well i have to take exception to one thing; i'm someone who's always been a big liberty is more important that life type, in other words that morals are more important than getting along, and it has gotten me in all sorts of hairy situations. basically it is ingrained in my character and i can't change it, but i don't think it's all that reasonable. after all if you have life there's always a chance of liberty.
the other two points are of course correct.
You find yourself in this situation because you demonize those you disagree with. There are lots of reasons someone might hold a particular point of view, but you just assume the worse.
Why don't you actually *talk* to someone who holds different opinions than you and maybe you can start understanding - if not agreeing - with those you disagree with.
My biggest concern right now is whether the Democratic party will push left or right in response to this. The Poor Man advocates moving right. Kos, advocating Dean for DNC chair, seems to be pushing left. I want to move left - can it happen?
I'm despondent, too.
And hey, whatever? If being sad and disgusted that I live in a country where there are people who won't let other human beings get married, or who are too lazy to realize that Saddam does NOT equal 9/11, or who want to force me to worship their god is "demonizing" them, well, I am perfectly fine with that.
Bush has just been elected Presient, and we know from polls that most of his supporters a) don't know where he stands on domestic issues, b) don't know the reality of the situation overseas. Bush and Cheney will not go our of their way to make sure Americans see what's really going on, they'll go the other way, they'll further obscure reality.
They do have one big disadvantage though: Four years ago, Bush went into the White House and met a bunch of doe-eyed supporters in the Pentagon. He doesn't have that anymore. Unfortuatly, I do think that because of the systemtic stocking of conservative judges, that the judiciary is still his. But the laywers are ours. Four years ago, the World was benevolent and receptive. Today, it's cynical and antagonistic. Four years ago, the scientific community was quiet. Today, they are beginning to shout. Economists, too, are beginning to turn.
Four years ago, I could not imagine how much damage one person could do in the Oval Office. Today I can, but at the same time, I see it will be a little more difficult. What's key is the information war. Can the spin and lies from the White House be countered? Information can change opinions. The democrats have been making a comeback, but the Republicans are still winning that war.
The problem with John Kerry as a candidate is that he couldn't really affect the discourse in this country. I'm not sure any politician can. But unless we can change the discourse, I'm afraid the Poor Man is right; the Democratic Party will have to move right to stay in power. That's about the worst thing I can imagine.
Blogs have been a good start, but I'm not sure the audience is branching out in a way that is meaningful to elections. What blogs have done for us is that they let us realize that we're not alone; no matter how loud the conservatives are, that doesn't mean we're marginalized. I learned that again just yesterday when Orcinus posted that 45% of Americans believed Bush's first election was illegitimate.
Ogged, you're right that it's shocking that Bush could even pull 40% of the vote. But a good chunk of us are with you in being shocked. I doubt that there's An Answer That Will Change The Discourse in America. And we can't wait around for the conservative's to implode and for half of America to simply realize that it's been had.
We need action, but I admit I feel impotent right now. I have no capital, no connections, and I'm in a solidly red part of the country. Thinking about what I can do, I keep bumping into a repeated problem: anything I can do would be small. Like voting, it wouldn't matter much on it's own. But I'll keep looking into what I can do. I don't think it will be joining politics; I don't see that as the answer. It will be joining the information campaign, in whatever way I can.
"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."
Yeah, despondent is a good word. I've been sitting in my office all day, alternating between weeping and trying to see the way forward. The problem with forward is that it's a goddam culture war -- and worse, it's a culture war against people who think that reason is only for the faithless.
The right wants us demoralized, and right now I'm demoralized. I'm tired, and I know it's a necessary but long fight ahead. Gimme a couple days.
Obama / Madonna 2008!
Now that would be part of a culture war I'd pay money to see!
"I'm not thinking in terms of elections. I'm thinking in terms of the people I share this country with. And the fact that they seem like aliens to me, and I to them."
-------------------------------------------------------
Amen to that; this is exactly what is eating me alive. I feel like a parent who has just explained the dangers and ramifications of something so obviously bad as smoking to their child. Only to have said child light up, giggle and blow smoke in my face.
What else can be done? We made a good case. Nobody seems to care (or believe) that the liberal secular democracy we spent 70 years building is going right in the sh#tter.
I give up. Let it burn.
Thanks for this post. I'm glad somebody will just out and say it.
Listen, this is not my opinion, but fact, verified by numerous surveys: People in red states are, on average (and that's important), more likely to be white, obese, poorly educated, ignorant of world events, and ignorant of their own candidate's positions.
That's just a fact.
I despise those people. They despise me. And they are winning.
Man, this election sucked. It's truly bracing to completely realize that they knew exactly what they were voting for and that's just the kind of people they are. They really don't like us. At all.
It's going to be a hell of a lot of fun over the next four years.
"but today, I want to wipe out the people in this nation, people I can't understand"
Tut tut, Mr. Neiwert would have some words for you....
I want a divorce. On grounds of irreconcilable differences.
They can have all the worldly possessions. The house, the car, the furniture: they can take it all. I won't try to stop them, won't even put up a fight.
In exchange for which, I demand custody of the kids. I will fight tooth and nail for the kids.
Look, people, I agree with a lot of you--that it's hard to understand the people in the red states and that they seem to be ignorant buffoons. But I grew up in a red state and then lived in two red states for 12 years and am now in a blue state. But you know what, the candidates largely ignored a lot of the red states because they were only worth a handful of electoral votes. They weren't given the opportunity in lots of cases to find out about both sides. People are lazy. They're not generally going to go looking for information the way a lot of us on the net do. Information--real information, not what currently passes for the nightly news--needs to get to them. I think people need to start activating on a local level. Get some local democrats elected to the school board, state senate, whatever. I don't think ranting about how stupid people in the red states are are going to get you anywhere. We need to be less snobby about the whole thing and work to educate those people in a way that will get through to them.
Laura,
Ordinarily, I'd probably be inclined to agree with you.
But today...well, this "latte-sipping liberal" (note: I never sip latte, but in many respects probably fit the profile/caricature) is sick and tired of being dismissed/despised as an "elitist" because I want every child in this country (red state children no less than blue) to have health care.
So I want to explictly disavow all traces of said "elitism," which disavowal would seem to require a renunciation of the usual "if only they had more information" explanations. I mean, isn't there something snotty and elitist in this "If only they knew (what it is that we already know)" idea? Today, I want to pay those red state voters the compliment of assuming that they knew exactly what they were voting for, and why. And then I want to despise them for it.
Yeah, we in the red states, we don't want kids to have health care. We hope to grind them up and make food to feed us as we roll around in oil profits.
Oh, we also hope to gut the education system, and divert that money into a fund to cut Jesus' face into the moon with a laser beam and anyone who doesn't pray everyday gets chopped in half with the laser too.
I would unveil more of our super secret plans, but right now I have to go throw some kittens in a blender and stomp on some puppies.
I should probably know better, but my IQ hovers right around 35 and I'm just too damn stupid to understand your sophisticated viewpoints which are undoubtedly flawless and utterly convincing in everyway...
And you wonder why more of the country doesn't support you pretentious twits...
"Yeah, we in the red states, we don't want kids to have health care."
Many of you just voted against the Democratic platform of health insurance for every child in America. I'm left with two possible explanations:
1) the (so-called) elitist explanation: you don't understand that you just voted against more health insurance coverage for more children
2) the non-elitist explanation: you understand perfectly well that you just voted against more health insurance for more children. Apparently, like Dick Cheney during the Vietnam War, you "had other priorities."
So which is it, Zygote? Piss or get off the pot. You can't have it both ways.
You're right because the parties and politicians always provide what the promise. And those platforms? Woo doggie...iron clad baby.
If the Democrats say they are going to provide healthcare for all children, well, that's enough isn't it?
I mean, we've only been promised universal health coverage a bajillion times, but maybe this time they'll come through despite having absolutely no control of the Senate and the House.
Oooh..and I'll bet they even have a way to pay for it without gutting the military or raising my taxes.
And I'm sure there is absolutely no way that the Democrats would screw up other items I care about while they are in office -- once again -- failing to deliver on a promise...
Maybe there is a third reason? That it's bullshit?
Yeah, I'm going to go with that one.
mcm, yeah--I am being a little bit snobby in my comment. I'm just trying to sort through this hate we have for the people who elected Bush. I feel some of it too. And I'm trying to come up with a way to get past it. Honestly, my boss, was nearly in tears over this election because she said it was a clear statement to her that the nation doesn't approve of her. It breaks her heart, she said. That's enough for me to hate them. But I think we've quit having conversations with people we disagree with and start labelling them as stupid, racist, sexist, liberal--whatever. Part of that is because of the media--of shows like Crossfire--where the people from opposite sides just yell at each other. I mean, the news shows have become like Jerry Springer. How is anyone supposed to sort through all of that to try and figure out what the heck is going on? And while the networks report on the Scott Peterson trial, a key health care issue might be up in Congress. I know, it's all about ratings. But to me, you can't begin to have both sides compromise if people don't have the conversation first. I think Jon Stewart was right when he told Paul and Tucker they were hurting America. They have--and if somebody (us?) doesn't do something about it, they will continue to, and we will continue to follow their lead and just yell at each other.
a fund to cut Jesus' face into the moon with a laser beam
Whoa there, big fella - that's where I draw the line. Reagan's face? Fine. But Jesus? No way.
I'm calling Ralph Neas.
The answer: better than this.
The question: what you are?
Thanks, baa, but not today I'm not. You and I really differ on how alarmed we are about perceived trends in this country. And as I was flying home from Ohio tonight, I was feeling pretty sure that in twenty years, Iran will be more free than the U.S. To you, that sounds like insanity. I just imagine one attack in Kansas, or Idaho, and wonder how long it will be before people start making plans to round up the Muslims. I think about Jews who stayed in Germany, where we look back and think wasn't it fucking obvious??, and now I think maybe it wasn't really obvious, and I don't want to take the chance.
But let's not even talk hypothetically. What can you say about the states that passed gay marriage bans? Eleven states!?. Those are not my people. They're bigots. And when you vote for Abu-dub, you're casting your lot in with them.
(And the bit about "wipe out," was not meant literally, of course. I hope that was clear.)
I'll reassess tomorrow...I'm not feeling a lot of hope at the moment...
On snobbery: it's the rural and evangelical-Christian Bush supporters who categorize Americans into real Americans and urban elites. We urban elites see a good future in an America in which gay people can drink lattes while discussing the Koran with black rappers, and in which Bible-quoting farmers' wives can stitch together American-flag quilts while baking pies and fretting over the local high-school football team. We don't deny their claim to being true Americans. They deny ours. Bush openly dismisses Massachusetts during speeches and the debates. He reaches out to heartland Americans and tells them that their values are the values all of America should have. And they eat it up.
This post by Timothy Burke sums it up for me.
And helps clarify what I was trying to get at in my earlier comment: namely, that the "if only they had more information they wouldn't vote against their own interests" line is not only elitist and patronizing but fundamentally wrong. Yes, the non-wealthy who voted Bush did vote against their economic interests, as I understand economic interests. But clearly they have *other* interests that trump economic well-being. They voted those other interests. They did so "with eyes wide open" and as "sovereign subjects," as Burke puts it.
the "if only they had more information they wouldn't vote against their own interests" line is not only elitist and patronizing but fundamentally wrong.
Indeed, it is patronizing and dead wrong. That was part of what made my eyes roll when Dean made his silly Confederate flag statement during the primary debates. You don't get it, Doc. There isn't any point in chasing the Confederate vote on economic issues; that's not why they vote. Similarly, the fact that a majority of Americans agree with the Democrats on policy issues is meaningless because a majority of Americans don't vote based on policy questions.
On the 30-40%: Just as there used to be Yellow Dog Democrats, now there are clearly Talking Chimp Republicans. If the Republican party put a talking chimp on the ballot, then a third or so of the population would vote for it. Those people are lost to us; no need to talk to them or look for compromise with them.
And here's another thought, for all of you plagued by maps: It only looks red. Redraw the map according to population. DC is as big as Wyoming. Rhode Island bigger than North Dakota. California is bigger than Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma combined. What's this nonsense about Democrats as a regional party? Why can't Republicans win in the northeast? Why can't Republicans win on the west coast? Let's push back twice as hard as we have been pushed.
Good point, Doug. Here in New York, Kerry got 80 percent of the vote. Why can't Republicans convince the people who were attacked on 9/11 that Bush is the one who can defeat the terrorists?
Good point, Doug. Here in New York, Kerry got 80 percent of the vote. Why can't Republicans convince the people who were attacked on 9/11 that Bush is the one who can defeat the terrorists?
Answer's in the question, mcm. Because they were there when he failed, through inattention and incompetence, to stop 3,000 of them being incinerated, and they've been watching ever since as he fails, through inattention and incompetence, to bring the man responsible to justice, "dead or alive".