America's 50 Million Informed, Intelligent, Sane People

[viscousmemories]

I'm proud to be an American today. Despite being a rather large, diverse nation with an insanely complex political system and suffering under a massive effort on the part of the media, major corporations and the present administration to spread misinformation and mistrust among us - approximately half of us were informed, intelligent and sane enough to see through all the shit the other half is incapable of grasping and promote the values we understand to be the right ones by voting for the clear and obvious right choice for President: John Kerry.

This is uplifting news to me, but at the same time it's a bit confusing. If religious people - who make up the vast majority of people in America - are all clueless, stupid, and/or crazy people, then how did it happen that about half of the people who voted still managed to pick the right person to vote for? Doesn't that mean some 30 million clueless, stupid and/or crazy people somehow picked the right candidate? Was it dumb luck? A brief blast of education, intelligence and sanity that swept the nation and possessed so many people to vote the right way? I am mystified, really.

What really boggles my mind is how to classify the people who voted for Nader. Are they as clueless, stupid and/or crazy as the people who voted for Bush and the large percentage that accidentally voted the right way? I mean why would anyone waste their time going to the polls just to throw their vote away? They could've just stayed home for all the good it did to try to fill that swimming pool with an eye-dropper.

And yet off the top of my head I would guess that most Nader supporters are among us informed, intelligent and sane people too! Do you think the wave of education, intelligence and sanity that washed over the religious crazies and inspired them to vote the right way had some kind of backlash effect causing some of our fellow rationalists to vote the wrong way? Again, it's a mystery to me. I just really don't understand how it could've happened.

Lastly, I don't really know what to think of myself. I mean, here I thought I was fairly well-informed, reasonably intelligent and mostly sane. But I didn't vote at all. Yeah, yeah, you've all heard the excuses about how I couldn't register in Texas until I got my drivers license and I procrastinated doing that until two weeks before the election and then found out that I was required to register 30 days before the election in order to vote and didn't get the absentee ballot from California I sent away for which means I was either fucked by California or forgot to register there two years ago. But really we all know those are just post hoc rationalizations. If I really was one of the informed, intelligent and sane in America I would have registered in time and cast my vote for the right President: John Kerry.

Of course this leads me into another paradox, in that... well... I'm an atheist. So now I'm even more confused. If it's possible for an atheist to be clueless, stupid and/or crazy enough not to vote for the right President, maybe there's no truth to the idea that atheism is an indication of education, intelligence and sanity. But if we go down that road, how long before we have to start thinking that maybe belief in religion doesn't indicate the opposite?

Man, this is all very tough stuff. I think I'll go take a nap.

[LadyShea]

Well, now we have to look deeper. Are all the people that voted for Bush really uninformed, stupid, and crazy...some of them sure, but all? Is it possible that it's simply a matter of their way of thinking being so alien to our own that we assume they must be completely out of their minds? After calming down and reviewing everything, I don't think that is the entire explantaion.

I think that a large percentage of the people that voted for Bush are afraid. Afraid of losing their gods, afraid of brown people from far away lands, afraid of minorities "taking over", afraid we will start killing babies all willy nilly, afraid that gay is contagious and/or attractive to their kids, afraid to think independently because then the masses might retaliate, afraid to take any kind of hard look at their own values and figure out why they value those things because of traditions or family dynamics.

Another group is the people who really, truly, value their beleifs so much they are willing to overlook the inadequacies as long as those issues are in agreement. These are the issues voters. They don't care how many people Bush kills as long as they have been born, they don't care whose rights get trampled on as long as they don't have to see gays living openly, they don't care that they have no job as long as they have their guns....I don't personally understand these people, but I can't dismiss that they hold those values as dearly as I hold my own...which they don't understand either.

I am rambling and totally off topic I am sure, but too bad I just wanted to kinda see all these thoughts I have been having in writing. I am still reeling from the election quite frankly.

[beyelzu]

post deleted for lack of serious content.

apologies to anybody that bothered to read it.

[Scotty]

post deleted for lack of serious content.

apologies to anybody that bothered to read it.

I was going to do one of those. Did it include cleaning your brain with cleanser or drinking a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster (same thing)?

I have nothing to add except that I have always wondered what other people were thinking because I was never thinking the same thing.

-Scott

[The Lone Ranger]

Of course this leads me into another paradox, in that... well... I'm an atheist. So now I'm even more confused. If it's possible for an atheist to be clueless, stupid and/or crazy enough not to vote for the right President, maybe there's no truth to the idea that atheism is an indication of education, intelligence and sanity.

I'm sure your tongue is firmly in cheek, but nonetheless, I'll answer. I think that on average, atheists are better-educated than theists, at least here in the U.S., and perhaps more intelligent too, on average. Nonetheless, there are atheists who are utterly clueless and/or dumber than dirt, just as there are theists who are -- at least in most ways -- absolutely brilliant.


But if we go down that road, how long before we have to start thinking that maybe belief in religion doesn't indicate the opposite?

While I think that belief in religion reflects a lack of critical thinking, at least in that area, it doesn't follow that religious believers are either ignorant or incapable of critical thinking. Many simply refuse (for various reasons) to employ their critical thinking skills when it comes to their religious beliefs. It's not like there aren't plenty of atheists who are equally unwilling/unable to critically examine their own biases, after all. (I'm thinking of an atheist some of us may be familiar with whose views on women strike me as astonishingly irrational, for an example.)


I think that a large percentage of the people that voted for Bush are afraid. Afraid of losing their gods, afraid of brown people from far away lands, afraid of minorities "taking over", afraid we will start killing babies all willy nilly, afraid that gay is contagious and/or attractive to their kids, afraid to think independently because then the masses might retaliate, afraid to take any kind of hard look at their own values and figure out why they value those things because of traditions or family dynamics.

Another group is the people who really, truly, value their beleifs so much they are willing to overlook the inadequacies as long as those issues are in agreement. These are the issues voters. They don't care how many people Bush kills as long as they have been born, they don't care whose rights get trampled on as long as they don't have to see gays living openly, they don't care that they have no job as long as they have their guns....I don't personally understand these people, but I can't dismiss that they hold those values as dearly as I hold my own...which they don't understand either.

And let's not forget those who voted for Bush for purely selfish reasons. I'm thinking of wealthy and/or politically connected people who may be perfectly well-aware that Bush's policies are disastrous for the "common man," but who don't give a flying rat's backside, because Bush's policies are good for them. Sure, they make up a small percentage of the electorate, but they're disproportionately likely to vote. And in an election this close . . .

Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

Well, now we have to look deeper. Are all the people that voted for Bush really uninformed, stupid, and crazy...some of them sure, but all? Is it possible that it's simply a matter of their way of thinking being so alien to our own that we assume they must be completely out of their minds? After calming down and reviewing everything, I don't think that is the entire explantaion.
I don't think that's the entire explanation either, Shea. I'm sorry if you made the mistake of taking my OP seriously. It was intended as satire. Nevertheless the issues are obviously a discussion I'm happy to have.

I think that a large percentage of the people that voted for Bush are afraid. Afraid of losing their gods, afraid of brown people from far away lands, afraid of minorities "taking over", afraid we will start killing babies all willy nilly, afraid that gay is contagious and/or attractive to their kids, afraid to think independently because then the masses might retaliate, afraid to take any kind of hard look at their own values and figure out why they value those things because of traditions or family dynamics.
I agree some people probably voted out of fear. In fact I suspect a very large number voted entirely based on a specific fear: terrorism, and a belief that their safety is more assured with GW the fighter than Kerry the talker. I'm sure some people have had a different experience of things than me but most people I've known in my life just weren't very interested in politics and probably don't know much more about the issues than what they get from the 30 minutes of 6:00 o'clock news. I'm fascinated by the gallup poll someone referred to in another thread that indicated that 42% of Americans still believed - in October - that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Was the fact not reported widely enough, are people too stupid to understand the truth, or is it possible that these people heard the same news I did and it just didn't stick for some reason?

I think the latter is the most plausible, personally. And I think the most likely reason is a perfectly common and natural failure to think critically that indicates not that the people are somehow intellectually deficient, but that the message didn't get out in a way that it couldn't be missed.

Another group is the people who really, truly, value their beleifs so much they are willing to overlook the inadequacies as long as those issues are in agreement. These are the issues voters. They don't care how many people Bush kills as long as they have been born, they don't care whose rights get trampled on as long as they don't have to see gays living openly, they don't care that they have no job as long as they have their guns....I don't personally understand these people, but I can't dismiss that they hold those values as dearly as I hold my own...which they don't understand either.
Doesn't that describe all of us? Don't we all vote based on the issues as framed by our own values? Most of my family members, for example, believe that there has been a state-sponsored, systematic genocide going on here in America since abortion was legalized. Seriously. It literally hurts them to think about it. They start crying when the subject comes up. And I assure you they are no more stupid or crazy than I am. Perhaps not as informed on the specifics of the issues, but well enough to know which candidates support their values and which don't. In that light just how much weight do you think a couple thousand dead servicemen and women and tens of thousands of Iraqis carries? I mean compared to the millions of innocent, helpless little babies? How much of an impact do you think you could make by accusing them of voting for Bush because they don't care about human life? I'll fathom a guess: None at all.

I am rambling and totally off topic I am sure, but too bad I just wanted to kinda see all these thoughts I have been having in writing. I am still reeling from the election quite frankly.
I think you were right on topic and I appreciate it, Brandi. Thanks for the response.

[The Lone Ranger]

I think the latter is the most plausible, personally. And I think the most likely reason is a perfectly common and natural failure to think critically that indicates not that the people are somehow intellectually deficient, but that the message didn't get out in a way that it couldn't be missed.

For every instance of some official pointing out that there was no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11, there were probably a dozen instances of some Bush official or apologist implying or stating outright that there was. If anything, I'm pleasantly surprised that so many people recognized the lie for what it was.

Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

I blame LadyShea for making Bey and Scotty think this was a serious thread. ;)

For every instance of some official pointing out that there was no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11, there were probably a dozen instances of some Bush official or apologist implying or stating outright that there was. If anything, I'm pleasantly surprised that so many people recognized the lie for what it was.
Your first post was great, Michael. I think I'm fully in agreement though I wonder if the wealthy/politically connected crowd is really big enough to have much pull. But then I don't know any wealthy/politically connected people.

As for this point, how do you suppose all of us here caught that connection when so many others didn't. Surely we were as exposed to the same misinformation as they were.

[The Lone Ranger]

I dunno. But I've spoken with lots of people who believe that Iraq had a direct hand in September 11th -- and that WMD have been found there. Generally, they express either surprise or disbelief when told that neither of these is true.

I suspect it has a lot to do with where they get their "news." Remember the poll that came out awhile ago showing that 70+ percent of regular Fox News viewers believed that WMD had been found in Iraq, while less than 20 percent of newspaper readers and NPR listeners did? (Someone correct my numbers please, if I'm mistaken.)

I've heard plenty of these same people insist that all the other news sources are biased, and that only Fox provides "fair and balanced" reporting. So naturally, they watch only Fox.


Pretty scary. It also raises a chicken-and-egg question. Are they disinclined to seek out alternate sources of information because they've bought the propaganda about them being biased, so they stick with the "unbiased" sources -- or had they already made up their minds, and they're simply dismissing that information which doesn't conform with their established views?

I think an awful lot of us tend to grossly underestimate just how easily most people ignore information which doesn't conform to our already-established views.



As I said earlier, my sister is a Fundamentalist Christian who ardently believes that evilution is a lie propagated by evil Satan worshippers. She also believes that her brother is an intelligent, good and decent person. Occasionally, I remind her that I'm an evolutionary biologist -- and that I'm not part of any sort of Satanist conspiracy to "hide the truth." On such occasions, her face goes utterly blank for about 2 seconds -- then she goes right back to ranting about how only idiots and bad people believe in evolution.

I honestly believe that she's incapable of accepting that one can be an "evolutionist" and a good person, and so her mind automatically filters out any and all evidence to the contrary. I think that similarly, a lot of people have become convinced (for whatever reason) that there was a clear linkage between Iraq and 9/11 (maybe because they couldn't face the prospect that a "godly" man like Bush would start a war on false pretenses), and so they're simply incapable of accepting that there is no such connection.

Cheers,

Michael

[LadyShea]

I blame LadyShea for making Bey and Scotty think this was a serious thread. ;)


:bag: I so misread you

[viscousmemories]

I think an awful lot of us tend to grossly underestimate just how easily most people ignore information which doesn't conform to our already-established views.
Bingo. That was the essential point I was trying to make. After reading Clutch's article on critical thinking (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/article.php?a=8) here I'm far more inclined to attribute gross discrepancies between the facts and the popular opinion to normal brain function than idiocy or insanity. In turn I wonder if there is anything those of us who have long been aware of the facts could have done differently to ensure that the word was getting out to the voters.

Starting with an assumption that all people who voted for Bush this time around are ignorant, stupid or crazy is (imho) going to yield the same results it always does: Increased polarization and hostility to opposing views.

[beyelzu]

I think the latter is the most plausible, personally. And I think the most likely reason is a perfectly common and natural failure to think critically that indicates not that the people are somehow intellectually deficient, but that the message didn't get out in a way that it couldn't be missed.

For every instance of some official pointing out that there was no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11, there were probably a dozen instances of some Bush official or apologist implying or stating outright that there was. If anything, I'm pleasantly surprised that so many people recognized the lie for what it was.

Cheers,

Michael
if only some poster had made a thread addressing just this point.

if only..........

[viscousmemories]

I blame LadyShea for making Bey and Scotty think this was a serious thread. ;)


:bag: I so misread you
No worries. :)

I generally avoid such gratuitously cynical OP's anyway, 'cause as funny as it is to me I'd still rather discuss things than point and laugh at what I consider to be an absurd stance. I confess it weirds me out a little that you didn't immediately identify such a blatantly narrowminded post as a satire, though. But it also kinda helps make my point for me: We tend to be a lot more open-minded to positions expressed by people we know, like and trust. You do like me, right? RIGHT? :P

[viscousmemories]

if only some poster had made a thread addressing just this point.

if only..........
Maybe that thread is why the population here seems to know the truth. Did you try starting one of those threads in Ohio or Florida?!

[LadyShea]

I generally avoid such gratuitously cynical OP's anyway, 'cause as funny as it is to me I'd still rather discuss things than point and laugh at what I consider to be an absurd stance. I confess it weirds me out a little that you didn't immediately identify such a blatantly narrowminded post as a satire, though. But it also kinda helps make my point for me: We tend to be a lot more open-minded to positions expressed by people we know, like and trust. You do like me, right? RIGHT? :P


Um, I think I thought you were using the emotive language to make a point, or because you were venting or some shit. I really have no idea what I was thinking. Basically, I saw a little crack where I could wedge in my musings. They were connected thoughts in my hormone addled brain okay?

And yes, I like you. Asking me that is a stupid, uninformed thing to do ;)

[seebs]

My mom's a very rational atheist, who voted for Bush, because she thought Kerry was actually worse. She might be right. Certainly, we didn't have very good choices this time around.

[viscousmemories]

Um, I think I thought you were using the emotive language to make a point, or because you were venting or some shit. I really have no idea what I was thinking. Basically, I saw a little crack where I could wedge in my musings. They were connected thoughts in my hormone addled brain okay?

And yes, I like you. Asking me that is a stupid, uninformed thing to do ;)
Yeah that's what I'm saying. You interpreted what I said based on an assumption - because you know me - that I'm not an ignorant, stupid, crazy person. As a result you gave a courteous and reasoned response, and the hypothetical bridge of communication between us on this issue was built. Had you assumed the worst and attacked me, we'd be done talking and I would be even less likely to give your POV a fair hearing next time.

Anyway I know you know all this and agree, I'm just spelling it out for the lurkers and to help clarify the ideas for myself. On a more important note: Are you aware that you very often leave the period off the final sentence in your posts, and if so do you know why?

[The Lone Ranger]

Brandi missed her period?

[LadyShea]

Anyway I know you know all this and agree, I'm just spelling it out for the lurkers and to help clarify the ideas for myself. On a more important note: Are you aware that you very often leave the period off the final sentence in your posts, and if so do you know why?

I think if you analyze more closely, you'll find I only (or mostly) do so when I end my post with a smilie. I never figured out if it was proper to put the punctuation before or after the smilie, felt both ways looked wrong, so I simply stopped using punctuation in those instances.

[LadyShea]

Brandi missed her period?

Not yet, but we're hoping to. We should know around the 10th.

[viscousmemories]

I think if you analyze more closely, you'll find I only (or mostly) do so when I end my post with a smilie. I never figured out if it was proper to put the punctuation before or after the smilie, felt both ways looked wrong, so I simply stopped using punctuation in those instances.
I've only noticed a few times, actually, but only once when a smilie was involved. In any case I just thought it was interesting and wondered why it was. :)

[LadyShea]

I've only noticed a few times, actually, but only once when a smilie was involved. In any case I just thought it was interesting and wondered why it was. :)


Hmm, I don't know. I also don't know why I use "..." so much, but I can't stop.

Damn, I don't do it, do I? I was ready to hit submit without a period in the sentence above. Now I'll be thinking about it all the time, for a day or so.

[livius drusus]

You've done it in PM too. :giggle:

[LadyShea]

You've done it in PM too. :giggle:

Is it always the last sentence only? Guess I subconsciously figure it's extraneous. Yeah, that's it. I am not retarded, I am efficient!

[Roland98]

Bingo. That was the essential point I was trying to make. After reading Clutch's article on critical thinking (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/article.php?a=8) here I'm far more inclined to attribute gross discrepancies between the facts and the popular opinion to normal brain function than idiocy or insanity. In turn I wonder if there is anything those of us who have long been aware of the facts could have done differently to ensure that the word was getting out to the voters.

Starting with an assumption that all people who voted for Bush this time around are ignorant, stupid or crazy is (imho) going to yield the same results it always does: Increased polarization and hostility to opposing views.

Okay, but how exactly do you distinguish between that normal brain function and their filtering out of the facts and ignorance? If they're ignoring certain pieces of information that don't fit their pre-determined view, doesn't that still make them ignorant of it? I don't think a lot of Bush voters were stupid or crazy (though sure, some of them were those too ;) ) but I think it's pretty clear a lot of them are ignorant (more here (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf)): ignorant of what's happened in Iraq, ignorant on both Bush and Kerry's positions, ignorant on what's happened with the economy, and on and on. IMO it's a fair assessment of many Bush voters. *shrug*

[viscousmemories]

Okay, but how exactly do you distinguish between that normal brain function and their filtering out of the facts and ignorance? If they're ignoring certain pieces of information that don't fit their pre-determined view, doesn't that still make them ignorant of it? I don't think a lot of Bush voters were stupid or crazy (though sure, some of them were those too ;) ) but I think it's pretty clear a lot of them are ignorant (more here (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf)): ignorant of what's happened in Iraq, ignorant on both Bush and Kerry's positions, ignorant on what's happened with the economy, and on and on. IMO it's a fair assessment of many Bush voters. *shrug*
Oh absolutely, I agree. And thanks for the link, that's an interesting study. My main point though was that it's absurd to make generalized assumptions such as smart people voted Kerry, idiots voted Bush. Or informed people voted Kerry, ignorant people voted Bush. Even the worst of the stats in that study show about 25% of the Bush voters knowing the facts, and about 25% of Kerry voters not knowing the facts.

Extrapolating from that example we can conclude that about 10 million people who voted for Kerry were misinformed about whether Iraq had WMD's. Sure that isn't nearly as bad as the 35 million or whatever uninformed Bush voters, but it's still a pretty far cry from evidence that by and large Kerry voters are smart and informed and Bush voters are ignorant and stupid.

There are plenty of ignorant, stupid and crazy people in America. I don't doubt that for a minute. And I really do feel your pain, fear and frustration as a scientist confronting people who would deter you on superstitious grounds. I just very strongly disagree that we can figure out who those people are by looking at who they voted for. I just think the whole process is far more complex than the ugly lines that some people would prefer to draw.

[Roland98]

Oh absolutely, I agree. And thanks for the link, that's an interesting study. My main point though was that it's absurd to make generalized assumptions such as smart people voted Kerry, idiots voted Bush. Or informed people voted Kerry, ignorant people voted Bush. Even the worst of the stats in that study show about 25% of the Bush voters knowing the facts, and about 25% of Kerry voters not knowing the facts.

I guess I will just agree to disagree with that, kinda. I agree that you certainly can't say anything in absolutes, and that you can't predict based on someone's vote alone whether they're intelligent or educated or what-not. But I think that study does show that these overall generalizations are fair; Bush voters are more likely to be uninformed than a Kerry voter. Isn't that the purpose of a generalization?

Extrapolating from that example we can conclude that about 10 million people who voted for Kerry were misinformed about whether Iraq had WMD's. Sure that isn't nearly as bad as the 35 million or whatever uninformed Bush voters, but it's still a pretty far cry from evidence that by and large Kerry voters are smart and informed and Bush voters are ignorant and stupid.

I'm not conflating "smart" and "stupid" with "ignorant" or "not ignorant." I guess I can't see how you can really judge someone on their "smartness" or "stupidness," but I think ignorance is more of a measurable quality. And again, I think that it's been shown in several studies, polls, you name it, that Bush supporters are, as a general rule, more ignorant on the issues than those who voted Kerry.

There are plenty of ignorant, stupid and crazy people in America. I don't doubt that for a minute. And I really do feel your pain, fear and frustration as a scientist confronting people who would deter you on superstitious grounds. I just very strongly disagree that we can figure out who those people are by looking at who they voted for. I just think the whole process is far more complex than the ugly lines that some people would prefer to draw.

I guess my sticking point is just the term "ignorant" here. I don't use it as an insult really; just a matter-of-fact term to say that someone simply doesn't know the details or facts of a situation; they're uninformed. Certainly I don't think it's black and white ("all Bush supporters are ignorant; all Kerry ones are not"), but again, the trend is in that direction, and as such, I don't think generalizing in that manner is completely out of line. I dunno, maybe I'm just too used to thinking as an epidemiologist that generalizations like these are okay. :)

But yeah, the stupid and crazy I'd leave out. ;)

[viscousmemories]

I guess my sticking point is just the term "ignorant" here. I don't use it as an insult really; just a matter-of-fact term to say that someone simply doesn't know the details or facts of a situation; they're uninformed. Certainly I don't think it's black and white ("all Bush supporters are ignorant; all Kerry ones are not"), but again, the trend is in that direction, and as such, I don't think generalizing in that manner is completely out of line.
For the most part I don't think we disagree, really. I think I'm just not being very clear - probably in part because I'm making it up as I go along. I'll keep trying to express myself, though. Maybe I'll make some sense eventually. :)

That study does handily demonstrate that - at least on the subject of the Iraq war and some fairly closely related issues - Bush supporters were more likely to be ignorant than Kerry voters. But it's not just the generalizations that bother me, but this whole notion of "If they were as informed, intelligent and rational as me, they'd vote as I voted".

Even if you strip off the intelligent and rational part and leave 'informed' I'd still disagree that it's a reasonable assumption. It is possible, in my opinion, for informed, intelligent and sane people to have come to the conclusion that Bush was the better choice for President.

[Roland98]

It is possible, in my opinion, for informed, intelligent and sane people to have come to the conclusion that Bush was the better choice for President.

Okay. Yes, I agree with that. They were, of course, wrong. :D

What I'd like to see is why that group of people voted for Bush. Because I think that's the group that we're most likely to be able to swing for the next election. It's hard to inform a group about why your candidate is the best for the job when they're either deliberately uninformed, or they filter out anything they don't want to hear. The group that is informed but chose Bush anyway, IMO we have a chance of reaching.

[lisarea]

What I'd like to see is why that group of people voted for Bush. Because I think that's the group that we're most likely to be able to swing for the next election. It's hard to inform a group about why your candidate is the best for the job when they're either deliberately uninformed, or they filter out anything they don't want to hear. The group that is informed but chose Bush anyway, IMO we have a chance of reaching.

I'd see it as the other way around, kind of. There are valid reasons to prefer a conservative candidate. There are people who are fairly informed on the issues and still believe that social legislation is necessary, for example. That's your hard-core abortion/drug war/prayer in the schools vote. They're not changing their minds. There are also those who honestly believe in free market capitalism, preemptive military actions, etc. They're still wrong, but they're not uninformed.

It's the populist aspects, IMO, that the Republicans have coopted in recent years that I think the Dems have the best chance of regaining. Basically, it is a demographic that's often ignorant. It is a bad thing, but it's not a character flaw, really, on their parts. They're really just people who aren't all that interested in following politics. Big deal. It's unfortunate because our system of government is best served when the population is better informed, but there's nothing wrong with a person who doesn't want to follow politics. I honestly doubt that many people here follow these things solely out of a sense of duty or anything. Come on. Admit it. You kind of LIKE this stuff. Some people don't, though. It's like people who like computers who look down their noses as clueless users. Sure, it's frustrating, but the difference comes down, all too often, to personal preference.

The real demographic to be courted is this 'populist' vote, which does largely focus on the politically ignorant. These are the people who will vote for the party that makes them feel good, or that appeals to their common sense, and makes them feel as though they understand what it is they're voting for. They vote for the people they trust, and believe are looking out for them. And somehow, the Republicans have managed to become that party.

I think they pulled this off a couple of different ways. Most obviously, they adopted social policies that appeal to that demographic. People are afraid of change, they want to maintain the status quo, and most importantly, even people who don't follow political matters understand the social aspects. Abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, prayer in schools, and stuff like that. They aren't really familiar with the differences in foreign, economic, and environmental policies. They trust these people to make those decisions for them, because they identify with the social agenda.

The other angle they've taken is to appeal to simplicity. The Republicans can make people feel pretty smart. Think Shrub's "I'm still trying to figure out what he just said," in the debate. Make smart people look stupid by giving a yes or no answer, and not challenging them. People get defensive when they're challenged. Bush makes them feel as though they understand politics just about as well as the president does.

This is where you get into the "voting against your interests" argument, which rankles me personally because it just assumes that everyone votes selfishly, but that's neither here nor there. But if we're honest about it, most people DO vote selfishly. Again, though, the appeal to optimism and simplicity is the angle that seems to work.

The right wing has managed to cast consumer protections as some kind of stumbling blocks, by putting the regular working class guys in the role of the capitalist. Look at the insane market populist boom of the 90s. What was that? That was people like George Gilder, writing these manifestos about the bright, shining future where we'd all get rich by taking the power out of the hands of the privileged class and putting it in the hands of the common man! That was Thomas Friedman convincing people somehow that we could unleash the "electronic herd" onto the global economic landscape, and third-world peasants would be wresting power from the power elite. And if some goatherder in the Sudan would be wealthy, so would you.

Hell, just YESTERDAY, I saw a commercial for ETrade or something using the tagline "Power to the People." Power to the people. Yes, finally, at long last. Day trading is now some kind of revolution that will wrest control from the guys in top hats and monocles, and put it in the hands of the common man. How? Well, they're going to buy shares in K-Mart or something, and, um, yeah. That will somehow lead to a new power structure. Hey. Also. You know Bill Gates doesn't have a college degree? You don't have a college degree? Yep. Just like Bill Gates! Power to the People.

Remember that poll that showed that 19% of people thought they'd immediately benefit from a tax cut for the top 1% of income earners, and that another 20% beyond that figured they would someday? That's how you get $16K a year dirt farmers and convenience store clerks to support repeal of the estate tax and deregulation/privatization of public services that they rely on. Simply put, we need to bring back the images of robber barons and that Monopoly guy climbing out of your mother's window carrying one of those bags with a dollar sign on it.

The majority of people, no matter what the political landscape, will respond best to appeals to emotion, to the party that they feel best reflects their personalities and their interests. That's the demographic to appeal to, and IMO, the Democrats gave them up without a fight.

Sorry. I kind of went on a tangent there. But that really bugs me.

[Scotty]

It's like people who like computers who look down their noses as clueless users

Your mocking me, I can tell.

-Scott

[lisarea]

It's like people who like computers who look down their noses as clueless users

Your mocking me, I can tell.

I wasn't, but now I've made a mental note to do so.

I was going to taunt you for misspelling 'your,' but then, I noticed that there's a typo in the part you quoted, so, you know, glass houses and shit.

I'm watching you, Scotty.

[Scotty]

It's like people who like computers who look down their noses as clueless users

Your mocking me, I can tell.

I wasn't, but now I've made a mental note to do so.

I was going to taunt you for misspelling 'your,' but then, I noticed that there's a typo in the part you quoted, so, you know, glass houses and shit.

I'm watching you, Scotty.

I even edited that post so fast your quote doesn't show my error. I mean, what error?


;)

-Scott

[lisarea]

I even edited that post so fast your quote doesn't show my error. I mean, what error?

Yeah, well, so, just because I misspelled I was going to taunt you for misspelling 'you're' doesn't, um, mean, you know, whatever. Or something.

I WIN! I WIN! I WIN TIMES INFINITY!

[Scotty]

Wait, see, I was right, you ARE mocking me! I knew it!

Did anybody else see that?

-Scott

[viscousmemories]

Excellent post, lisarea.

It's the populist aspects, IMO, that the Republicans have coopted in recent years that I think the Dems have the best chance of regaining. Basically, it is a demographic that's often ignorant. It is a bad thing, but it's not a character flaw, really, on their parts. They're really just people who aren't all that interested in following politics. Big deal. It's unfortunate because our system of government is best served when the population is better informed, but there's nothing wrong with a person who doesn't want to follow politics. I honestly doubt that many people here follow these things solely out of a sense of duty or anything. Come on. Admit it. You kind of LIKE this stuff. Some people don't, though. It's like people who like computers who look down their noses as clueless users. Sure, it's frustrating, but the difference comes down, all too often, to personal preference.
This part hits really close to home for me. Until six months ago I was one such person. Kinda. The only bone of contention I have with it is that I wasn't disinterested simply because it's boring, but because I've always viewed politics as a huge, complicated web of deception and treachery attended by completely detached, inhuman, self-serving monsters. So why would I devote the amount of time and effort it would take me to learn about and follow a system I could have no impact on and which ultimately had little effect on my life?

The only time I ever paid any attention politics was six months prior to the first Gulf war. I got out of the Army in November of '88, and here we were a year later looking at a possible war with Iraq and rumors of Bush reinstating the draft. I had good reason to believe (or so I thought) that I was a prime candidate for being snatched back up and shipped out. So I started reading about the issues.

The thing is, I had a very liberal girlfriend at that time who had been systematically challenging all the conservative values I had been raised with. So all the news sources I went to were heavily biased in favor of the liberal perspective, and I was as susceptible to the appeals to emotion from the left as any good fundamentalist is to those from the right. I wasn't a huge activist or anything. I mostly just read a lot and discussed/debated the issues with people. In the end I came to the same conclusion a lot of people have come to this time around: That the Gulf war was a clear and obvious Bad Thing™, and that anyone who didn't realize that was ignorant, stupid or evil.

On the day we started the bombing I called a friend of mine to tell her, and then we just cried together. It was a really emotionally draining experience, and I lost a lot of faith in humanity. In fact after that the most I could do was remain detached from the whole thing. I hardly followed the news of the war and I rarely engaged people on the subject. It was too painful to watch.

Even then I wouldn't have voted, though. I just really felt like politics were a lost cause over which I had no real control, and I had learned from those few months of researching the situation in the Middle East just how much I really didn't (and don't) know about politics, economics and history. Hell, I was still that pessimistic just a few weeks ago, until I started tentatively reading political threads and you offered to give me a dollar if I'd go vote.

Make smart people look stupid by giving a yes or no answer, and not challenging them. People get defensive when they're challenged.
Did you mean that the other way around?

The majority of people, no matter what the political landscape, will respond best to appeals to emotion, to the party that they feel best reflects their personalities and their interests.
I'm living proof of that, and I believe most people are the same.

That's the demographic to appeal to, and IMO, the Democrats gave them up without a fight.
And I don't know how anyone thought they could appeal to that demographic with a candidate about whom the best many could say was "He's a douchebag but he's not Bush". This may be too simplistic an analysis but I don't think so: You've got a known quantity; a guy whose Dad was a popular President not long ago and who has a demonstrated willingness to play hardball with terrorists. Even if we can't prove they're terrorists.

On the other hand you've got a guy you never heard of until six months ago (and trust me, I'm speaking for Joe America who doesn't follow politics on this) who though he may be a war hero is now primarily a mamby-pamby bleeding heart who might prefer to talk about things when there's ass-kicking to do. And besides, even his supporters can't come up with much better to say about him than "he's not Bush" - that is when they aren't telling me how ignorant, stupid and/or crazy I am for not wanting to vote for him.

[Roland98]

I guess I'm too cynical right now, because I see no hope in courting those type of voters. For every vm there are a dozen people like my relatives, who are politically ignorant and proud of it, and always vote Republican because, after all, it's "God's party." And I don't see how any amount of talkin' is going to get them to change their minds.

I also find it hard to put Democratic ideals into simple catchphrases like the right wing can. How do you counter "abortion is murder" in one 3-word phrase? (With more oomph than "no it's not"). For every catchphrase they have, you have to spend an entire essay explaining why they're wrong, only to be put down about your 'book-learnin'".

I dunno. I like the Monopoly guy aspect, but I just don't see it working. But, yeah, cynical right now and everything, so take it FWIW.

[Corwin]

I guess I'm too cynical right now, because I see no hope in courting those type of voters. For every vm there are a dozen people like my relatives, who are politically ignorant and proud of it, and always vote Republican because, after all, it's "God's party." And I don't see how any amount of talkin' is going to get them to change their minds.

I also find it hard to put Democratic ideals into simple catchphrases like the right wing can. How do you counter "abortion is murder" in one 3-word phrase? (With more oomph than "no it's not"). For every catchphrase they have, you have to spend an entire essay explaining why they're wrong, only to be put down about your 'book-learnin'".

I dunno. I like the Monopoly guy aspect, but I just don't see it working. But, yeah, cynical right now and everything, so take it FWIW.

'Coathangers kill women.'

'Do you want some Washington bureaucrat telling you what to do with your body?'

'First the gays, then women, before long it'll be you. Everybody but the Pentecostals.'

We can do this too... and we have facts on our side. (Unlike them.) We need to remember this.

[lisarea]

Make smart people look stupid by giving a yes or no answer, and not challenging them. People get defensive when they're challenged.
Did you mean that the other way around?

Ewww, blech. Not exactly the other way around. But that's just textual emesis. I can't even deconstruct that to what I thought I was typing. What I MEANT was that you appeal to the politically ignorant by giving simple, easy to understand, short answers to questions, and ignoring or at least deemphasizing the details. Say something that rings true, rather than getting bogged down in the details.

As an example, Kerry totally fucked up the whole, "I voted for the 87B before I voted against it" thing. He never really responded in 25 words or fewer. "Those were two entirely different bills, and you know it. We can pay for it upfront, without saddling our children with the debt."

The Democrats do this all the time. We need short versions, we need emotional imagery, and we need appeals to our common interests. But every time we do that, some blowhard (like me) gets up and points out some inconsistency or says, "Well, now, that's kind of over the top. Actually..."

People who are not closely following the issues don't see the finer point you're trying to put on something. They see dissent. They see confusion and a lack of focus and common goals, and they see a lot of people going on and on about some niggling little detail. They don't see a strong, decisive message. That's what they need. They need to see someone cast the appropriations bill as buying groceries with a high-interest credit card. They need to see church-state separation issues as nefarious Cheney-looking dudes standing behind their preachers telling them what parts of their religion are governmentally approved, and which aren't.

Try to do something like that, though, and the left will start up right away with the "Well, actually..." and "That's not entirely an accurate characterization..." and never even notice that everyone's eyes glaze over before they even get through with their introductory clause. They just hear the dissent part, not the details. They just heard some liberal say that even THEY know the argument is wrong.

We spend too much time second-guessing ourselves. We spend too much time bickering about details and diluting the message. We spend too much time trying to be excruciatingly accurate, and in doing so, we lose the core message, and we lose all emotional appeal.

That's not even to say that Democrats need to lie, or mire themselves in specious arguments. It's just that they need to stop losing sight of the powerful ideals they stand for by muddying them with details.

Where was the immediate outrage and horror, for example, at Tucker Carlson's mentions of John Edward's "Jacuzzi case"? Yeah, sure, bloggers complained, and people complained about it on, say, II. I'm sure personal injury lawyers complained about it on private mailing lists. But where was fucking Paul Begala? Who was right there, right then, when he made those references, to say, "MY GOD, YOU FILTHY BASTARD. A LITTLE GIRL'S INTESTINES WERE SUCKED OUT THROUGH HER ANUS, AND YOU WANT TO DEFEND THE MANUFACTURER THAT SOLD THE POOL DRAIN THAT DID IT? THEY KNEW IT WOULD HAPPEN! IT HAD HAPPENED BEFORE, AND THEY DECIDED IT WASN'T WORTH THE TWO CENT FIX TO KEEP IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. MAY YOUR ENTRAILS BE SUCKED OUT YOUR ANUS, TUCKER CARLSON!"

What are you thinking? Are you thinking "Well, now, Carlson isn't exactly defending the manufacturers. I think he's just saying that..."

And you're right. In fact, Carlson claims he only meant to imply that Edwards made money on the case, so it wasn't an altruistic thing or something, and, um. Oh, OK. Well, I'm sure he just misspoke or something, and he never really said he supported the manufacturer in that case or anything, and...

Wait. The guy repeatedly characterized that as the "Jacuzzi case," and everyone knows damned well that he meant to imply that it was some kind of ridiculous, frivolous money-grubbing bullshit. He meant to appeal to the people who've been suckered into thinking that, somehow, tort reform is protecting them from rampant frivolous lawsuits that put such a huge burden on poor, innocent pool drain manufacturers who are just trying to make an honest living by selling consumer goods that eviscerate small children, and who are forced to defend themselves from perpetual attacks by slick, fancy dressing lawyers who defend those stupid kids who can't even accept the personal responsibility for keeping their guts inside their bodies.

The majority of people, no matter what the political landscape, will respond best to appeals to emotion, to the party that they feel best reflects their personalities and their interests.
I'm living proof of that, and I believe most people are the same.


That's the demographic to appeal to, and IMO, the Democrats gave them up without a fight.
And I don't know how anyone thought they could appeal to that demographic with a candidate about whom the best many could say was "He's a douchebag but he's not Bush". This may be too simplistic an analysis but I don't think so: You've got a known quantity; a guy whose Dad was a popular President not long ago and who has a demonstrated willingness to play hardball with terrorists. Even if we can't prove they're terrorists.

I actually like Kerry, but I recognize that, like me, he's longwinded. To be entirely honest, it's probably one of the things I like about him. See? I'm not exactly a paragon of rational thinking, either.

The problem is not even that he lacks passion for his issues. It's that he has a difficult time expressing it. Look at his Winter Soldier testimony sometime. It's compelling, passionate, and courageous, and it illustrates his strong sense of justice and his willingness to do the right thing, regardless of his own interests.

I really just think he needs to be more to the point about it. And I think the rest of us shouldn't stop criticizing him, but at the very least we should not put ourselves above appealing to basic, simple, understandable issues like personal integrity, courage, and patriotism. Really, there is plenty of honor to be found in a man who volunteered to fight for his country, and then put his own neck on the line when he came home, to ensure that it would always be a country worth defending. (Look. I didn't even add caveats. I'm getting better.)

I know, and I'm sorry. There are multiple discrete tangents there.

As you can probably tell, I've been yelling at the TV about this crap for a while now.

[lisarea]

How do you counter "abortion is murder" in one 3-word phrase? (With more oomph than "no it's not").

Off the top of my head:

A five year old who gave birth. (http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp)

(I tried to just post the picture of the little pregnant girl, but it didn't take.)

At the very least, you can appeal to arguments involving pedophelia, rape, danger to the mother, fetuses that won't survive outside the womb, etc. Sure, you won't get the hard core anti-abortion contingent, but there are those who will see the problems with a total ban on "partial birth" abortions, for example.

[LadyShea]

Just wanted to thank everyone. This has been a great discussion for me to read :)

[livius drusus]

Very much seconded. :thankee:

[viscousmemories]

I guess I'm too cynical right now, because I see no hope in courting those type of voters. For every vm there are a dozen people like my relatives, who are politically ignorant and proud of it, and always vote Republican because, after all, it's "God's party." And I don't see how any amount of talkin' is going to get them to change their minds.
With all due respect - which is a lot - I think you are just being cynical right now. I firmly believe that the average American today (religious or not) is vastly more socially liberal than they were 50 years ago. And most of my family is just like your family.

The last election was very close, this one wasn't. Did 4 million religious fundamentalists that didn't make it to the polls to vote in an anti-abortion President last election really just crawl out of the woodwork to vote against gay marriage in this one? Is anti-humanistic fundamentalism spreading like wildfire despite the radical differences between the average persons degree of tolerance for social liberalism today vs. 50 years ago? Neither seems likely to me.

I've never been accused of being idealistic or optimistic, and even I think the average person is more socially liberal than not. But I think lisarea's nailed it. The Democrats just don't have the same mass appeal to people's basic needs and desires that the Republicans do. We need to find and understand those core common values the majority have and metaphorically hire better marketing people.

You're right, some people are never going to vote for a non-Republican no matter how bad the situation gets. Obviously there are such extremists on both sides. So write them off and focus on the people who aren't extremists. I honestly believe most people would prefer a situation that provides the most rights and privileges for the most number of people around the world - provided it was at no great cost to their own or their loved ones quality of life.

Um. Erm... I'm not sure when I started sounding like a liberal activist, but I blame lisarea. Please take everything I'm saying with a grain of salt, and/or feel free, anyone, to disagree however vehemently with anything I say. I'm quite literally just thinking 'aloud' here.

[LadyShea]

I firmly believe that the average American today (religious or not) is vastly more socially liberal than they were 50 years ago. And most of my family is just like your family.

I agree to an extent. I think there are also a lot of people who appear to be more socially liberal than they really are. Luckily, through the efforts of those gone before us, certain views are held as too heinous to express openly. Racists still exist, for example, they just don't spout off as openly and loudly as they did 50 years ago and might even come across as totally PC and caring.

The last election was very close, this one wasn't. Did 4 million religious fundamentalists that didn't make it to the polls to vote in an anti-abortion President last election really just crawl out of the woodwork to vote against gay marriage in this one? Is anti-humanistic fundamentalism spreading like wildfire despite the radical differences between the average persons degree of tolerance for social liberalism today vs. 50 years ago? Neither seems likely to me.

Again, I agree to an extent. Remember, though, there was much more on any State's ballot than just the President. I fully believe that a large number of people went to the polls this year, that didn't previously, specifically to support or oppose those gay-marriage bans. I also know that Nevada had some hot-button issues and that people went to vote on those. The Presidential race was secondary. I don't think this accounts for all of however many more people voted (total not just for Bush) this year than in 2000, but I don't think it's anything to sneeze at.

Pretty much agreed on the rest of your post.

[wade-w]

The last election was very close, this one wasn't. Did 4 million religious fundamentalists that didn't make it to the polls to vote in an anti-abortion President last election really just crawl out of the woodwork to vote against gay marriage in this one?

Yup. Well, they didn't just crawl out of the woodwork. Remember, Bush's DUI conviction was revealed less than a week prior to the last election. Most estimates place the number of votes this cost him at approximately 4 million. Or 4 million evangelicals who wouldn't vote for him last time, but did get out there this time on the gay marriage issue.

[seebs]

Brandi missed her period?

Not yet, but we're hoping to. We should know around the 10th.

Heh.

I once was chatting with a girl I know via IM, and I wrote "blah blah blah", and then about a second later wrote ".".

And she wrote back "*SNERK* You do the same thing I do when I forget a period!"

And I wrote "No, I've never bought a pregnancy test in my life."

Nice to see a pun making the rounds.