PDA

View Full Version : I want to take you seriously, seriously...



Big Train
11-05-2004, 06:37 PM
This excerpt is a PRIME example of why I can't take most liberals seriously...read the title, A DIALOGUE?



Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
By Jane Smiley
Updated Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, at 3:24 PM PT


The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to read previous entries.


I say forget introspection. It's time to be honest about our antagonists. My predecessors in this conversation are thoughtful men, and I honor their ideas, but let's try something else. I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)

Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states. There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand fight on the frontier called a "knock-down-drag-out," where any kind of gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair. The ancestors of today's red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on these fights. When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862—Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind.

Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen. This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor. But by this time you don't need much encouragement—you've put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and really, some kind of miraculous fruition (preferably accompanied by the torment of your enemies, and the ignorant always have plenty of enemies) is your only hope. If you are sufficiently ignorant, you won't even know how dangerous your policies are until they have destroyed you, and then you can always blame others.

The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?

Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can't understand it and don't respond. They cannot be allowed to keep any secrets. Tens of millions of people didn't vote—they are watching, too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and that the battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse. Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.

Nickdfresh
11-05-2004, 06:56 PM
So what's your point?:D

Big Train
11-05-2004, 07:24 PM
exactly my point....elitist liberalism exists and IS the divide in this country.

I'm not calling you a "fascist" because you dare disagree with me or my block or because I grew up in a different part of the country than you. For a group of people who are into 'Respecting diversity", it only seems to apply if you actually agree with their version of "diversity".

There are serious issues to come to a resolution on in this country and these pricklike, childish attitudes help nobody.

Nickdfresh
11-05-2004, 08:33 PM
I am sorry dude, but you don't think Karl Rove mobilizing voters by pandering to Chrstian Fundalmentalist fears and lumping gay marriage abortion togethor and distilling them into some phoney America's going to hell in a hand basket morality tale? I could just as easily found some so-called "Christian" pseudo-moralist writer that was proclaiming the apocalypse if Kerry won and that liberals are soft on crime, terrorism, whatever. There is a lot of divisiveness in this country that some liken to being worse than the 60's. But it is clearly the right wing that is the far more extremist and socially destructive wing in this country, this time. To blame it all on liberals does not hold water. You used the word "Elitist" which is a Republican buzzword to marginalize those who are educated and slightly left of center and to mute their opinions to the "regular folk." You don't think Bush and the Republican's are "elitists?" Do you really think they have the best interests of the middle-classes when they cut taxes or wage wars? I think they clearly don't and they are the true elitists whose goal is to solidify a heirarchcial class structure in favor of those who have by manipulating the have nots with pseudo-patriotism, fear of terrorist bogeyman, and radical "commie faggots" that dare question the status quo and the "elite's" true intensions. By the way, you were fucked in the stock market by Ken Lay and Enron, Bush's energy buddies, not the "liberals" in congress.

Warham
11-05-2004, 08:46 PM
I don't ever recall tax cuts being a bad thing for the middle class. At least Kennedy didn't think so.

Nickdfresh
11-05-2004, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I don't ever recall tax cuts being a bad thing for the middle class. At least Kennedy didn't think so.

I don't necessarily disagree. But it sure as fuck is much better for the top 2 percent. I'll tell you what, the gov't can keep my $400 fucking dollars if they stop mortgaging your childrens future with a huge goddamn deficit. But maybe another Clinton will come in and pick up after Juniors economic mess provided he hasn't fucked everything so bad by then. We also weren't fighting a hot war in 1961.

ODShowtime
11-05-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.

The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry.

There's a nice, diplomatic way of putting it.

Warham
11-05-2004, 09:18 PM
The top 2 percent make more money, so they are going to get a bigger tax cut. It's easy math.

If it's a straight across the board tax cut, of course rich people are going to get more back.

If rich people like Bill Clinton think they are getting too much of a tax break, then by all means, they can cut a check to the government for whatever amount they want to donate. You could have not accepted that $400 if you were worried about the deficit.

If the rich in Hollywood were really worried about the deficit, they would be inviting the government to take more of their hard-earned cash and use it to lower the deficit, but somehow I don't think that is happening.

Nickdfresh
11-05-2004, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Warham
[B]The top 2 percent make more money, so they are going to get a bigger tax cut. It's easy math.

If it's a straight across the board tax cut, of course rich people are going to get more back.
/B]

But since that bracket owns over 50% of the country's wealth, I really think they don't need it. That's even easier math. No wartime president ever cut taxes. That's insanity.

Warham
11-05-2004, 09:33 PM
Bush was trying to jump start the economy. It's that simple.

Clinton's bubble economy burst in late 2000. A recession was on it's way. When 9/11 happened, it was even worse.

The tax cuts helped.

I believe that tax cuts for just the poor and middle class would not have jump started the economy, because those are not the employers and job providers in the U.S.

We just had some good news the other day, something like 330,000 jobs were created last month. A tax cut for just the middle class is not going to stimulate that kind of job growth over the long haul.

Nickdfresh
11-05-2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Bush was trying to jump start the economy. It's that simple.

Clinton's bubble economy burst in late 2000. A recession was on it's way. When 9/11 happened, it was even worse.

The tax cuts helped.

I believe that tax cuts for just the poor and middle class would not have jump started the economy, because those are not the employers and job providers in the U.S.

We just had some good news the other day, something like 330,000 jobs were created last month. A tax cut for just the middle class is not going to stimulate that kind of job growth over the long haul.

"Clinton's Bubble Economy," what was Reagan's economy. It "collapsed" right after he left office and Daddy took over. That collapsed too. Funny I never hear Republicans call it the "Reagan's bubble economy." About fucking time some jobs were created. I myself am looking to take my two bachelor's degrees and apply myself to a fine career a Walmart. Because we are living in the first generation that will enjoy a lesser standard of living, and less opportunities, than our parents had. But one things for sure. There is nothing "bubbly" about Junior's economy.

Big Train
11-06-2004, 03:15 AM
Jeez Nick,

Where do I start with your posts? Are there extremists on my side of the fence, absolutely. Did I ever say (check the thread) that liberals were the plain and simple reason for the divide? The thing of it is, this attitude is very wide spread and encouraged on the liberal side. You can't expect to mend fences calling people idiots cause they don't agree with you. On my side of the fence there is much less of it. We certainly don't have some nightly bully pulpit like the Daily Show to call half of the country retards outright.

As for your economic theories, which you incorrectly state as "reagan's bubble", but I will follow the logic anyway, either way is not Junior's doing. He inherited the economy about 10 minutes after it popped. NOBODY from either side could have just whipped it right back into shape.

You did get one part a little right.

" Because we are living in the first generation that will enjoy a lesser standard of living, and less opportunities, than our parents had".

That is because we are now in the information age, the industrial age is over. While the industrial jobs are surely gone or going away, the high tech information based service jobs are becoming a commodity as well, which is the whole reason outsourcing is happening.

What needs to happen is we need to invent and dominate new industries in order to have somewhat steady jobs. I don't think we will ever live our lives the ways our parents did with one job which last 30 to 40 years. We will 2 to 3 careers in our lifetimes. It's the way the game is and no man or government is going to change that. Holding Jr. accountable for these macro changes is a bit dim.