The Politics of Icky
I don't feel like thinking too hard today, so instead I'll make and defend a simple observation: Today's conservative politicians rely overly-much on visceral topics instead of intellectual arguments in order to attract the undying support of those who hold those emotional trip wires tautly. In other words, modern conservative activists and many of the elected representatives that respond to them have developed a vocabulary of dog-whistle scare tactics to simultaneously frighten their base and thus shore up support by promising to, if elected, curb the scary and icky.
Really, this is so plainly obvious that those who do not recognize it might be seeing only the grass roots in the sand along side their buried eyeballs. What are the most hammered-upon topics of the conservative movement today? Abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and gun control.
Let me start with the last first. I've been reading Dan Baum's book Gun Guys recently. He describes himself thusly:
A child of the Great Society, raised by New Dealers, I'd grown up with the bedtime story that Democrats were the party of the workingman, while Republicans carried the cudgel for the rich. That, of course, was outdated wisdom.
(Dan Baum, Gun Guys, Borzoi Books, 2013, p. 53.)
Since his childhood shooting and loving guns and being sympathetic to the plight of labor and the poor, the tide has shifted. The NRA, carrying water for the conservative movement, has turned the gun debate into a battle of Them vs. Us, the Democratic pro-gun-control politicians versus gun bearers everywhere. Yes, many of these pro-gun-control politicians have been especially stupid regarding guns; to be fair, why would someone become an expert in what they sought to ban? Still, mis-statements about the function and actual efficacy of firearms can be widely reprinted to a gun-literate electorate, making the banners look like complete dweebs out of touch with the realities of gun ownership.
It worked. They do, and some even are. The outdated wisdom now reads, "The Democrats are the party of the gun controller freaks, and the Republicans will let us keep and respect our Second Amendment rights."
Moving on, let's consider why the immigration debate is inherently racist. It's simple, really: There's only one wall proposed, ever, and it's on our southern border. You know, where the brown people live. Never mind that the 9/11 terrorists were clearly recorded entering the country from the other direction up north.
I have sympathy for those that point out the ongoing drug war (the real one between the narco-cartels, not the manufactured one fought by the DARE idjits). Yes, our northern War on Drugs has made it possible for actual warlords to charge outrageous sums for illicit substances, sums that fund actual war chests down south. That has taken more lives that I care to imagine, sadly. Mexico is paralyzed, especially in its north, as the warlords easily outgun and bribe the federales officials tasked with stopping the carnage and the traffic.
If we end our "war" on drugs, though, much of the profit will dry up, and quickly. Washington state ended their hard-on against cannabis recently, and will soon be selling legally, getting the tax revenue from such trade as well instead of sending that money to warlords. Maybe we'll even stop using the bastardized propaganda name for cannabis, one that simply means "Mary Jane" in Spanish.
And maybe soon there after honest workers from Latin America will be able to find better lives en el Norte without the silliness of GOP squawking points about walls and unaffordable defenses appended thereto. Still, some people react negatively when I break into my broken Spanish, and I'm lily white. I can't imagine the willies they must get from native speakers with their genetic tans, no matter how little they can afford to pay said people for grooming their lawns and procuring their food.
For the record, seeing men kiss only icks out two kinds of people: Those that haven't seen men kiss before and are therefore un-used to the sight; and those that wish they could be the one of the mens doing the kissing. That's it. Everyone else sees Public Displays of Affection.
On my own LJ years ago, I noted what happened when Rusty Parsons and I stumbled upon some Playboy centerfolds on the walk between our homes. (Silly fun fact; ditch pornography is quite common. Many married men hide porn in their cars, and literally ditch it when the new stuff comes out.) I felt something new that day. My pants got tighter.
Let's remember that this was early 70s Playboy. Boobs, skin, but no naughty bits. None. One of the three centerfolds was even airbrushed away behind her thin, dangled veil. Think about this, folks; none of my visceral responses to these pictures had anything to do with reproduction. I didn't know where this new stiffening was to be inserted; that place wasn't pictured. Therefore, marriage between a man and a woman is not about reproduction. It is about the pants getting tight and wet, nothing more.
A further therefore goes thusly; the wild claim that without proper religious guidance men and women will marry other men and other women is made only by people who see two men kissing and get tight pants themselves. Denying that they wish this only makes their anger stronger. Seriously. As the study found, "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."
Exploiting that closeted anxiety proves quite profitable for the modern conservative movement. As long as the closet exists, gay marriage will trigger conservative voters to vote conservatively.
Finally, the abortion kerfuffle and all the emotions it raises. Make no mistake; the recent Texas move to make clinics more "safe" for medical procedures is not a move to make the procedures safer, but to make them all but go away. Mississippi did the same damned thing a few years ago, and now has but one clinic in the entire state. Worse, the Mississippi legislators that imposed the restrictions proudly admitted that removing abortion from their state was their goal. The laws they passed are an end-around of the Roe v. Wade ruling allowed by a later 1984 SCOTUS ruling (the name of which escapes me at present; help remembering would be appreciated) 1992 SCOTUS ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. [Addendum: Major thanks to l33tminion for the clarification!]
There is beauty in the reduction of abortion clinics as opposed to their outright removal; reducing the number keeps abortion available as an object lesson in fear. When the bogeyman is driven from town and stays away, tales of the bogeyman fall on deaf and inured ears. Modern conservatism needs the devil to be present to motivate the faithful.
How motivating an appeal to religious fundamentalism can be a might surprise. Let's get back to the Baum quote about the Republican Party wielding the cudgel for the rich. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what is happening. "Between 1973 and 2004 . . . economic concerns topped Gallup's list almost three-quarters of the time that the question was asked. What's more, a huge body of research shows that economic issues continue to dominate the vote choices of a broad majority of Americans." (Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer-And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, Simon & Schuster, 2010, pp. 148.) People still vote according to economic alignment, mostly. The exceptions are worth noting. Continuing;
All this makes it even more consequential that evangelicals have become such loyal GOP supporters. While Christian conservatives with high incomes are more likely to vote for Republicans than their poorer counterparts, evangelicals "tip" to the Republican Party at a much lower income level than do other voters-about $50,000 lower, according to statistical analysis. Put another way, an evangelical voter with $50,000 in annual income is as likely to be a Republican as a nonevangelical voter with $100,000 in annual income. In a country where the typical household income is around $50,000, this is huge effect, and it means that Republicans attract far more support from lower-and middle-class voters than they would otherwise.
(Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, ibid, pp. 148-149, I emboldened the emphasize-able.)
To conclude, the rich and richest have become the driving force behind a conservative political strategy, one that drowns the debate about income and the class differences that come with income in a sea of icky visceral issues that trigger the rising gorges (and denial of tightening pants) of social and religious conservatives.
Until we return the debate to issues of rising income inequality, we might as well discuss politics only on silly online fora.
Really, this is so plainly obvious that those who do not recognize it might be seeing only the grass roots in the sand along side their buried eyeballs. What are the most hammered-upon topics of the conservative movement today? Abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and gun control.
- Abortion: Kids are cute. Those that would end their lives are therefore mean.
- Gay marriage: Seeing two men kiss is icky. It makes me feel weird, and therefore it is to be avoided.
- Immigration: Dark people are scary. We should keep them away, or they'll hide under my bed and wait until I'm asleep.
- Gun control: Dark people are scary. Without my gun, they'll get me.
Let me start with the last first. I've been reading Dan Baum's book Gun Guys recently. He describes himself thusly:
A child of the Great Society, raised by New Dealers, I'd grown up with the bedtime story that Democrats were the party of the workingman, while Republicans carried the cudgel for the rich. That, of course, was outdated wisdom.
(Dan Baum, Gun Guys, Borzoi Books, 2013, p. 53.)
Since his childhood shooting and loving guns and being sympathetic to the plight of labor and the poor, the tide has shifted. The NRA, carrying water for the conservative movement, has turned the gun debate into a battle of Them vs. Us, the Democratic pro-gun-control politicians versus gun bearers everywhere. Yes, many of these pro-gun-control politicians have been especially stupid regarding guns; to be fair, why would someone become an expert in what they sought to ban? Still, mis-statements about the function and actual efficacy of firearms can be widely reprinted to a gun-literate electorate, making the banners look like complete dweebs out of touch with the realities of gun ownership.
It worked. They do, and some even are. The outdated wisdom now reads, "The Democrats are the party of the gun controller freaks, and the Republicans will let us keep and respect our Second Amendment rights."
Moving on, let's consider why the immigration debate is inherently racist. It's simple, really: There's only one wall proposed, ever, and it's on our southern border. You know, where the brown people live. Never mind that the 9/11 terrorists were clearly recorded entering the country from the other direction up north.
I have sympathy for those that point out the ongoing drug war (the real one between the narco-cartels, not the manufactured one fought by the DARE idjits). Yes, our northern War on Drugs has made it possible for actual warlords to charge outrageous sums for illicit substances, sums that fund actual war chests down south. That has taken more lives that I care to imagine, sadly. Mexico is paralyzed, especially in its north, as the warlords easily outgun and bribe the federales officials tasked with stopping the carnage and the traffic.
If we end our "war" on drugs, though, much of the profit will dry up, and quickly. Washington state ended their hard-on against cannabis recently, and will soon be selling legally, getting the tax revenue from such trade as well instead of sending that money to warlords. Maybe we'll even stop using the bastardized propaganda name for cannabis, one that simply means "Mary Jane" in Spanish.
And maybe soon there after honest workers from Latin America will be able to find better lives en el Norte without the silliness of GOP squawking points about walls and unaffordable defenses appended thereto. Still, some people react negatively when I break into my broken Spanish, and I'm lily white. I can't imagine the willies they must get from native speakers with their genetic tans, no matter how little they can afford to pay said people for grooming their lawns and procuring their food.
For the record, seeing men kiss only icks out two kinds of people: Those that haven't seen men kiss before and are therefore un-used to the sight; and those that wish they could be the one of the mens doing the kissing. That's it. Everyone else sees Public Displays of Affection.
On my own LJ years ago, I noted what happened when Rusty Parsons and I stumbled upon some Playboy centerfolds on the walk between our homes. (Silly fun fact; ditch pornography is quite common. Many married men hide porn in their cars, and literally ditch it when the new stuff comes out.) I felt something new that day. My pants got tighter.
Let's remember that this was early 70s Playboy. Boobs, skin, but no naughty bits. None. One of the three centerfolds was even airbrushed away behind her thin, dangled veil. Think about this, folks; none of my visceral responses to these pictures had anything to do with reproduction. I didn't know where this new stiffening was to be inserted; that place wasn't pictured. Therefore, marriage between a man and a woman is not about reproduction. It is about the pants getting tight and wet, nothing more.
A further therefore goes thusly; the wild claim that without proper religious guidance men and women will marry other men and other women is made only by people who see two men kissing and get tight pants themselves. Denying that they wish this only makes their anger stronger. Seriously. As the study found, "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."
Exploiting that closeted anxiety proves quite profitable for the modern conservative movement. As long as the closet exists, gay marriage will trigger conservative voters to vote conservatively.
Finally, the abortion kerfuffle and all the emotions it raises. Make no mistake; the recent Texas move to make clinics more "safe" for medical procedures is not a move to make the procedures safer, but to make them all but go away. Mississippi did the same damned thing a few years ago, and now has but one clinic in the entire state. Worse, the Mississippi legislators that imposed the restrictions proudly admitted that removing abortion from their state was their goal. The laws they passed are an end-around of the Roe v. Wade ruling allowed by a later 1984 SCOTUS ruling (the name of which escapes me at present; help remembering would be appreciated) 1992 SCOTUS ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. [Addendum: Major thanks to l33tminion for the clarification!]
There is beauty in the reduction of abortion clinics as opposed to their outright removal; reducing the number keeps abortion available as an object lesson in fear. When the bogeyman is driven from town and stays away, tales of the bogeyman fall on deaf and inured ears. Modern conservatism needs the devil to be present to motivate the faithful.
How motivating an appeal to religious fundamentalism can be a might surprise. Let's get back to the Baum quote about the Republican Party wielding the cudgel for the rich. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what is happening. "Between 1973 and 2004 . . . economic concerns topped Gallup's list almost three-quarters of the time that the question was asked. What's more, a huge body of research shows that economic issues continue to dominate the vote choices of a broad majority of Americans." (Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer-And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, Simon & Schuster, 2010, pp. 148.) People still vote according to economic alignment, mostly. The exceptions are worth noting. Continuing;
All this makes it even more consequential that evangelicals have become such loyal GOP supporters. While Christian conservatives with high incomes are more likely to vote for Republicans than their poorer counterparts, evangelicals "tip" to the Republican Party at a much lower income level than do other voters-about $50,000 lower, according to statistical analysis. Put another way, an evangelical voter with $50,000 in annual income is as likely to be a Republican as a nonevangelical voter with $100,000 in annual income. In a country where the typical household income is around $50,000, this is huge effect, and it means that Republicans attract far more support from lower-and middle-class voters than they would otherwise.
(Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, ibid, pp. 148-149, I emboldened the emphasize-able.)
To conclude, the rich and richest have become the driving force behind a conservative political strategy, one that drowns the debate about income and the class differences that come with income in a sea of icky visceral issues that trigger the rising gorges (and denial of tightening pants) of social and religious conservatives.
Until we return the debate to issues of rising income inequality, we might as well discuss politics only on silly online fora.