dampscribbler | Back from vacation -- wondering about politics

Back from vacation -- wondering about politics

We had a great time -- got warm, got a little sunburned (not enough for anyone else to notice, we are from Oregon, after all), got relaxed. And now it's good to be home! Although I have dozens of chores calling to me, so I'll have to post more details about the vacation later.

I've been trying to quickly cruise friends' ljs this morning to catch up a bit. There's lots of talk about Bush's news conference last night, which I missed due to the fact that I can't tolerate him in any size dose. My Bush exposure has to be filtered through The Daily Show, which is in repeats this week, so I'll have to do my own filtering somehow I guess.

There's nothing like driving 12 hours through farm country to remind you that there are a lot of people out there who really hate Democrats. What I want to know is -- why?????? Where and how did the democrats fuck up so badly that they are now seen as the party of the elite while the Republicans, of all things, are seen as the party of the common guy? I hope someone out there in LJland has some insight, because this is something that needs to be fixed, and fixed fast.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Did you see the Daily Show about the Condoleeza Rice questioning, where Jon Stewart just looks at the camera and says, "You've got to be FUCKING kidding me, right?"

God I was laughing so hard. He's excellent.

Yep, we TiVo'd it while on vacation and watched it last night. It was great. I'm so happy to get the Daily Show.

Unfortunately, I deleted it before I realized it was the one Paul Danielson wanted a copy of. Don't tell him, 'k? :-)

It'll be our secret. :)

Taxes?

Just a guess.

Taxes seem to be the excuse that the Republicans use -- 'Dems will tax you, we won't,' -- but can that be all? And if that is all, the Dems are doing a horrible job of presenting themselves. After all, taxes are the price we pay for a civil society. So, there must be more to it than that.

I should do some research. Somehow the Democrats have gone from being the party that represents labor and the common man to the party that people associate with elitism, snobbery, waste, and greed. I really want to know how that happened.

Like I said, I need to do some research.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Liberal Democrats supported it. Republicans and conservative Democrats opposed it. It still passed with a lot of arm twisting by President Johnson. However, the Democratic party lost the south in the process, as conservative Dems switched parties, culminating with the election of Reagan in 1980.

The Democratic party stood up for something that was right and meaningful, and it cost them.

The Republican party is very effective in communicating messages that appeal to the "common people" while implementing policies which favor the rich and privileged. Eventually, the Dems will figure it out and get their message out as well.

-Jerry

Insightful, Jerry; I hadn't even considered the Civil Rights Act, but it makes sense. Growing up in the midwest as I did, I saw a certain amount of hostility against people of color, even by people who insisted that they were "not prejudiced." (I saw even more hostility from those who never bothered to make such assertions, including some members of my own family.)

The Democratic party desperately needs restructuring. I wonder what it will take for that to happen?

Hm...I've never heard accusations of elitism and greed, but maybe that's because I'm a registered Democrat. My impression is that Republicans paint Democrats as inept at money management, soft on crime, and morally flexible.

Sure, you and I know that taxes are necessary to pay for services we need, but Republicans would probably say that some of those services aren't truly necessary, or that they could be provided for less money than the Democrats frivolously demand.

Welcome back, by the way. :-) Glad you had a nice time.

I probably should have said "intellectual elitism" or "intellectualism." Despite his Yale education, Bush comes across as (and is, as far as I can tell) a buffoon. Too much old-school "polish" from guys like Kerry and Clinton makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Damn shame.

My impression is that Republicans paint Democrats as inept at money management, soft on crime, and morally flexible.
Yes, that seems to be the case to me, too. The difference I guess is that I dismiss such ridiculous and pointless assertions. I guess a lot of people don't. This is the big problem with party politics -- everyone of a given party gets painted with the same brush. Absurd.

Welcome back, by the way. :-) Glad you had a nice time.
Thanks. :-) The sun was so nice! Still, it's good to be home and planning my garden!

Why, you ask, do so many "common" people hate the Democrats? I live in Indiana, and around here I can tell you it's mostly because of the dangerous rise of the religous right.

It is a natural and predictable progression for religious fundamentalists to become political fundamentalists. They focus only on a few wedge issues based on their religious beliefs - the "rightness" of which they have ceased to question. Their is no middle ground, no shades of grey in their mental world. Anyone who supports their wedge issues becomes "good" and everyone else becomes "bad". So after a political fundamentalist makes his initial, easy, knee-jerk decision about "good" and "bad", he relieves himself of the troublesome need to do any further thinking.

Since the likes of Rush Limbaugh are "good", everything such people say becomes gospel. Rush's demogoguery is the political equivalent of pro-wrestling. (The only flaw with that analogy is that the lies of pro-wrestling are NOT particulary dangerous.) And here in Ft. Wayne, I can't drive anywhere without seeing Rush's big ugly face on a bus-hut billboard. (They should really include some kind of warning label, perhaps: "Germany was here ca. 1923".)

Anyone still capable of of independent thought should read "UNDERSTANDING POWER" by Noam Chomsky. It's not a comfortable book to read, regardless of your political beliefs, but we must be willing to look at unpleasant truths if we want a better world. The online documentation supporting his claims is longer than the book itself.

- Bob U.

Hiya, Bob!

I know that the religious right is a disproportionately powerful force in politics, which is scary and dangerous, but those folks are not the "common" voters I'm referring to. I know a lot of Republicans, especially in your neck of the woods, who are completely non-religous. In the case of my grandparents, I suspect they vote Republican out of respect for what the Republican party used to stand for -- fiscal conservatism, probably, and I don't know what all else. They've been straight-ticket Republican voters all their lives; I don't expect that to change just because the Republican party has changed. But what about the younger voters? People in their 30's-50's? Some of them are the "swing" voters who end up casting the deciding votes for President, but what of the ones who are totally committed to the Republican party despite its recent ultra-conservative leanings? What do these people want for our country? What do they think is so wrong with Democrats?

I guess I need to ask them myself.

Well, religious or not, I think it goes back to intellectual laziness. I think the public has largely absorbed the never ending slander by the right. The word "Liberal" has been so smeared that it can no longer be used non-pejoratively among the general public. Advertising works well against those unwilling to think for themselves.

And it's a social pressure thing - I mean, why do people still take up smoking with all that is now known about it? The perception that smoking is "cool" is deeply ingrained, just as the perception that liberalism is uncool has become in many parts of the country. Younger folk tend to be more concerned with the coolness factor, and few are willing to stand apart from the crowd.

My father, a 71 year old, life-long Republican, now hates Bush as much as I do. Not so, most of my siblings. What does that say about the demographics?

Unfortunately, it's become counter-productive to frame things in a "Conservative" or "Liberal" context. That's the first thing the right does when they want to discredit the left. They've become Orwellian cliches. There is nothing conservative about running a $500 Billion deficit, yet those who do it are still "Conservative". War is peace; freedom is slavery, comrad.

To (try to) answer your main question, the pro-Bush people (of all ages) I've talked to generally seem to want some combination of the following three things:
1. The submission of American culture/society to their quasi-religious moral views.
2. Nationalistic (Narcisistic) pride.
3. Tax cuts for themselves without consequences.

Desire #1 I will leave to other discussions, except to say it goes back to a religious fundamentalism which cuts across nearly all denominational lines.

Desire #2 also requires a larger discussion, but it explains why there was so little opposition prior to the Iraq invasion. Most of Bush's lies were transparent before the war to anyone who was objective. People believed them because they wanted to believe them.

Desire #3 is apparently some sort of selfish mass hysteria - a complete refusal to deal with reality. Bush tells them that 2+2=7 and they cheer. And Bush gives them 7 now (6.9 for the rich and .1 to everyone else, which is apparently enough to shut them up) but they refuse to deal with the fact that somebody is going to have to pay back 3 later, plus a lot of interest. They got theirs, and that's literally all that matters to them.

- Bob

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Back from vacation -- wondering about politics

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject