Populism, Elitism and What I Haven't Done

[livius drusus]

I should warn y'all up front that this post is not going to be particularly coherent, but I'd like to get some of my cluttered thoughts down and see if I can make some sense of them.

I used to subscribe to a little newspaper called The Progressive Populist (http://www.populist.com/). You can't tell now because it's all about the war/election, but back before Bush made us all crazy, the paper focused on classic populist issues: support for independent farmers and ranchers, small businesses, environmental degradation, combatting corporate and government excesses, a focus on national politics over foreign entanglements, etc. Now it seems those issues are either completely insignificant in our political discourse, or used for rhetorical name recognition in support of some tax package.

It's easy to blame everyone who voted for Bush. It's easy to say there's something wrong with them because they didn't see what I see, but you know what? I kinda think it's my fault.

I have lived an incredibly privileged life. I've contributed money and time to causes I respect, but I've never made a stump speech, never even talked about progressive politics with anyone besides people predisposed to agree with me. Hell, I've never even seen a midwestern farm, so why should anyone look at me with my big words and liberal arts degree and superior attitude and think anything but that I'm a patronizing, elitist, book nerd who thinks she knows something when she's done nothing?

The truth is I am the Liberal Elite and like most of my ilk, I have exactly zero resonance with the people who once spurred the Progressive movement and now abjure it. People like George Bush, who has led far more of a privileged existence than I, do a much better job of reaching out to such people even though his policies seem to me to be the antithesis of populism.

I don't know. Maybe the age of genuine populism is gone. It's not like it was a gigantic movement that swept the nation or anything. It's just that I still see it in local government, and I certainly see the perversions of it resonating with people, so it seems to me that the failure is mine.

[Godless Dave]

Hell, I've never even seen a midwestern farm, so why should anyone look at me with my big words and liberal arts degree and superior attitude and think anything but that I'm a patronizing, elitist, book nerd who thinks she knows something when she's done nothing?
I don't know. I also don't know why the people who eschew the "liberal elite" are perfectly willing to listen to someone with big words, an MBA, and superior attitude who has never wanted for anything in his life or done a day's worth of manual labor.

[livius drusus]

Are you referring to Bush? I don't think he comes off as having a superior attitude, and lord knows I've never heard him use a big word.

[viscousmemories]

I grew up poor in Michigan, surrounded by working class people like my family. It was no surprise to me that people could identify more with Bush than Kerry. When I saw Bush stuttering and sweating through his lines in the debates I knew he had one the hearts and minds of a lot of people I've known. People who think just like you describe, liv. That anyone who speaks proper English and gives any weight to culture and grooming are elitist windbags with no concept of the "real world". Bush proves he's one of the guys every time he opens his mouth and fumbles through a speech full of platitudes.

[Godless Dave]

Are you referring to Bush? I don't think he comes off as having a superior attitude, and lord knows I've never heard him use a big word.
Only half of what I said applies to Bush. But it still mystifies me that working class people fall for his bullshit. I have worked blue collar jobs before and while some of my coworkers were dumb and gullible, most were not.

[freemonkey]

I don't know. I grew up just west of Chicago in a very much blue collar town. While we weren't destitute, we were in the lower end of the low middle class. I'm still poorer than most people I know, while my husband works for the federal government, his job is in danger of being privatized (he's a firefighter :eek: ), I have a very modest house, am driving a 15 year old POS, do not have a college education and have never thought of myself as elitist.

[livius drusus]

You're not, freemonkey. You and your neighbors have a long tradition of progressive blue collar politics to look back on, but somehow, at least 50% if not more of those neighbors think Bush policies either fit that tradition just fine or are in some other way what this country needs.

Maybe it's just a single issue like terrorism or gay marriage that appeals, but this devolution has been happening over the course of decades so I don't think we can dismiss it by pointing to single-issue voters.

Somehow, progressive politics have become associated with ivory tower liberals and we've lost the grass roots of it. I mean, Nebraska was the home of the Farmer's Alliance, the spark which transformed the Democratic Party from Civil War losers to the party of FDR. Where did that go? Did 50s anti-communism destroy it all? Did the hippies freak people out that much?

I need to do some reading.

[freemonkey]

Somehow, progressive politics have become associated with ivory tower liberals and we've lost the grass roots of it. I mean, Nebraska was the home of the Farmer's Alliance, the spark which transformed the Democratic Party from Civil War losers to the party of FDR. Where did that go? Did 50s anti-communism destroy it all? Did the hippies freak people out that much?

I need to do some reading.
Maybe its because other people are not doing enough reading. I say, look to basic education and how people come to "know" things, and how their "knowing" is validated. I found the results of that poll where they found that people who were for Bush still believe there are WMD in Iraq. After its been shown to be untrue.

Chris Matthews on Today Show right now talking about the people in the states where Bush was strong are Creationists and biblical fundamentalists who do not think intellectually. These are the same people described above. If it weren't so fucking scary, I'd be LOL.

[Godless Dave]

Have any of you read What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/qid=1099502352/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-7757652-8405563?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Thomas Frank? It's about this very issue.

[freemonkey]

I wanted to add, while it may seem a bit paranoid of me to suspect a deliberate dumbing down of America, it would not surprise me. And maybe in the very least, the majority doesn't seem to know or care that America does seems to be dumbing down.

My local Barnes & Nobel has 1 small section of Essays, one small section of philosophy, 1 small section of science. Contrast that with multiple aisles of religious and new ages books.

[viscousmemories]

Have any of you read What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/qid=1099502352/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-7757652-8405563?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Thomas Frank? It's about this very issue.
I haven't read it, but I really liked this part of one person's critique of it there at Amazon:

It is obvious that Mr. Frank feels honestly and deeply saddened, puzzled, betrayed, and angered by what he believes has happened to Kansas, and also to "Kansas" -- the Republican Party and the United States as a whole -- over the past few decades. Perhaps most frustrating to Frank is his belief that the people of Kansas/"Kansas" are harming their own self interest by their behavior, and even more so by their stubborn refusal (as Frank sees it) to wake up and realize the error of their ways. Therein lies the major flaw of "What's The Matter With Kansas," and also the answer to the subtitle's implied question -- how DID Conservatives manage to "win the heart of America?"

As to the first question, "What's the Matter with Kansas," Frank's answer is that people are not voting their own interests. However, this is a purely economic analysis, and even there Frank's book falls short in explanatory value. The problem with Frank's analysis, aside from its overly anecdotal and non-empirical nature, is that human beings are not just economic beings ("Homo economicus"), but instead are a highly complicated species driven by a wide range of "rational" and "irrational" motivations, urges, desires, beliefs, and drives. Generally speaking, that's what the conservative movement understood many years ago, and that's what the liberal movement -- or what's left of it -- failed to understand on a true, gut level.

No doubt, at first glance it appears wildly paradoxical, even irrational, for people to vote against their own economic self interest. What if, however, other more subjective interests -- faith, nationalism, traditionalism -- outweigh the more objective economic ones? What if, in other words, Marx was completely wrong -- as he was in so many other ways -- in believing that economic class interests trumped all others?
Perhaps Marx might have asked himself, "what's wrong with my theory" instead of "what's wrong with the people who won't follow my theory?" And perhaps Thomas Frank and the Democratic Party should ask themselves the same question.

In other words, instead of waiting for the (supposed) fatal flaws and inherent contractions of the Republican coalition -- Wall Street bankers, poor working folks, fundamentalists and libertarians -- to self destruct of its own accord, perhaps the Democratic Party and progressive movement in general should ask themselves what THEY can do to "Win the Heart of America." If not, my guess is that conservative Republicans will keep on winning that heart, while liberal/progressive Democrats will keep losing it.

As a proud progressive Democrat myself, I say that it's time to start winning for a change. Perhaps the first step is to stop talking about what's the matter with Kansas/"Kansas," about what an evil, nasty, cynical bunch the Republicans are, and about how deluded and stupid those "Kansans" are to vote the way they do. Instead, Democrats might want to start talking about how they can appeal to "Kansas," and about how they can win back "Kansans'" hearts and votes. If not, the Democratic Party risks being carried away by a political twister, never to return to Kansas - or "Kansas" - again.

[livius drusus]

That review is deeply compelling. It's exactly where my mind was when I scribbled the OP, only he made sense of it. Thank you, vm.

Thank you for the book suggestion, GD. I'll definitely read it.

[Godless Dave]

The problem with that review is it ignores the other half of Frank's premise: that the cultural issues the conservatives make so much hay over mostly don't exist. There are hardly any real feminazis and their influence on the Democratic party is non-existent. Republicans could have made most third-trimester abortions illegal years ago but they haven't even tried. True, there is a "gay agenda", a push by gay activists to get society to accept open homosexuality, but it has hardly been embraced by the Democratic party.

[dave_a]

I would agree with that review.

I posted something on IIDB about something I felt contributed to Kerry's defeat. I listed his support in the debates for renewing and strengthening the assault weapon ban.

What a losing issue to take a position on.

Put aside whatever feelings you might have on the issue of gun control, this isn't meant to be a good/bad debate.

The point is immediately after Kerry gave his pro ban position in the debates I started seeing "Sportsmen for Bush" signs popping up whereas before there were no such signs that I saw. Sure, plenty of Bush-Cheney signs, but none of the Sportsmen for Bush signs. So I asked 2 guys in the office who they were voting for and why. One of the 2 would vote for Bush simply because he isn't a democrat. The other is much more independant and has been somewhat anti Bush the last 4 years. Both are avid hunters and own guns.

Both said they were voting for Bush and both said it was because they viewed Kerry as yet another democrat gun grabber. They heard Kerry's position on the assault weapon ban and that was the most important issue to them. On the major issues like terrorism/war/economy they didn't see that things would change much under Kerry (right or wrong), but that Kerry would go for more gun control which they despise.

I frequently hear labels like "gun nuts" on this board and other liberal leaning boards and while I can understand the sentiment, it just doesn't resonate well outside of California, New York and a few other places with dense populations.

I have no way of knowing how many votes Kerry lost by his pro gun control statements, but had he not expressed support for gun control he certainly wouldn't have lost any and some independants/undecideds probably would have been more comfortable going for Kerry.

With elections as close as they have been it just seems like some of the issues democrat leaning folks harp on are alienating to a lot of people and those issues really aren't worth focusing on.

It's hard to earn someone's vote while calling them a gun nut or some other derogatory term. It's also hard to sway someone's thinking on issues when you have insulted them on other issues.

All this talk on the boards today about how stupid half of America is isn't going to help.

Of course right leaning folks do this all the time to left leaning folks, it isn't a one way street, but it is the left who has been out of power for awhile and last night lost a tad more power.

[Godless Dave]

I think you're right Dantonac. Which is sad, because Bush also supports renewing the Assault Weapons Ban!

A lot of what conservatives are voting against is Rush Limbaugh's caricature of what Democrats stand for, and they often don't even realize what their own candidates stand for.

[Goliath]

Regarding the OP:

I've grown up on a farm house. Although I'm not elite by some standards, I have much more education than the average joe, and I'm making a fairly comfortable middle-class living. Although the county that I live in in SD (Clay) went slightly for Kerry, this is still an annoyingly conservative area. Where I grew up (Northwestern MN and NorthEastern ND) is no better.

[Godless Dave]

All this talk on the boards today about how stupid half of America is isn't going to help.
I'm not trying to help. I'm expressing my anger and disgust with morons who don't even realize what they're voting for.

I've been trying to help for the past four years. I've been pointing people to the evidence, right out in the open, that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. I've been pointing people to the fact, right in the open, that Bush's tax cuts were based on surplus projections that didn't materialize. I tried to get people in my own party to see that Howard Dean is a centrist, not a liberal, who opposed the Assault Weapons Ban while George Bush supported it. I've been pointing out the painfully obvious, that Bush is weak, not strong, on national defense.

I'm done trying to help. If people can't see what's right in front of their eyes they're beyond help. Fuck 'em. Have fun with the economic depression here and wars in the Middle East. Have fun watching the US lag farther behind in technological innovation and scientific research. Enjoy your government controlled press. I will try not to take too much pleasure in saying "I told you so".

[Goliath]

All this talk on the boards today about how stupid half of America is isn't going to help.


No, I don't expect that my screaming and ranting will help.

The time has passed for help. IMO, nothing can help this country now (except for a certain chain of events...but it is literally a Federal crime to openly wish for them to happen in a public forum like this, so I'll say no more about that).

[livius drusus]

All this talk on the boards today about how stupid half of America is isn't going to help.
I'm not trying to help. I'm expressing my anger and disgust with morons who don't even realize what they're voting for.

Well, frankly, I'm not interested. That's not what I started this thread for. Go vent on another one. Goliath's all caps one is primed and ready.

I want to see what I've done wrong, how my approach and that of people like me has failed. We were right and everyone else is an asshole is the precise opposite of what I'm looking for here.

[Godless Dave]

I want to see what I've done wrong, how my approach and that of people like me has failed.
It's my position that there is nothing you could have done differently. The conservatives won because lies are stronger than truth. I see it as a hopeless situation.

[dave_a]

I think you're right Dantonac. Which is sad, because Bush also supports renewing the Assault Weapons Ban!

A lot of what conservatives are voting against is Rush Limbaugh's caricature of what Democrats stand for, and they often don't even realize what their own candidates stand for.

Well, as they say, perception is reality.

The view that those around me seem to have concerning democrats is that they are gun grabbers. They do have a solid basis for that view, it is Clinton who enacted gun control measures.

The view/perception is that republicans stick up for gun rights. The perception I heard was that while Bush said he would sign the renewal, he never pushed for it and this equated to not supporting it. Kind of like his pro gun supporters were receiving hidden signals. I believe that Kerry, during his rant on the assault weapon ban alluded to the same thing.

Like I said, perception is reality.

The perception is Kerry is a gun grabber. That will cost him votes, not gain him any. He made an effort to do a few photo ops with him carrying a gun, he said he was a hunter etc. Why? Presumably to try and dispel the notion that he was a gun grabber. Then during the debates he "proved" to everyone suspicious of him on that issue that he really was a gun grabber.

Perception.

I don't think we can blame Rush for the democrats being viewed as gun grabbers, we have to blame the democrats. Clinton first and during the debates, Kerry.

I think this is one issue (among others) where democrats pick the wrong battles to fight and the wrong pet issues to support. It costs them votes over and over. Gun control at the state level where the majority support it can work, but at the federal level where most states don't support it is just dumb. Perhaps gun control is an important issue in New york city because of the dense population. How important do you suppose it is in the wide open areas of the "heartland"?

This speaks to the elitist attitude perception. Knowing what is right for everyone and federalizing an issue perceived to be a state issue. The "ivory tower, never been on a farm, intellectual elitists" (perception again) need to learn this lesson.

Otherwise those stupid, ignorant, right wing gun nuts who love Jesus in the backwards south (sarcasm) will continue to perceive that voting for democrats is not in their best interest.

And it won't be Rush's fault.

[livius drusus]

This speaks to the elitist attitude perception. Knowing what is right for everyone and federalizing an issue perceived to be a state issue. The "ivory tower, never been on a farm, intellectual elitists" (perception again) need to learn this lesson.

Otherwise those stupid, ignorant, right wing gun nuts who love Jesus in the backwards south (sarcasm) will continue to perceive that voting for democrats is not in their best interest.

Thank you for your posts, dantonac. I think you make an excellent point both about how perception can dominate over reality and how demonization of opponents plays into that pathology.

The question that leaves me with is how do you respond? Do you engage in rhetorical manipulation of perceptions? Do you change your policies based so that the manipulated perceptions no longer apply? Neither of those seem satisfactory to me, both in an ethical sense and a practical one.

[xorbie]

I think that in reality we could have done a better job. Kerry was honestly a pretty good candidate, just not for this election. The Republicans have succeeded in driving a wedge into the political arena so large that it is unlikely to be overcome. What we need is a different wedge, IMO, and hope that more people end up on our side.

The truth is though, I'm not really convinced that everyone who voted Bush really did it because they see the Dem's as elitist. I think this is certainly a problem, just not hte main one. If you look at people who have college education (but not grad school), the majority voted for Bush. This is really where the problem lies, IMO.

[dave_a]

Thank you for your posts, dantonac. I think you make an excellent point both about how perception can dominate over reality and how demonization of opponents plays into that pathology.

The question that leaves me with is how do you respond? Do you engage in rhetorical manipulation of perceptions? Do you change your policies based so that the manipulated perceptions no longer apply? Neither of those seem satisfactory to me, both in an ethical sense and a practical one.

I think the review of the book provided the answer: " As a proud progressive Democrat myself, I say that it's time to start winning for a change. Perhaps the first step is to stop talking about what's the matter with Kansas/"Kansas," about what an evil, nasty, cynical bunch the Republicans are, and about how deluded and stupid those "Kansans" are to vote the way they do. Instead, Democrats might want to start talking about how they can appeal to "Kansas," and about how they can win back "Kansans'" hearts and votes."

First, it is a party issue. The party needs to change how it is percieved. On an individual level we need to change how we and our values are perceived.

It simply will not do for us to demonize those who disagree with us and then tell them how stupid they are for not voting the way we did. People need to be persuaded.

There is a real sense in which it has to come from grass roots. People are conditioned to expecting completely bullshit rhetoric from politicians. Kerry talks about being a hunter and gun owner, but then blasts Bush for not doing more on gun control. Bush says he is a uniter, not a divider.

People's perceptions on the issues have to be changed. Take gay marriage as an example. It's a losing issue politically at this point. So it drug legalization. It has taken 3 decades on the pot issue to get to the point where states are starting to relax policies based upon hysterical lies concerning marijuana. It takes time.

We might think gay marriage is incredibly important, but if the population at large doesn't then forcing it upon them is going to backfire. They have to have it explained to them why they should support gay marriage even if they don't like it. It needs to be done calmly, even casually, without rhetoric, without harmful labels and preferably by people the audience knows and trusts/respects.

For you and I that means our circle of friends/family/coworkers etc. If we can't find anyone in our sphere of influence that disagrees with us, then maybe we *do* need to leave our ivory towers.

[LadyShea]

nevermind

[wildernesse]

It needs to be done calmly, even casually, without rhetoric, without harmful labels and preferably by people the audience knows and trusts/respects.

For you and I that means our circle of friends/family/coworkers etc. If we can't find anyone in our sphere of influence that disagrees with us, then maybe we *do* need to leave our ivory towers.

AMEN.

[godfry n. glad]

Well... I'm suspicious of the "progressive" label, but I am a Democrat, but I'm not particularly proud about it. It's a label of convenience I adopted to vote in the primaries in my state. It was better than Repugnantcan, since they had and continue to have the corner on rabid moral fascism and overly simplistic soundbite approaches to complex problems.

As for the party...good luck. Have you ever attended even a county central committee meeting? If you have not, then let me tell you that I think you are delusional.

There's a reason that Will Rogers used to opine, "I the member of no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Rather than shore up the Democrats, I think we should search for chinks in the unified Repugnantcan organization and seek to sow dissension within their ranks.

godfry

[Clutch Munny]

I've contributed money and time to causes I respect, but I've never made a stump speech, never even talked about progressive politics with anyone besides people predisposed to agree with me. Hell, I've never even seen a midwestern farm, so why should anyone look at me with my big words and liberal arts degree and superior attitude and think anything but that I'm a patronizing, elitist, book nerd who thinks she knows something when she's done nothing?


It's the "never even talked to" that strikes me here.

I wonder to what extent folks like you and I have been sold, and bought, the idea that we should somehow be embarrassed to talk progressive politics with those who do not share our views? To use our big words, in case someone should snigger and call us "high-IQ idiots", as Reagan said. But then whom are we talking to?

For instance. It's tempting, and not rare, to diagnose the inherently regressive features of fundamentalism in explaining why it's been so politically effective on behalf of the right: something like, It's popular because it appeals to the worst in people. But I think what you say here shows that this sort of explanation is badly confounded. Even if one thought that inherent features of fundamentalism are what align it with the right, what explains its effectiveness is something altogether different: the very facts of church-going. Not just (maybe not even) the words of the minister, but the chatting in the parking lot; the talk at the picnics; the scuttlebutt at prayer meetings in the church basement -- this is a group that is by its nature involved in public or quasi-public assemblies on a weekly basis, in which a (frequently) dynamic membership (ie, not always just the same eight people) are hashing and rehashing a few interrelated political lines of thought. They are talking to each other, organizing, consolidating opinion and working to spread it.

For a non-church-goer, or rare church-goer, what analogous role can be found? Whatever it is... you're right. It'll be work. It'll require creativity and commitment. It won't come automatically as the result of something else (though I certainly have all the guys on my hockey team trained to expect a lecture on how "fiscal conservatism" never is.)

What more can I do? In my case the question is different, since my aim is more to prevent Canada from becoming the trash-heap of democracy I see to the south. But I feel your challenge anyhow. Thank you.

[The Lone Ranger]

I think that a lot of us -- myself included -- are from time to time guilty of what the philosopher/biologist Massimo Pigliucci calls the "Rationalist Fallacy."

Allow me to illustrate. I used to write occasional columns for a local newspaper back when I was living in North Carolina. Naturally, I would occasionally mention the subject of evolution. Inevitably, the paper would receive lots of letters from outraged Creationists every time I did. At first, I naively assumed that they were from well-meaning folks who merely needed their errors pointed out to them in order to "see the light." So, I carefully and patiently crafted very polite and respectful replies to their letters, explaining their errors in logic and providing plenty of references. No matter how courteous and respectful I was, though, the replies were typically . . . nasty. Eventually, it dawned on me that my working assumption was flat-out wrong: they weren't seeking understanding, not in the slightest. Facts and logic were utterly irrelevant to them.

Anyway, Pigliucci's point is that people who value reason and understanding tend to naively assume that others do as well, and that the purpose of debating issues is to gain knowledge and understanding. For most people though, "debate" is about no such thing: they are vastly more likely to be swayed by raw appeals to emotion than by appeals to reason.

This in no way implies that they're bad people or stupid -- merely that most people have never been taught to think critically, or even to place much value in critical thinking. Indeed, a lot of people have been taught to distrust those who value rational thinking. It's a frighteningly pervasive stereotype in our culture that "overeducated" and "overly analytical" people are untrustworthy and "out of touch" with reality. Some less-than-scrupulous characters actively promote that stereotype ("pointy-headed intellectuals" anyone?).


By and large, I think that those who oppose Bush and the Republican Party as it currently stands tend to do so because they've come to the (entirely rational, in my opinion) conclusion that their policies are bad for the country. Those who support Bush and his policies tend to do so for emotional reasons.

What we need to do, I think, is learn to be more aggressive. I live in farm country, where people are overwhelmingly supporters of Bush and company. The irony of this is that the Democrats are far less likely to screw over family farmers than are the Republicans -- [I]but these people don't know that. All they know is that they've heard that the evil Democrats are going to take away their guns and leave the country defenseless against terrorists.

We need to get out there and let people know that Bush's policies are most-definitely not in the best interests of the "common man." Sadly, though, most people aren't going to sit still for a reasoned debate, especially since they've been conditioned to mistrust "pointy-headed intellectuals" in the first place. So, Democrats and others who oppose Bush and his agenda must learn to go for the gut. Michael Moore and Air America are probably on the right track: go for the gut; tell people the awful truth -- Bush is a liar, and his actions have gotten us into unnecessary wars that can get you or your children killed; he doesn't care about you in the slightest, he's just using you by playing to your ignorance, and assuming you're too stupid to figure it out.

People may distrust "intellectuals," but nobody likes to think that they're being played for a fool.

Sadly, if Democrats and others adopt a more confrontational attitude, this may coarsen the already coarse nature of American politics. But if Democrats don't learn to stand up and confront the Republicans' lies and distortions, they might as well abandon all hope of ever regaining power.

Such are my thoughts, anyway.

Cheers,

Michael

[Edit:] N.B.: "Confrontational" means refusing to roll over and play dead when Bush and his cronies lie -- it doesn't mean being nasty or disrespectful, or implying that anyone who dares to disagree with you must be an idiot.

[beyelzu]

People may distrust "intellectuals," but nobody likes to think that they're being played for a fool.

Sadly, if Democrats and others adopt a more confrontational attitude, this may coarsen the already coarse nature of American politics. But if Democrats don't learn to stand up and confront the Republicans' lies and distortions, they might as well abandon all hope of ever regaining power.

Such are my thoughts, anyway.

Cheers,

Michael

[Edit:] N.B.: "Confrontational" means refusing to roll over and play dead when Bush and his cronies lie -- it doesn't mean being nasty or disrespectful, or implying that anyone who dares to disagree with you must be an idiot.


great post, Michael.


I would just like to say that Kerry should have hit Bush harder in the debates. I think that it was a strategic mistake to not go at him with both barrels, just like you are talking about.

[godfry n. glad]

And in the name of satire, this, I think, hits hard:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/110304.asp

godfry

[wei yau]

The morning after Election Day, I had to fly to Tampa on business. I found out about Kerry's concession when my wife called just as I got to the main terminal in Tampa. I spent that day and the following day working with my customer on a project and had no real opportunity to discuss politics and my feelings on the outcome of the election.

I had two days to meditate on this election. Two days to come to grips with my feelings of frustration, helplessness and anger. Two days later, I'm here in the office. Browsing through all the election-related threads here and at IIDB. Two days later, I am no wiser.

I didn't want to start a new thread, being a latecomer and all. I chose this thread because it strikes closest to the heart of my confusion (not because I'm sucking up to liv...really).

Am I truly an Elitist? Do I live in an ivory tower? I never thought so.

Sure, I'm originally from New York City, but I'm living in Virginia now. Have been for the last seven years. Several people in my office are Bush supporters. They are all intelligent, decent and hardworking. Most are Christian, but not all.

But, their views and values are so different than my own. I understand why they believe gay marriage and abortion are wrong. I understand that their reasons are rooted firmly in a faith I do not share.

On matters of the economy and foreign policy, I find it difficult to discuss because the topics are so large, so varied and so nuanced, that I find almost any position can be rationally defended to some degree. But, I do believe that American can achieve more through cooperation than primacy. I do believe that the economy best benefits from the bottom up and not from top down.

I don't think I lack empathy with them just because I've not worked in a farm or faithfully attended church or served in uniform. Surely, there are an equal number of those who have not lived in a large urban environment, attended liberal arts studies or appreciated secular humanism.

If anything, I'm too good at understanding the point of view of the "other". If anything, perhaps have an overdeveloped sense moral relativity which ultimately neuters me as a principled person. When I place myself in the role of the "other", I often find that I would do exactly as they are doing...though, in reality, I oppose their actions.

I don't support the things I do simply for myself. I find that I often support these things for others. I don't want to marry another man, but I want them to be able to marry each other if they choose. I don't think I can choose abortion, but I don't want to deny others the right.

I've got a comfortable life. I'm fat and content. I can easily bury my head in the sand and still eventually die a happy man. This election, this country, this people...these things do not have to bother me.

But, they do.

I've always seen the Progressive movement as being there for others, a rising tide lifts all boats equally. I've always seen the Conservative movement as being more selfish, every man for himself.

Perhaps this is why the Progressive movement has been trumped by the Conservatives. Once the work of the early Progressive movement was accomplished, people were secure enough, fed enough and earned enough to focus on their own needs.

And I do realize that the above statement makes me sound horribly elitist. I also realize that I'm rambling.

I'll come back once I'm better able to compose my thoughts. Apparently, two days were not enough.