I think you can go further than that. If you think how someone sees others reveals something about that person, the fact that Republicans argued that Arabs only respect strength and force makes it reasonable to infer that Red Staters respect primarily strength and force. (Cf. every CW song about 9/11).,
I'm not arguing that we should go out and beat up Red Staters. First, that would be wrong, and second, I think the average red stater could probably beat up the average blue stater. (Ah, enlightened self-interest). But the blue states do seem to have a certain productive advantage. Assuming we could cut a deal with Colorado (tax positive) and Ohio (nearly tax positive) in 2008, we could (a) gain the Presidency, and (b) make clear that we have our own bases of (economic) strength and force.
And out of that might come an acceptable deal. But if we don't speak in a manner they respect and understand, we will never be able to negotiate with them.
I refuse to put up with this crap anymore. As Digby and others have said, when these nuts start blaming things on liberal elites, or how the lefties are belittling their faith, then it's time to call them on it. Name names, fuckers. A Democratic leader is disparaging Christianity, you better name him or her and produce what that person said that was disparaging right now. There would be crickets in the room if that was the demand every time the statement was made.
They don't need to name names. Nor do Democrats have to actively disparage Christianity (which the vast majority of them rarely or never do) in order to be seen as disparaging Christianity. Nor is it enough to point out that there are people of faith within Democratic circles, that many Christians vote Democrat, and that many Democratic voters identify themselves as Christian.
This is about "authenticity" and what Charles Taylor calls "the politics of recognition." That is, an active demand not only to be left alone to practice one's faith, or to be put on an equal footing with those of other faiths and/or of no faith, but to be accorded a special recognition of worth and value on the basis of one's identity (in this case, faith). Failure to accord that recognition amounts to disparagement.
You could probably argue that this kind of move (call it the politics of recognition, or call it identity politics, or call it what you will) began on the part of women and minorities, so that we're now being beaten at our own game.
I think you can go further than that. If you think how someone sees others reveals something about that person, the fact that Republicans argued that Arabs only respect strength and force makes it reasonable to infer that Red Staters respect primarily strength and force. (Cf. every CW song about 9/11).,
I'm not arguing that we should go out and beat up Red Staters. First, that would be wrong, and second, I think the average red stater could probably beat up the average blue stater. (Ah, enlightened self-interest). But the blue states do seem to have a certain productive advantage. Assuming we could cut a deal with Colorado (tax positive) and Ohio (nearly tax positive) in 2008, we could (a) gain the Presidency, and (b) make clear that we have our own bases of (economic) strength and force.
And out of that might come an acceptable deal. But if we don't speak in a manner they respect and understand, we will never be able to negotiate with them.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11- 9-04 10:44 AM
(Cf. every CW song about 9/11).
I'm just an American boy raised on MTV
And I've seen all those kids in the soda pop ads
But none of 'em looked like me
So I started lookin' around for a light out of the dim
And the first thing I heard that made sense was the word
Of Mohammed, peace be upon him
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-04 11:09 AM
Ogged, you have inspired me to come out of the hatred closet. It's liberating.
No more fake love for the rednecks!
Posted by Realish | Link to this comment | 11- 9-04 2:51 PM
I refuse to put up with this crap anymore. As Digby and others have said, when these nuts start blaming things on liberal elites, or how the lefties are belittling their faith, then it's time to call them on it. Name names, fuckers. A Democratic leader is disparaging Christianity, you better name him or her and produce what that person said that was disparaging right now. There would be crickets in the room if that was the demand every time the statement was made.
Boo hoo, the opressed majority. What nonsense.
Posted by stevelaw | Link to this comment | 11-10-04 9:13 AM
They don't need to name names. Nor do Democrats have to actively disparage Christianity (which the vast majority of them rarely or never do) in order to be seen as disparaging Christianity. Nor is it enough to point out that there are people of faith within Democratic circles, that many Christians vote Democrat, and that many Democratic voters identify themselves as Christian.
This is about "authenticity" and what Charles Taylor calls "the politics of recognition." That is, an active demand not only to be left alone to practice one's faith, or to be put on an equal footing with those of other faiths and/or of no faith, but to be accorded a special recognition of worth and value on the basis of one's identity (in this case, faith). Failure to accord that recognition amounts to disparagement.
You could probably argue that this kind of move (call it the politics of recognition, or call it identity politics, or call it what you will) began on the part of women and minorities, so that we're now being beaten at our own game.
Posted by mcm | Link to this comment | 11-10-04 9:54 AM