Aside from the paradox...rustycoonNovember 4 2004, 13:48:30 UTC
I have a different theory on why the shift towards the Republican party.
I believe voters, much like investors, were scared away from stocks and went for bonds.
Voters are, quite possibly, the single most cowardly entities on the face of the earth, as a rule. Fear motivates them to cast their vote, and both candidates - as is done in every election - tried to make the other guy look scarier.
The problem is, we've reached the point, where so many outright lies get thrown around in the mudslinging, that nothing that anyone says can be considered worth listening to anymore unless it's clearly and logically reasoned out; a process that takes so long to do that not even 1% of the voters would bother to sit through it.
So no one has any clue what's going on. What do they have to go on? Positive stances by the candidates.
What did Horrible Monster Bush promise? Tax cuts. Cold, hard cash into your pocket. Of course, he didn't mean you or I, he meant for millionares who are the Republican's real constituants, but in the sea of lies, no one can tell truth from fiction anymore, and they WANT to believe.
He further promised to make all those scary towelheads and gay people go away. Scary people dying and being persecuted and told to 'cure themselves' is the easiest, most natural thing for people who are suffering to do.
What did Kerry promise? Long-term positive change. To be lifted out of this drear of violence and hatred and to save our nation from christianity. He promised to help us make peace with social controversies and build a more solid foundation for the future.
These are the most natural, easiest courses of action for people who, like John Kerry, have wonderful famlies, gobs and gobs of money, and basically have it made and, according to Maslow, are seeking to acomplished the totality of their potential.
Which of these two archetypes are the American people? They are the first. As a nation we are wounded, broke, hungry, cold, and terrified. We lash out at the other kids on the playground at every oppourtunity because we have no identity we can be confident in - so we try to artifically create one through violence. We are the bully with low self esteem. And our people don't want noble virtue, they don't believe it's possible, and they don't believe they'll live to see it happen.
They want the fat check, the dead terrorist to mount in their trophy room, and they want them both right the fuck now.
That doesn't make it right, but I agree, the trend is undeniable.
Re: Aside from the paradox...maniakesNovember 4 2004, 14:28:14 UTC
Of course, he didn't mean you or I, he meant for millionares who are the Republican's real constituants, but in the sea of lies, no one can tell truth from fiction anymore, and they WANT to believe.
My taxes have been lower every year of the Bush administration that they would have been without his tax cut. Last I checked, I'm not a millionaire. Although I hope to be some day.
He further promised to make all those scary towelheads and gay people go away. Scary people dying and being persecuted and told to 'cure themselves' is the easiest, most natural thing for people who are suffering to do.
On the "towelhead" front, Bush has said over and over again that only a small minority of the "towelheads" are "scary", and that minority is responsible for both the terrorist threat against the US and the poverty and oppression of much of the muslim world. His strategy has been based on the use of force to overthrow oppressive terrorist-sponsoring regimes and attempting to replace them with relatively free societies on the assumption that a free, prosperous middle east will not feel the need to attack us. You may disagree with his assessment and with his methods, but to accuse him of racist demogougery is unfair.
Whatever your opinion of Bush's underlying motives on homosexuality, his stated justification for the anti-gay-marriage amendment was not overt homophobia as you imply, but rather an assertion that it is a matter for the states and the people rather than the courts.
What did Kerry promise? Long-term positive change. To be lifted out of this drear of violence and hatred and to save our nation from christianity. He promised to help us make peace with social controversies and build a more solid foundation for the future.
That's an assessment of Kerry's program I haven't heard before. Perhaps you have specific quotes to back it up? I seem to recall him promising to tax the rich to finance middle-class give-aways. I seem to recall him promising to fight the war even more fiercely than Bush, and that he'd ask France very nicely to help out (never mind that France said that they wouldn't send troops to Iraq even if Kerry won). I also seem to recall him saying "marriage should be between a man and a woman". Am I missing something here?
Both major candidates promised to hand out candy (but diffent kinds of candy) to the voters, and both major candidates promised to do a better job of fighting the terrorists better than their respective opponents. Both candidates opposed gay marriage on linguistic grounds. Both candidates selectively pandered to special interests.
Both major candidates attempted to appeal to the voters' base instincts, and both major candidates made somewhat more sophisticated rational arguments available for those who cared to research. Bush just did a better job on one or both fronts.
Re: Aside from the paradox...rustycoonNovember 4 2004, 14:37:28 UTC
I wasn't suggesting Bush is homophobic and racist, or that Kerry is some kind of paladin, or even actually distinguishable from Bush in most respects. I believe all of the above, but I'm not so stupid as to actually use that as an argument.
What I was trying to say is that those stereotypes of the candidates represented the apparent and visible choice the two candidates had. I pointed to the specific aspects of each that their supporters grabbed on to and touted to each other. Bush isn't racist, but you better believe most of our country is. (Even Dems.)
They didn't vote for Bush. They couldn't give two shits for Bush. They voted to hurt other people, it just so happens that Bush better developed his association with those returns.
I'm blaming the trend towards militant fascism on a nation under tremdous strain of poverty, vicious resentment from the rest of the international community, and a lack of ability to come to terms with a terrorist attack on our soil. (Decades of telling ourselves we were invinciible is going to make healing a slow process.)
You pointed out a lot of things that 'any educated, informed voter' would know, but you seem to misunderstand my previous point - voters are inherently uneducated, and not informed.
If you want evidence to support that, I'll happily provide, but it seems to me to be a common sense fact. Madison was wrong, self-interest to vote is not sufficient, or his definition of self-interest is not sufficient to account for the reality of human behavior.
Re: Aside from the paradox...maniakesNovember 4 2004, 14:56:10 UTC
I agree that far too many voters do not bother to inform themselves. I will go on to say that many people who make an effort to inform themselves end up with wildly inaccurate conclusions because they are unable to wade effectively through all the bullshit. I will also accept up to a point (but only up to a point) the MIB quote crimson_soul mentioned in another post: "A person is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicy animals and you know it."
That being said, I'm a lot less cynical about the average American than you are. Not idealistic, just less cynical.
You mention that what you said was the stereotypes of the candidates. Remember that we are both members of a deep blue subculture and we both live in a deep blue state. The prevailing stereotypes of the candidates we are exposed to in our daily lives are likely very, very different from the prevailing stereotypes held by people who are members of other subcultures who live is different parts of the country.
Re: Aside from the paradox...rustycoonNovember 4 2004, 15:18:48 UTC
You make a good point about regional availability of propoganda. The internet being just another quasi-geographic region for purposes of demographical concerns in this regard, I would wager.
When I visit my folks in South Carolina I will ask them what the stereotypes looked like, and try to put that into context of their racial/religious tolerance as well.
Re: Aside from the paradox...maniakesNovember 4 2004, 15:35:10 UTC
When you do find out, please post your findings. I'll be interested in reading.
With the internet, I'd go a bit further and say it contains a lot of self-selected ideological clusters which make the quasi-geographic propoganda splits even bigger.
Re: Aside from the paradox...maniakesNovember 4 2004, 23:31:25 UTC
1. A constitutional amendment has to be approved by 3/4 of the states. A lot more than has to approve a court order.
2. One version of the amendment considered in committee gave states the explicit option of allowing gay marriage or not.
3. The republican party gives a fair amount of lip service to states' rights, and occasionally follows through (e.g. repealing the national 55 mph speed limit, transerring most of the admistration of welfare and medicaid to the states)
4. I do believe that part of the reason for the amendment was to get the fundies excited. But I also find it significant that the words Bush used were "Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process." Sounds like a popular sovereignty argument to me.
I believe voters, much like investors, were scared away from stocks and went for bonds.
Voters are, quite possibly, the single most cowardly entities on the face of the earth, as a rule. Fear motivates them to cast their vote, and both candidates - as is done in every election - tried to make the other guy look scarier.
The problem is, we've reached the point, where so many outright lies get thrown around in the mudslinging, that nothing that anyone says can be considered worth listening to anymore unless it's clearly and logically reasoned out; a process that takes so long to do that not even 1% of the voters would bother to sit through it.
So no one has any clue what's going on. What do they have to go on? Positive stances by the candidates.
What did Horrible Monster Bush promise? Tax cuts. Cold, hard cash into your pocket. Of course, he didn't mean you or I, he meant for millionares who are the Republican's real constituants, but in the sea of lies, no one can tell truth from fiction anymore, and they WANT to believe.
He further promised to make all those scary towelheads and gay people go away. Scary people dying and being persecuted and told to 'cure themselves' is the easiest, most natural thing for people who are suffering to do.
What did Kerry promise? Long-term positive change. To be lifted out of this drear of violence and hatred and to save our nation from christianity. He promised to help us make peace with social controversies and build a more solid foundation for the future.
These are the most natural, easiest courses of action for people who, like John Kerry, have wonderful famlies, gobs and gobs of money, and basically have it made and, according to Maslow, are seeking to acomplished the totality of their potential.
Which of these two archetypes are the American people? They are the first. As a nation we are wounded, broke, hungry, cold, and terrified. We lash out at the other kids on the playground at every oppourtunity because we have no identity we can be confident in - so we try to artifically create one through violence. We are the bully with low self esteem. And our people don't want noble virtue, they don't believe it's possible, and they don't believe they'll live to see it happen.
They want the fat check, the dead terrorist to mount in their trophy room, and they want them both right the fuck now.
That doesn't make it right, but I agree, the trend is undeniable.
Reply
My taxes have been lower every year of the Bush administration that they would have been without his tax cut. Last I checked, I'm not a millionaire. Although I hope to be some day.
He further promised to make all those scary towelheads and gay people go away. Scary people dying and being persecuted and told to 'cure themselves' is the easiest, most natural thing for people who are suffering to do.
On the "towelhead" front, Bush has said over and over again that only a small minority of the "towelheads" are "scary", and that minority is responsible for both the terrorist threat against the US and the poverty and oppression of much of the muslim world. His strategy has been based on the use of force to overthrow oppressive terrorist-sponsoring regimes and attempting to replace them with relatively free societies on the assumption that a free, prosperous middle east will not feel the need to attack us. You may disagree with his assessment and with his methods, but to accuse him of racist demogougery is unfair.
Whatever your opinion of Bush's underlying motives on homosexuality, his stated justification for the anti-gay-marriage amendment was not overt homophobia as you imply, but rather an assertion that it is a matter for the states and the people rather than the courts.
What did Kerry promise? Long-term positive change. To be lifted out of this drear of violence and hatred and to save our nation from christianity. He promised to help us make peace with social controversies and build a more solid foundation for the future.
That's an assessment of Kerry's program I haven't heard before. Perhaps you have specific quotes to back it up? I seem to recall him promising to tax the rich to finance middle-class give-aways. I seem to recall him promising to fight the war even more fiercely than Bush, and that he'd ask France very nicely to help out (never mind that France said that they wouldn't send troops to Iraq even if Kerry won). I also seem to recall him saying "marriage should be between a man and a woman". Am I missing something here?
Both major candidates promised to hand out candy (but diffent kinds of candy) to the voters, and both major candidates promised to do a better job of fighting the terrorists better than their respective opponents. Both candidates opposed gay marriage on linguistic grounds. Both candidates selectively pandered to special interests.
Both major candidates attempted to appeal to the voters' base instincts, and both major candidates made somewhat more sophisticated rational arguments available for those who cared to research. Bush just did a better job on one or both fronts.
Reply
What I was trying to say is that those stereotypes of the candidates represented the apparent and visible choice the two candidates had. I pointed to the specific aspects of each that their supporters grabbed on to and touted to each other. Bush isn't racist, but you better believe most of our country is. (Even Dems.)
They didn't vote for Bush. They couldn't give two shits for Bush. They voted to hurt other people, it just so happens that Bush better developed his association with those returns.
I'm blaming the trend towards militant fascism on a nation under tremdous strain of poverty, vicious resentment from the rest of the international community, and a lack of ability to come to terms with a terrorist attack on our soil. (Decades of telling ourselves we were invinciible is going to make healing a slow process.)
You pointed out a lot of things that 'any educated, informed voter' would know, but you seem to misunderstand my previous point - voters are inherently uneducated, and not informed.
If you want evidence to support that, I'll happily provide, but it seems to me to be a common sense fact. Madison was wrong, self-interest to vote is not sufficient, or his definition of self-interest is not sufficient to account for the reality of human behavior.
Reply
Reply
And the statement should have read 'Even if Bush isn't racist...'
It feels like it should be 10:30PM, and bedtime, but it's only 3. Bad sign.
Reply
That being said, I'm a lot less cynical about the average American than you are. Not idealistic, just less cynical.
You mention that what you said was the stereotypes of the candidates. Remember that we are both members of a deep blue subculture and we both live in a deep blue state. The prevailing stereotypes of the candidates we are exposed to in our daily lives are likely very, very different from the prevailing stereotypes held by people who are members of other subcultures who live is different parts of the country.
Reply
When I visit my folks in South Carolina I will ask them what the stereotypes looked like, and try to put that into context of their racial/religious tolerance as well.
Be interesting to see what that turns up.
Reply
With the internet, I'd go a bit further and say it contains a lot of self-selected ideological clusters which make the quasi-geographic propoganda splits even bigger.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
2. One version of the amendment considered in committee gave states the explicit option of allowing gay marriage or not.
3. The republican party gives a fair amount of lip service to states' rights, and occasionally follows through (e.g. repealing the national 55 mph speed limit, transerring most of the admistration of welfare and medicaid to the states)
4. I do believe that part of the reason for the amendment was to get the fundies excited. But I also find it significant that the words Bush used were "Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process." Sounds like a popular sovereignty argument to me.
Reply
Leave a comment