00 PM
---
the sorts of considerations that motivate Bush voters,
----
Kerry is radically left. Dean even more.
Nader thinks both parties are the same.
W is a slight conservative-centrist.
That's it. It is that simple.
(Watermelon vs. McVeigh/Waco). Republicans told the waco's to leave. The DNC loves Dean still.
W is more like Churchill. Kerry more like Chamberlain (read peace in our time, 1938 Munich agreement).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 11- 4-04 4:43 PM
MCM said:
Someone needs to make the case FOR gay marriage.
--------
No. That's dumb. Stupid.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is like an upflowing river. It can happen but not usually.
The answer. The correct anwer:
Government gets out of the marriage business.
No State 'approved' marriage.
If the chruch of Fred chooses to wed a turtle and a dove so be it. No one needs to know or care because it is not LAW.
Let individuals choose and assign who can see them if they are sick and not well.
Leftists and progressives are 'smart' but have atrust for Government and a hatred of business. WTF?
Watermelons are like a 10 year old playing 'Free, Powerful Nation Tycoon'.
It is the un-guided hand of the market that does AMAZING things.
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 11- 4-04 4:52 PM
I never disclaimed responsibility for my decision to vote for Bush. It didn't matter in the end; my state went for Kerry.
But I also voted against my incumbent conrgessman, stricly because he co-sponsored the FMA. (The bastich got re-elected, unfortunately).
Don't mistake my support for Bush on foreign policy for comfort with the gay-marriage-banners in domestic policy. OTOH, don't expect me to be disappointed when Bush' makes his tax cuts permanent - I like having more money in my pocket, especially when I make too much to get help, but only enough to get by.
Posted by Ian Argent | Link to this comment | 11- 4-04 11:19 PM
abc, the more you talk, the younger I imagine you are.
tax cuts = higher interest rates cuts in programs and entitlements = unless you're effing rich, the tax cuts are costing you money. You can argue, but only out of ignorance. The numbers are against you.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 12:30 AM
I don't get ANYTHING from the federal government. Not a damn thing. I got EITC one year because I was flat-broke unemployed for most of that year; and it didn't do me that much, because by the time tax-time rolled around I had obtained a job. And I got some education loans that meant my college could raise their tuition through the roof and I would be left in debt to the feds at 8-10% interest.
So don't talk to me about entitlements being cut. The only way taxing for entitlements works is if most people pay in more than they get. This is why Social Security isn't working out right now; too many people are retired for the working class ot be able to support. I have 0 expectations of actually getting any of the money Im paying into social security back.
I keep fairly good track of my finances (I have to, I barely make enough money to live where I am); and the tax cuts made me money. And like most, if not all middle-class americans, I didn't use that money to light up the fires and cigbars, I spent it. That means it went into the hands of other people, made more jobs, and made all of us a little more rich.
Talk of taxing me because entitlements are underfunded isn't going to make me happy. Teh ony entitlements anyone gets are in the consitution. And I see no-place in the constitution where the federal government has the power to run any kind of welfare program. (EITC doesn't bother me in this regard, as that's a "negative tax" and congress does have the power to tax "without regard to apportionment". It does mildly bother me because there's no incentive to work, but there's not much disincentive, either.)
Finally, I don't hate liberals. I don't hate gays. I don't hate non-protestants. I'm not personally religious myself, I'm don't even really consider myself christian. I deplore the passage of the gay-marriage bans - I think government should be out of the business of deciding who's married at all. So saying that I hate you isn't an effective tool to change my mind. Liekwise, telling me I'm ignorant, when I give up the time I could be playing computer games on a rig that I bought for that purpose to read news and opinions from all over for a couple of hours each day is also self-defeating.
Posted by Ian Argent | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 9:15 AM
I'm in college too, so I have a lot of empathy for your position. But you're paying student loans, right? A lot of people are betting that interest rates are going to have to go up because of the deficit (which is driven by the tax cuts), which could affect your loans.
As to SS, I'm doubtful now, too. They would have to raise some taxes to fund it. But I'd also be worried about medicare and medicade - all 3 have been put in jepordy by these tax cuts.
Tuitions rose at public institutions in all of the 37 states responding to a recent nationwide study, almost all due to federal/state budget cuts in the state budgets.
State budget cuts were a direct result of the tax cuts.
The latest Bush tax bill/budget proposes a 3% decrease to federal grants to states, a $16 billion decrease in state tax revenues - all while proposing between $23-$82 billion in unfunded mandates.
There's more at issue here, but in a way it's a moot point - Kerry wasn't going to raise your taxes. He pledged to repeal the tax cuts for the rich, which would have helped you.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 10:44 AM
I don't get ANYTHING from the federal government.
Sorry, Ian, but that is horseshit. Do you drive on the federal interstate system? Did you get vaccinated against childhood diseases? Guess where the research money to develop them came from. Do you worry about contracting small pox or polio? Guess how those threats were eliminated. Do you eat unsafe food or drink unsafe water? Do you get a lunchbreak when you work a full day?
I could go on and on, but the fact that the benefits you receive from the federal government don't arrive wrapped with a bow on your doorstep doesn't mean they aren't there. You just take them all for granted.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 11:10 AM
Did I advocate the elimination of the federal government or the elimination of taxes? No. I am advocating the cutback of federal government. Not the elimination of it. Peddle your scare tactics elsewhere.
I've been out of college for years now, and already consolidated. I'm stuck with my interest rate. The interest rate I got in the supposedly excellent economic '90s...
Medicare and medicade suffer from the same problem that social security do - too many consumers, not enough producers.
Kerry was planning on raising taxes on small-business owners. And I wouldn't bet on him not raising taxes on me, either. I may be just getting by where I live, but my family income isn't all that small. And income taxes don't have COLA.
I went to a private college, not a public one. tuition increases at private colleges has exceeded the inflation rate for almost a decade - try blaming THAT on the current president.
Posted by Ian Argent | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 11:28 PM