Grasping

[muckefuck]

monshu wants everyone to know that following careful consideration (and the strategic application of high-quality Swiss chocolate) he has decided not to "defriend" me. I had him over for lomo adobado last night and we got into a three-hour discussion of party politics, democracy and democratisation, nationalism, decolonialisation, social evolution, and the future of mankind. As usual with such conversations, no firm conclusions were reached, but we both felt very satisfied with our own erudition afterwards.

Afterwards, I called back my sister to plan our upcoming family wedding weekend and we ended up dissecting the elections. She lives in a swing state, so her experience of them was about as different from mine as it's possible to find. For starters: Two(!) calls from Laura Bush urging her to vote for highly-qualified and morally-upstanding local candidates. Federer, the Republican candidate for an open House seat (Gephardt's old district), mailed her a copy of a brochure distributed by Carnahan to GLB supporters along with a letter decrying his opponent's lax moral values. He lost, as did the other conservative running for the other open seat, but Blunt took the governor's mansion in a hotly contested race. No anti-gay marriage amendment passed--only because this had already been taken care of in the primaries.

deFriending total stands at: 2. I'm sorry to see rootbeer1 go, but I understand that he's following kitchenbeard's call for a full-on boycott of anyone associated in any way with the Republican Party. (They're in SF. They can afford that luxury.)

I was going to compose a post today expounding on the painful truth that, if you really are flabbergasted by the election results, then it only goes to show how out of touch you are with vast stretches of the American electorate. Fortunately, impeccably progressive topaz_munro tackled this already, giving it a much more positive spin then I think I would've been able to. (Edit: Be sure to scroll down to forceful response by jacflash, which says a lot of what I've been saying only better.) For the past year, I've been grumbling about the number of people I run into who seem to spend most of their time in self-contained progressive enclaves and left-wing echo chambers, failing to make any real effort to comprehend people who view things dramatically differently than they do. Well, here's the call to action: It's time to stop disparaging "religious nuts," "NASCAR dads," and "security moms" and redouble our efforts to determine how it is we've failed to win them over to our causes. They're not making the same effort to understand you and your ideas? Tough; the simple fact is that you need them more than they need you.

Comments

TRUE

[darkphuque.livejournal.com]

He pandered to the fears of the ignorant. The used 9/11 as a political issue, something he agreed not to do. He told half truths about Gays. (oh wait, I forgot... you're not gay, you're *bi*) With the help of big business, (whom he represents) he will rape our country's beauty and resources, along with the resources that he can control over seas. The next invasion point...Iran or Syria? Israel will support us in this venture, its to their great advantage. I am not anti semitic, but I am anti Israel. It occupies land not theirs, and is where the former "oppressed" has become the oppressor.

Hitler used fear tactics to take away the basic rights of Jews, I fear this man and his minions will do the same to other minority groups. He will get the opportunity to place another "conservative" on the US Supreme court. Let see how long Roe v Wade lasts. Equal rights for Gays? Lets turn back the clock 50 years. The USA will be run by Corporate America. More Jobs will be farmed out to Bangladesh, and the gap between the very rich and the very poor will grow, as will the ranks of working poor, like myself. If BIg Business is to succeed, they must work to limit individual rights, and that is what Bush and Co. will do.

I am glad I am 60 years old. I hope I am not be alive to see the eventual enslavement of the USA to corporate america.

Yes, Daniel, they don't need us. There are enough committed fundamentalist Xians to keep that agenda alive for a long time. I have heard many say (regarding the fundamentalists) the lunatic fringe will never succeed. These people have never learned from History. Equality and justice are NOT the historical norm...oppression and inequality are historically the norm. No one will admit that they can and will oppress another group if it gives them more power or control. History is full of examples...

It is impossible for me to believe ANY gay person could vote for him, and yet... some did.

I am sick unto death... I thought about *defriending* you... but how can I do that when I say i love you? Sometimes love is very painful.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Love the sinner but hate the sin, eh?

There are enough fundamentalists to keep the agenda alive, but not enough to pass it without the help of others. The Christian Right will never see eye-to-eye with us, no matter what, but what about members of traditionally Democratic constituencies? The majority of Catholics voted Republican in the presidential election, as did the majority of Hispanics under 30. What are they looking for that they're no longer finding among the Democrats?

And, as an aside, both sides pandered to fears. Kerry did what basically every Democratic candidate I can think of has and played on worries about jobs loss, talking up a gruesome threat of outsourcing that simply doesn't exist. Others warned about a reinstitution of the draft, which shows no signs of actually materialising, and played up the weak resemblance to Germany on the eve of fascism, as you have just done.

[darkphuque.livejournal.com]

You worte:
And, as an aside, both sides pandered to fears. Kerry did what
basically every Democratic candidate I can think of has and played on
worries about jobs loss.

Obviously, job losses are hitting your industry....You are not a part of the Job loss. They are not worries, they are realities...at least here in CA.

You continue: talking up a gruesome threat of outsourcing that
simply doesn't exist.

SBC, (formerly Pacific Bell) is considering outsourcing. There are only few major finanacial/credit/software companies who have not outsourced a large percentage of their work. A few years back, the only folks who were out sourcing were mfg companies....I your field, Daniel, outsourcing is not practical. YOU have little about which to worry.

You continue: Others warned about a reinstitution of the draft,which shows no signs of actually materialising,

Perhaps, but wars cannot be sustained without it.

You continue: and played up the weak
resemblance to Germany on the eve of fascism, as you have just done.

The historical comparisons are there...have we really learned from the past? I doubt it.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

What do you know about my industry? Just today, I learned that a piece of software one of my co-workers wrote might be putting a whole roomful of people out of work. Not a week goes by where I don't hear about how a substantial amount of the work of my staff could be outsourced. (Fortunately, there are some enduring obstacles to doing this--but that doesn't mean they will never be surmounted.) Everywhere I've worked, I've seen staff shrink and watched as projects that would once have been done in house have been awarded to outside firms. I've lived all my life with the threat of outsourcing and I know it's not what it's cracked up to be.

If wars cannot be sustained without the draft, I guess that means that the USA hasn't fought any since 1973. Pax Americana indeed!

I didn't say that the historical comparisons aren't there, rather that they are being overblown. There are also historical comparisons to be made to the Roman Empire--just ask cassielsander--but I don't see a risk of Jenna Bush ascending to the purple anytime soon.

[nibadi.livejournal.com]

Ist es tatsächlich so, dass die Mehrheit der Katholiken republikanisch wählt? Sind es nicht die Protestanten (die in den letzten Jahren auch immer mehr zum Fundamentalismus neigen).

Wenn Kerry den Jobverlust zum Thema macht, schürrt er doch nicht die Angst der Wähler. Er hält sich doch an Tatsachen:

In der Amtszeit von Bush wurden nach meinen Informationen ca. 1 Millionen Jobs verbrannt. Das kann doch nicht unerwähnt bleiben. Nach seinen unverantwortlichen drei Steuersenkungen (von denen vor allem Millionäre und Milliadäre profitieren und die Bush als ökonomischen Anreiz bezeichnet) sollten doch angeblich fünf Millionen neue Jobs entstehen. Bushs Politik hat doch wesentlich dazu beigetragen, dass heute 50 Millionen Amerikaner keine Krankenversicherung haben (eine deutlich schlechtere Bilanz als unter den Demokraten). Ich glaube, dass ist einzigartig in Ländern mit demokratischen Regierungen. Selbst der Mezzogiorno ist besser abgesichert. Euer Rentensystem ist quasi pleite. Bush ist vor vier Jahren mit einem Haushaltsüberschuss von 2 Prozent angetreten, jetzt liegt das Defizit bei 3,6 Prozent. Das reichste Land der Welt leiht sich heute zwei Milliarden Dollar pro Tag (Joseph Stiglitz, Wirtschaftswissenschaftler und Nobelpreisträger 2001). Ich glaube, der von Bush ausgebaute Turbo-Kapitalismus wird zum einem die soziale Spaltung in den USA vertärken, die Zinsen werden steigen, der Dollar und die Wirtschaft werden am Ende schwächer.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Eine knappe Mehrheit--52%--aber eine entscheidende Veränderung, wenn man erinnert sich dran, dass Gore in 2000 sie 50% über 46% geführt hat.

Es verblüfft mich, wie wenige Leute die Konjunkturen verstehen. Die Wirtschaft der späten 90er war verhitzt und eine Berstung von der "tech bubble" war unvermeidbar. Dank der Steuersenkungen (und eines schaumigen Wohnungsmarkt) war die folgende Dämpfung der Konjuktur nicht so katastrophal, wie die hätte sein können.

[nibadi.livejournal.com]

Was hat es damit zu tun, etwas von Konjunkturen zu verstehen, wenn man sie im Sinne des Wirtschafts-Liberalismus zur Staatsreligion ausruft?

Wenn das Ziel "Konjunktur um jeden Preis" verfolgt wird und jede soziale Verantwortung und auch jedes Gefühl für soziale Gerechtigkeit aufgegeben wird, dann eigne ich mich in der Tat nicht als Anbeter der heute populären Konjunkturprogramme. Es kann doch nicht angehen, dass die Millionäre und Milliadäre auf ihre Zinzerträge und auf Aktiengewinne kaum noch Steuern bezahlen. Die Erbschaftssteuer soll am Ende auch noch aufgehoben werden. Um die Konjunktur anzuschieben ist es nicht nötig, die Steuersätze auf höchste Einkommen (also den Spitzensteuersatz) so extrem zu senken. Die Aufgaben des Staates werden am Ende nur durch die Steuereinkünfte der Arbeitnehmer finanziert.

Es kann doch nicht angehen, dass ein amerikanisches Ehepaar, wenn beide Vollzeit arbeiten, so schlechte Lohnverhältnisse auf einem völlig deregulierten Arbeitsmarkt vorfinden, dass sie trotz Arbeit nicht in der Lage sind, die Krankenkassenbeiträge für sich und ihre Kinder zu zahlen und dass sie keine Rücklagen haben, um die Bildung ihrer Kinder zu finanzieren. Am Ende ist das Bildungssystem nur noch für Eliten zugänglich. Hast du eine Ahnung wie hoch die private Pro-Kopf-Verschuldung in den USA ist? Was für eine Konjunktur ist das? Welche Nachhaltigkeit hat eine solche Konjunktur, die mit erheblicher Pro-Kopf-Verschuldung einhergeht? Es ist doch unbestritten und kein Zufall, dass die Schere zwischen Reich und Arm in den letzten Jahren erheblich auseinander klafft.

Ich bin weiss Gott kein Sozialist und ich bin für Eigenverantwortung. Aber wenn arbeitsame Menschen am Existenzminimum leben müssen, dann stimmt was nicht im Denkmodell.

Und am Ende ist es wie mit allen Religionen, sie scheinen in sich plausibel, sind in nichts tatsächlich bewiesen und ihre Jünger und Anhänger geben die immer gleichen Argumente von sich.

Anyway, Love & Peace

[rootbeer1.livejournal.com]

OK, you're punished enough! I've refriended you!

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

How are you ever going to defeat the warmongering big business Christofascists with that kind of resolve?

I won't be in the least offended if, like foodpoisoningsf, you decide that you'd rather read me sparingly rather than have my entries thrust upon you in your Friends list. I'll keep you Friended in any case, since I still enjoy your posts. (Nothing like qbear's latest ditty to brighten up a morning!)

[rootbeer1.livejournal.com]

Hey, as an idealistic liberal, I'm flexible and forgiving.

Plus, you were excpecting someone to defriend you ...

[my-tallest.livejournal.com]

Well, here's the call to action: It's time to stop disparaging "religious nuts," "NASCAR dads," and "security moms" and redouble our efforts to determine how it is we've failed to win them over to our causes. They're not making the same effort to understand you and your ideas? Tough; the simple fact is that you need them more than they need you.

balsamic_dragon made much the same post yesterday, with examples.

So, is the multipicity of channels and blogs and the Internet actually having the devisive affect many pundits warned of? If we defriend and desubscribe and watch only our favorite message, participating in self-censoring, how do we come back together?

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I'm flattered. Also a little surprised. I don't exactly feel positive about this and don't think I was trying to make it sound that way. I think I'm just trying to figure out the most constructive path that I can take, as a disenchanted liberal, to get the political system to serve our needs better.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

so i take it you're not among those who ascribe bush's victory to a very successful effort to get out the vote on the vital issue of what the queers are doing to our soil?

or do you think that being appalled at the referenda on the subject makes one a liberal whiner confined to an ivory tower echo chamber?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Feel free to be appalled, but how could you look at the same opinion polls that I do, which clearly show that the majority of Americans do not approve of gay marriage, and be shocked that, when given the chance to outlaw it, they do? I wasn't pleased that all eleven referenda passed, but I wasn't the least bit surprised either.

[bunj.livejournal.com]

I see them as akin to Jim Crow laws. They've been enacted for similar reasons, and will hopefully be swept away in time. I just hope it won't take 100 years (give or take) this time.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I think you're disagreeing about different things. There's no question that a majority of the electorate oppose gay marriage, and not a lot of surprise that the amendments all passed.

But I think this is also clear: the Republicans saw a lot of people who would support Bush if they voted but weren't motivated to get out to the polls, and tried to figure out a way to get them to come vote. The gay marriage issue was the bait to get these fish out to the polls. Once they were there they'd vote for Bush anyway -- the trick was figuring out what would get them out there.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I think you make a reasonable case and, of course, the question it immediately poses is: Why haven't the Democrats been able to find an issue that motivates voters who swing their way in equal measure? I suppose this is what my Congresscritter was aiming for when she added two non-binding referenda on the Iraq War and one on universal health care to the ballot (a move that I otherwise find hard to explain).

(Plus, it circles back to what you and I are saying about having failed to allay the fears and address the misconceptions of the majority. People disapprove of a lot of things, but usually not strongly enough to make a special effort to get to the polls.)

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

well, honestly, the idealist in me would like to believe that one of the defining virtues of america is that we do not necessarily outlaw all of those things with which we personally disapprove.

i recognize that both major parties consider this notion heresy. but weirdly, i thought the public at large had a more nuanced view. maybe that's strange. i remember polls during clinton's scandals, for instance, which clearly showed both a) that the public thought he was kind of slimy, and b) that the public didn't think it was worth kicking him out over. that's the sort of nuance that politicians just don't seem either able or willing to convey; but i'm convinced the public is actually capable of grasping it.

i thought enough people who disapproved wouldn't think it should be outlawed. though i did expect the referenda to pass in some states.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

well, honestly, the idealist in me would like to believe that one of the defining virtues of america is that we do not necessarily outlaw all of those things with which we personally disapprove.

If that really were the case, then why would we have any need of civil rights lawyers at all? The parallel that bunj notes to Jim Crow laws is very apt.

The nuance only seems to come in on the Federal level, where a majority still oppose amending the Constitution to enshrine marriage discrimination. They seem to have no difficulty at all, however, with inscribing it into their less-hallowed state charters.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

maybe i thought the jim crow days were behind us. i did say this was the idealist in me.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

The idealist in me remembers that it was a century from the abolition of slavery to the coming of the Civil Rights movement. By comparison, thirty years from Stonewall to gay marriage (anywhere, if not everywhere) strikes me as pretty amazing progress.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

in any case, my point is that the republicans appear to have definitively proved the tremendous value of locking oneself in a myopic echo chamber. it's how they won. for you to chide the democrats for doing the same just sounds snarky. the democrats' problem may be not doing it enough.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I disagree. The Republicans had to step at least far enough outside of their own echo chambers to figure out that opposing same-sex marriage wouldn't alienate more voters than it brought it or bring out the opponents' supporters in equal or larger numbers. Ciampa and his ilk in Kerryland failed to do this--to their cost. Similarly, in Illinois, the GOP's absolutely incomprehensibly knuckleheaded decision to bring in a hardcore Bible-bashing extremist not only guaranteed a thundering landslide for Obama but had a knockoff effect among moderate surbanites that is blamed for the unseating of Crane in the 8th District.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

The Republicans had to step at least far enough outside of their own echo chambers to figure out that opposing same-sex marriage wouldn't alienate more voters than it brought it or bring out the opponents' supporters in equal or larger numbers.

yes and no. they didn't have to know this; it just had to be true.

having already picked the religious right as their core base of support, they didn't have to step very far to find out what issues that base cared about. the keyes misadventure argues that maybe they thought that issue would work everywhere.

the democrats, by contrast, ditched a candidate who was bringing in new blood and money and energizing the base like crazy (dean), in favor of a colorless centrist. what did it get them?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

48.11%

I would've been stunned to see Dean top that. He was--by his own testimony--Karl Rove's favourite choice of an opponent.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

why, do you think? he would have gotten the diehard liberals and the anyone-but-bush-es, and had the hope of bringing new people to the polls. who do you think voted for kerry who wouldn't have voted for dean?

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Presumably, all the pro-war and conflicted Democrats that Kerry's equivocating and military-credential-brandishing were intended to keep inside the tent.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

sure, presumably. i'd be interested to meet one sometime; i'm not aware that i yet have.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

It seemed that half the bloggers and a few of the media endorsements I read came down that way as the election neared. (Not that that's remotely representative, but presumably neither is your acquaintanceship.)

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

More to the point, who would have voted for Dean who didn't already vote for Kerry? We had record turnout in this election, along with first-time voters in record numbers. Everyone who strongly disapproved of the war already voted for Kerry. The "moral values" crowd would have found Dean even less appealing. He would've been harder to portray as a "tax-and-spend liberal", true, but are there really that many people among whom fiscal responsibility is a paramount issue who didn't already go for Kerry? At least four million of them? I don't see it.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

the non-voting liberals, is of course the hope.

i'd be interested to see a breakdown of the first-time voters, or maybe the didn't-vote-last-time voters. bush is credited with having gotten out the religious right vote very effectively. do they comprise the majority of the uptick in voter participation this time? about half? less?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind though that any candidate fiery enough to get lots of new Democrats to the polls is also going to bring out lots of new conservatives to stop him. You need someone who can excite the liberal base without alarming others--much easier said than done.

[robling-t.livejournal.com]

the GOP's absolutely incomprehensibly knuckleheaded decision to bring in a hardcore Bible-bashing extremist

I'm almost beginning to think that the GOP was beginning to suspect Obama was unstoppable in this election and seized the opportunity to set Keyes up for a fall that might get him out of their political hair for a few years...

I can only WISH they were so clever!

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Never attribute to malice...

Re: I can only WISH they were so clever!

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Especially since I can't believe that that campaign cost Keyes more credibility than it cost the IL Republicans, who are already running on a deficit what with one thing and another.

Persuasion

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

Do you think that Bush won because of the Religious Right, or because of swing voters who swung in his direction because of issues like terrorism, Iraq, etc.?

If people were motivated to vote for Bush because of the so-called "moral values" issues, how would you suggest persuading them that same-sex marriage won't hurt them? In an earlier post, you suggest that we don't waste our time trying to persuade the Religious Right, but do spend time on other demographic groups.

PS -- I didn't think "NASCAR dad" was pejorative

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I think he won because of both. As I've said before, there simply aren't enough fundamentalist Christians in the USA to win a national election (barring some kind of inconceivable plunge in overall turnout). Given that their opinions on homosexuality come directly from Holy Writ, they seem unpersuadable on this score, which is why I suggest going after the moderates (not all of which were "swing voters" as they were defined in this election.

I'm very curious how the Catholics voted on this issue, since I'm wondering if the Vatican's sickening strategy of blaming sodomites for clerical sexual abuse instead of their own irresponsibility and unaccountability has succeeded in turning more of them against us.

Of course, same-sex marriage wasn't the only "moral values" issue and I'm not sure at all what can be done about abortion.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Though in fact a Supreme Court that reversed Roe v. Wade and threw abortion back to the states would be the Bush administration's gift to the Democratic Party, for similar base-mobilizing reasons. (It would bring out the religious right as well, but they've already been brought out fairly effectively, so the net outcome would probably swing the other way.) I'm guessing that Bush knows this, and that he doesn't care enough about abortion personally to throw the party onto that particular grenade, but then he's surprised me before.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

Given that their opinions on homosexuality come directly from Holy Writ, they seem unpersuadable on this score,

by politicians, at least. it would be interesting to see a christian group tackle the question.

I'm very curious how the Catholics voted on this issue,

personally, i think kerry could have made greater headway on his catholicism than he did. softballing it was perhaps principled, but foolish. at least on the abortion issue, he could have pressed bush to square it with his pro-death stance on capital punishment, which the catholic church opposes equally.

(yeah, this is a teeny quibble. but it would have been interesting.)

[prilicla.livejournal.com]

This actually came up during the election party, and two knowledgeable Catholics both said that abortion and capital punishment are very different issues from the Church's perspective. Disagreeing with the official position on abortion is apparently a much more serious problem than disagreeing about capital punishment. Since no one was especially in the mood for a long discussion about abortion, I don't know any more details than that.