I Got 99 Problems And George Bush Is One

Oh, and i wanted to thank Dys for pointing our reactionary members to a product which will greatly simplify their drivel-posting efforts.

So do I. Which is why, if George Bush gets re-elected, I'll be running myself as an independent in 2008 on the "Kill All Troglodytes" platform.



I've attained Golden Calf status? Awesome.

First of all, I wasn't aiming my first post at anyone in particular and was certainly not criticizing the original poster for his statements. I was and am actually looking forward to the rest of it. I find most of the posters here on both sides to be quite thoughtful and have always enjoyed reading whatever they have to say.

Chuckster, my second post was in no way intended as a lecture to Debra_Law. I wanted to let her know that I agreed with part of her reply to me and then thought it was okay to post more of my thoughts on the subject, so I did. My first post was actually longer, but I erased a good portion before I hit "submit." My apologies to her if it sounded like a lecture.

BumbleBeeBoogie - I was neither praising the heartland masses nor criticizing those on the left in either of my posts. I'm not a good writer, but what I was trying to point out are those characteristics peculiar to the "average" American resulting in why they might support one candidate over another, their reasons, and then the opposition's reaction.

I was happy to see that you do understand basically what I was trying to say, and I would think anyone who has issues with Mr. Bush would be frustrated. This particular situation frustrates me, too. As I mentioned in the first post, these people generally have no use for the celebrities who use entertainment venues to foist their political views, yet they flock to the theaters in droves to see the latest action film or comedy. That's only one example.

My thoughts were only meant to put forth a point of view, and not intended to finger-point, certainly not at anyone on this forum in any derogatory manner and most of all, not disdain. In speaking of the left, I was merely using that word as a stereotype, much as I did with "heartland." I have no doubts as to your own personal attributes as a good and caring citizen. If it were otherwise, you wouldn't be bothering to read or contribute here.

With the swing to the right by what I call the "common man" over the past few decades, I think many of the Republicans in positions of power have figured it out, this almost "new" American conservatism. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter certainly did and I'm left to wonder if John F. Kennedy were to seek his presidency today, how would he be perceived by these people.

You hit the nail on the head with your comment about the heartland voting on style and social issues, I think. That is precisely, in my opinion, how Mr. Bush rallied domestic support for the war. He knows what to say and they listen.

I know you've seen that there are citizens here who state they will not vote for Kerry so much as they will vote against Mr. Bush. That was my point of the first post. Much of America will, I think, vote for Mr. Bush as a blow against those they absolutely do not identify with. It's the "America" that feels it's had the higher taxes, the abortion issue, the gay marriage, the prayers stamped out of their schools crammed down their throats by the "liberals." Please everyone, this is not a judgement on my part so much as an observation.

By liberals, I do NOT mean you or Setanta, Dyslexia, Debra_Law or anyone else who may read this and is liberal-leaning. I don't consider myself, McGentrix or any of the other conservatives as part of the mass of flag-wavers either. I don't reside in the "heartland" and although I'm not ashamed to proclaim who will get my vote, neither am I voting against the so-called establishment or anything else. Just as you will vote for Mr. Kerry because you believe he is the right man to lead, I will vote for Mr. Bush because he has my trust and I think he's a good and decent man.

McGentrix - can't thank you enough for sticking up for me and thanks again for your kind words that I do not post drivel. Setanta is probably right if one compares his posts to mine (or just about anyone's LOL) and is most likely not alone is his seeing my posts as drivel. While I may not always agree with what he has to say, he does it in a way that leaves no doubt as to what he meant. I aspire to that, and will work on it.

BBB - again, thanks for your calm reply to me. I think we agree on a lot, but not all. Especially on this issue, your last paragraph was right on (at least the first half of it, LOL.) My question, I suppose, in understanding that they are "image" driven, do you have an opinion on how those in power on the opposing side should respond?

Cycloptichorn -

1: They are scared of terrorism.
2: They are scared of fags getting rights.
3: They are scared of having to think for themselves.

I agree. As Debra said, the chipping may take some time. I'm wondering if you think the way "middle'America" is being responded to is effective.

Dyslexia - is the Instapundit Doggy Drivel available online...and does it come in six-packs?

Instapundit Doggy Drivel is only available at a 527 funded org near you.

Even Doggy Drivel is free speech.

Have you hugged a 527 today?

I've read all of JustWonders posts in this thread, and agree with much of it - the liberal party's inability to 'connect' with average Americans, the seeming futility of debating on an internet message board, etc, etc. Contrary to Setanta, I don't think it's partisan drivel.

JustWonders,

The United States is a young country, and too often hampered by compromise and mediocre solutions to complex and troublesome issues. However, despite turbulence, violence, paranoia, and greater concentration of power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands, our lifespan as a nation has seen us become a steadily freer one.

There have been long periods of darkness and backpedaling; progressive victories won and now forgotten. In the grand scheme of things, however, the United States has become 'better': expanded suffrage, more political freedoms, more power and wealth available to all. And more porn.

The Right - and many averge Americans of all political stripes - see us liberals as spineless politicos, who throw reality out the window in favor of politically correct rationalizations. In some respects I agree: I think political correctness is the biggest threat to liberalism. The liberal party does need a little more reality and a little less ideology - I think it would go a long way to helping us connect with the average American.

These times seem perilous to me and other like-minded individuals; uniquely so. Maybe that's myopia, and maybe it's foresight. Regardless, those of us who know what is truly right will fight our small and precious fights for those small, daily victories - whether it is on this message board or protesting in the streets (I do both when the cause warrents.)

If history is to be our guide, then history will proclaim those who stand opposed to the country's current totalitarian leanings the victors.

IronLionZion - It took me five paragraphs and I still didn't adequately explain my point, yet you did it in one.

I wouldn't have used the term spineless politicos, but I think other than that it's just what I was trying to say. I just spent 10 days traveling, stopping in small towns in the west, and in both listening to and talking with many of these "average" Americans, I became aware of the rightward shift more than ever. I got the sense that battling the left is seen as their "righteous" war, with the word "radical" popping up more than a few times.

I actually think they are aware that much of American wealth is in the hands of fewer and even that they have less control over their working conditions, but George Bush is still "the man" to them because he speaks their language.

On the other hand, I also think there are many liberals who have real concerns about this shift, and that's why I'm puzzled that so little is heard on this subject. I've seen few written articles and as a matter of fact haven't seen it addressed much in any of the media. It just makes me wonder.

I enjoyed reading your entire post and hope you'll continue with the original intent of this thread. I don't always agree with everything I read in the Politics forum and I might occasionally say so, but I do appreciate those who take the time to post their views.

Well, golleeee ... looks like we might just have some idea exchange goin' on here ... almost like communication. As a few folks have mentioned over the past few posts, that's damned rare in political debates.

Oops, Dys is here!

It's a thing of beauty.

*sniffle*

This may be the most powerful weapon in George Bush's arsenal of dumb. To be honest, I'd like to hear from somebody who support Bush's stem cell policy, since I have never - not online or in real life - met such a person. Anybody?

Stem Cell Research:

You may find this book helpful
Those of you having an interest in why liberals and conservatives are so different may find this book helpful:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=865429&sid=f923668acda886998626522402e533e3#865429

BBB

There are trends in American politics which have endured for generations, and others which have changed, recently, or which cyclically change. One certain aspect of the political landscape everywhere and in all times is that broad generalizations are partisan drivel. I understand that in speaking of millions, it is impossible to avoid generalizations. However, the measure of the value of a generalized statement is the extent to which it can be demonstrated. Sweeping generalizations are almost never true. Note the use of the word "almost." Such qualifiers are important. To say that liberals think this, and that conservatives think thus, without further qualification is to indulge in the sort of sweeping generalization which makes for partisan drivel.

Two examples struck me immediately in reading what JW wrote. Therefore, i'll look at those, rather than do something i find tedious myself, despite my penchant for long posts--that something is to quote someone's entire post and pick it apart, or attempt to pick it apart, line by line. I'm sure there are those who will contend that i'm not doing so because i can't--they are free to indulge their self-righteousness, i will take two potent examples to stand for them all.

JW made the statement that there is a political heartland in which reside average Americans who are not understood by liberals. This is the partisan bit of propaganda which we might label the "liberal elitism" ploy. It's earliest appearance in the contemporary political scene was with Agnew in the late 1960's, nicely coordinated with Nixon's fictional "silent majority." Agnew was Nixon's bulldog, and he hammered a message that the left were intellectual snobs, harboring radicals on university campuses and out of touch with the realities of "middle America."

JW's last post wihch prompted my response went immediately to a noteworthy exposition of the "liberal elitist" theme. This is the "Hollywood elite" variant of this shibboleth. It is rather easy to puncture this claptrap, however. If one says Jane Fonda, the hysteria level of the argumentative conservative often goes right off the scale. However, this ignores that Hollywood, like any other locale in the nation, harbors the right as well as the left. How does the liberal elitist name game account for Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwartzeneger or Charlton Heston? Surely the homophobe bigot Anita Bryant would be far more at home among the religious right than any liberal elite.

If a man were, say, a racist, one might demonstrate as much as follows. A black man is beaten and robbed by another black man, and complains: "That bastard robbed me!" Were he beaten and robbed by a white man, and said: "See, all those honkey bastards are violent criminals!"--it would evident from the comparison that the hypothetical victim in question were indulging racism. Consider, then, these reactions: one speaks of Charlton Heston, and the conservative waxes into delight at this champion of a cause dear to the conservative heart. But say Barbara Streisand, and, if the reaction is a diatribe against "all those Hollywood liberal elitists," then one is obviously dealing with a stereotypic and prejudiced, partisan statement. This is reminiscent of a practice in the manipulation of statistics known as the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. In that practice, one looks for those situations which confirms what it is that one wishes to believe, while ignoring any contradictory weight of evidence. This is precisely what happens when someone on the right looks with enamored eyes on Reagan or Heston or Schwartzeneger, but immediately condemns "all those Hollywood liberal elitists" if the subject is Fonda or Streisand. Simply from a personal point of view, i consider the lot of them a pack of over-paid peawits, to whom not only too much money, but too much attention is paid. To condemn a chimerical Hollywood elite, while ignoring those in entertainment who hold conservative opinions is, however, partisan drivel because it indulges the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. One cites the examples of said putative elitists while ignoring any of the Hollywood crew who don't fit the mold.

But the larger fallacy lies in the American heartland propaganda. This is one of the most effective of conservative propaganda ploys, and saddly, many liberals buy into it. I understand why people on the left are seduced by this claim. If one has not experience of the "heartland" of America, and one is historically illiterate, the effects of the creation of the "Reagan democrats" can leave that impression. In the 1870's and -80's, the first large-scale attempts at organizing labor were made. In the coal fields of Pennsylvania, the Molly Maguires attempted to use imtimidation and violence, and gave organized labor a bad name (largely because of the actions of the few, rather than the many)--an undeserved bad name. In Ohio in 1878, the militia were called out on one occassion, and fired into a May Day crowd, killing and wounding men, women and children. The American heartland is the birth place of organized labor to an extent which did not obtain elsewhere. In the coal fields of West Virginia and Illinois, in the steel mills of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, in the auto plants of Michigan and Ohio--organized labor fought the battles, often unarmed against the mercenary, heavily armed goons of the capitalists, in those situations in which the police were not actually used against them.

For the Europeans, the Great Depression refers not to the 1930's, but to the period from 1875 to 1893. During that time, America and Canada were attractive places for European investors. Manipulation of agricultural prices, especially of grain, made a few very rich, and it created upheaval in the lives of farmers which destroyed many of them. In both countries, organizations of small farmers were born. In Canada, the CCF formed eventually from farm organizations and labor organizations--althought the CCF never escaped the taint of communism, and finally died, in its death it gave birth to the New Democrats, who still exist in Canada, and provide some political representation for "the left."

In the United States, the Grange was founded. The Grange was never able to politically implement its populist programs, but not for want of trying. William Jennings Bryan became their champion, and his eloquence is remembered today, by those whose education exceeds the pap which is passed off in history classes these days. Bryan was known as The Great Commoner, and he championed the Grange, organized labor and christian values. It is an irony of historical ignorance that many conservatives are unware that the greatest champion of the "little man" to come out of the midwest was also one the greatest christian orators, so devoted to a fundamentalist agenda, that he volunteered to go to Dayton, Tennessee to prosecute John Scopes in the infamous "monkey trial." The American heartland is the birth place of so much liberalism, and the profoundly devout Bryan its greatest champion.

In his history of the United States from 1932 to 1972, The Glory and the Dream, Manchester states that when the working class stays home on election day, the Republicans win, and when they troop to the polls, the Democrats win. That was once true--it is true no longer, however, because of the success of conservatives in convincing working and middle class Americans that their interests lie with the Republicans. Despite the damage done to the "little man" in the Reagan era (i have some personal experience of this, having worked in a family shelter) and now, again, in the Shrub's administration, many working and middle class Americans continue to buy into the story line. But the ironies are great. Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft were both "radical" Republicans who strode forth into the political arena to cut the capitalists down to size, to "bust the trusts." This aspect of their politics is forgotten. The midwest was the seething cauldron in which organized labor was formed, in which the first great defense of the family farm was organized, and in which a conservative, christian Democrat, W. J. Bryan, three times rallied the "little man" to his cause, and three times lost the presidental election.

Therefore, when i hear the "liberal elitist" mantra--a most effective conservative propaganda ploy--and other such fantasies of political description, my first thought is "partisan drivel."

Setanta wrote:


Interesting, but ILZ nailed it when he summed up my first post by saying "the liberal party's inability to 'connect' with average Americans, the seeming futility of debating on an internet message board, etc, etc."

He understood that I wasn't questioning why a large part of America sees the left as "elitist", but rather why the left seems to ignore the claim.

You see it as conservative propaganda, but I think conservative ingenuity would be closer to the truth.

He got it without lecturing on the absence of "qualifiers" or being annoyed at the use of "sweeping generalities." God bless him LOL.

Now I'm off to download BBB's recommendation of . It may or may not have answers to some of my questions, but it's free

That he "got it" simply shows that as a resident of the east coast, and one whose posts here indicate that he indeed does see himself as a member of some liberal elite, he is willing to accept the label. As a resident of the American "heartland" i find the notion ludicrous. When Delay hatched his plot to gerrimander the Tejas representative districts, he po'd a lot of conservatives in small-town and rural Tejas, because they feel they've been disfranchised by the loss of their conservative Democrat Representatives. I did not lecture about qualifiers--i did point out that when one does not use qualifiers, one indulges in sweeping generalities, and is posting partisan drivel. I am not bound to acknowledge ILZ's sweeping generalities simply because what he writes happens to agree with what you've written. I still consider it partisan drivel, i will continue to point out that it is propaganda which pointedly ignores the history of liberalism in this country, as well as a strong conservative bent in the Democratic party. I also strongly dissociate myself from ILZ's elitist conceits.

While I cannot speak for all liberals, I personally think about this a lot.

A question has lately arisen in my head: is it more important to be charismatic or competent while running for president? Or for running the country afterwards?

If it were up to me, of course, competency would be the definate defining charachteristic of a president. But in many ways, the campaigns nowdays and the way that people react to the speeches given by the candidates eerily resembles my memories of Class President elections back in high school - popularity contests to the end, with little thought given to issues, duties, or responsibilities that said candidate will have to perform upon winning.

Do you think that the presidency has come down to a popularity contest? It's rather sad.

Cycloptichorn

Agreed. I think some intelligent GOP strategist out there realized two facts:

1. There are a lot more dumb people than smart people. Dumb people don't like to feel dumber than they already are.
2. These people have a vote just like the smart ones.

Therefore, campaigning to the idiots and less intelligent members of our society would be the best way to ensure a large voter base every election cycle - forget about issues, or actually producing results, structure your campaign around making people like you, and also making them feel smart by speaking in the absolutely most simple terms possible, regardless of the implications of doing so.

Sneaky bastards.

Cycloptichorn

In case no one has "gotten it" in regard to what i'm saying--there are a great many liberals who are not in the least "elitist," our valued member EdgarBlythe comes immediately to mind. There are also many Democrats who are not liberal, but who espouse liberal causes, which is why i mentioned W. J. Bryan. There are many conservatives who are just as elitist as the day is long and hard to get through (i did not mention this earlier, but i will now)--and the PNAC are the worst of the crew, they want your vote, but they don't give a damn how you want the country run. Finally, as i pointed out, and JW has ignored, there are a host of "Hollywood types" who are not liberal at all, but who are also frequently elitist.

My grandparents come to mind.

Anyone else here in Texas? I have been looking at the percentage of the 2000 vote in Texas... it was something like 60-40% Bush(59-38, I just looked it up) and while that is a big lead, Texas is traditionally a democratic state.

Does anyone else think we can turn it around this year? It would be great to watch GW lose his home state to Kerry... or at least make it real close.

Texans unite!

Cycloptichorn

That's not relevant to my original post, wherein I was merely pointing out my belief at what is the perception of the liberal left as viewed by middle-America. Neither is your comment about those in Hollywood who are elitist but not liberal relevant if they are generally perceived to be, either rightly or wrongly. It's the perception that I was discussing and not particular groups or individuals or whether that perception is accurate.

I think you took it too personally, Setanta, but dismissing the whole issue as "fantasy" and partisan drivel is certainly your prerogative.

My real interest is in reading the views of others who don't share your view, but see it for what it is. I've seen plenty of articles written, even books, on the subject so I know it exists. What I haven't seen is a plan to counteract it or any definitive comments by liberals themselves who know the general consensus of the far right towards them, but largely ignore it.

ILZ's comment about the liberal party's inability to "connect" with those in the so-called heartland merely shows he recognizes the problem, but I didn't read into it that he accepts being labeled an elitist based on that fact, nor does it follow that he should.

I gather from your comment about Tom DeLay that you're a Texan. I'd probably be wrong in supposing Texas is not really representative of heartland America, but can only relate that just about all the Texans I've ever met have been fairly knowledgeable and sophisticated on the subject of politics.

Regardless, I still think that there is a certain contingent of our society that is generally known, collectively, as the "heartland" and I still think that their overall view of the left or liberals or whatever you want to call it is that they are arrogant, elitist and possess an overly-exaggerated sense of pride at knowing something others don't.

I never said whomever thinks this is correct.