Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen

Your points are so well thought through that I feel bad disagreeing with them, but I do.

All men are created equal, but what they do is not

First let me drop my bombshell so that nobody can accuse me of deception. I don’t believe in equality and certainly not egalitarianism. Individuals should be equal under the law and have an equal right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but in their ideas, lifestyles, talents and habits people certainly are not equal. Some people are better than others in some aspects and I suppose some people are better than others in every aspect. One reason we have selection processes such as elections is to decide which ideas and people are better.

Why is the right “anti-Intellectual?”

The word intellectual has connotations in the American context that are not in the original definition of the word. Intellectual is almost always applied to the left. When we use the word for someone on the right, we have to add an adjective such as “right wing” of “conservative”. Usually we call such people pundits or commentators and not intellectuals. Dick Cheney is probably the most intellectual man to hold the office of Vice President in our lifetime. He reads widely, holds mini-seminars and invites scholars to talk about the course of history from the ancient Greeks to today. I have never heard him referred to as an intellectual. So, one reason “the right” is anti-intellectual is merely definitional.

What is an intellectual?

The best definition of a liberal intellectual is someone who loves all the needy, but can’t think of too many individual poor people he really likes. I talk to the homeless and have helped some of them get their lives back on track. One of my liberal friends accused me (as a conservative) of not caring about the poor. When I told her about my activities and asked her what she had done, she told me “I vote Democratic.” She didn’t see the irony in her statement and maybe some of the readers also don’t. I guess that makes them intellectuals.

Who’s in charge?

When John Kennedy was asked about a mandate, he replied that he was here and the other guy wasn’t. That’s all it takes. Republicans should reach out to Democrats to take advantage of the synergy of different ideas. But Republicans won the election. That makes Democrats the junior partner. Democrats should not expect an equal voice or a seat at every table. To get that, they have to win elections. Democrats didn’t treat Republicans any better when they controlled things and I don’t expect them to do so again in the future. We don’t make our decisions based on consensus. We are the United States, not the United Nations.

Jack-
I believe true elites are not merely determined by status, but by action, and that the elite we seek out must always be those who are as wise in their actions as they are competent in carrying them out.

Leadership cannot only be defined by power, it must also be defined by the quality with which that power is wielded, and the willingness to redress errors in the use of that power.

Your tortuous hair-splitting on whether the administration is intellectual misses one important point: as intellectual as these people may be, they don’t encourage intellectual discussion in those they lead. They are nanny-state intellectuals, doing all the heavy thinking so you don’t have to.

In the end, they have made a mess of this country and squandered the opportunities of a lifetime, because they are so blindly adherent to one set of philosophies, and so hostile to those who don’t hold their beliefs dear.

I’d like to think of myself as a liberal intellectual. For me, that means more than just acts of charity. That means a whole array of issues, of which charity is one thing. Let me ask you: do the majority of the people you call Republican intellectuals copy your example? Or do they act like your supposed liberal intellectual or worse for the most part? Charity and economic justice are more than just helping individuals off the street. It’s keeping masses off the streets, not screwing them out of good livings that they more than earn, while giving more money to those who are paid much more than they really earn.

The reality is, we must start acting as if what our fellow Americans think is important. If we disagree, we must do so in a manner that exposes the reasons for the disagreement, rather than papering them over with rationalizations and feelings of entitlement and privilege. We must be presented with the most solid picture of the facts possible, and not fall short because we’re too lazy to make the effort or too scared of what we may find out.

Power is not an entitlement of the morally superior, it is simply the means to execute any decision. To not apply checks and balances, wisdom and understanding to that power is to lose our hold on our future, and suffer the chaos that comes from hideous mistakes unredeemed.

Stephen:

It’s not about “you”. It is about wanting to watch a ballgame without a sexy blonde jumping in some guys arms naked. It’s about wanting to watch the super bowl without seeing a breast. It’s about wanting to watch a pro basketball game without seeing a street fight with fans. It is a backlash against a culture that needs some boundries set. It is wanting the culture that spawns or creates such outrages to be put in control.

Craig

It’s not about “you”. It is about wanting to watch a ballgame without a sexy blonde jumping in some guys arms naked. It’s about wanting to watch the super bowl without seeing a breast…

If people voted for Bush because they were tired of seeing boobs on TV, then the idiotanti-intellectual label really fits. Forgot the environment, forget the deficit, forgot the WMD, forgot the fact that Bush didn’t even campaign on this issue, let’s vote to get rid of the boobs!

(Actually I voted for Kerry on anti-“boob” platform to, but this one is six feet tall and named “George”.)

Woody:

Like I said, it’s not all about you. It’s about putting Michael Moore in the president’s Box. It’s about Whoopie Goldberg calling the president a crude name that refers to female body parts.

People from small towns and rural america were offended by the far left and their extreme agenda. The far left could not have planned it better to offend people of rural and small town america if they had tried.

By the way, Republicans have done the same thing. In 1992 the Republican convention was disusting in reverse. Pat Robertson and Pat B. were so far out on the right, basing Gays etc, that they offended half of American.

Craig

Stephen, I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to say with this post.

Are you responding to all the punditry about the apparent closed-mindedness of liberals in blue states referencing this election as the triumph of ignorance? Or the apparent liberal bubble of perception that holds that any political movement toward policies you disagree with is tyranny?

Ultimately no side wins when one political block of the country decides to rule in tyranny over the other, denying legitimate concerns, while demonizing those who raise them.

Stephen

My point is that the right has plenty of intellectuals – if you mean the original sense of the term i.e. working with the intellect, but we don’t call them that. I also contend that the bulk of today’s intellectual muscle is on the right, if you compare the “new idea” output of liberal and conservative think tanks. Government was a wonderful engine of change to help bring many of the poor out of poverty. It worked (and works) as long as identifiable conditions are the cause of poverty and when these conditions are amenable to outside intervention. This heavy lifting had run its course by about 1980. The primary root causes of poverty today are no longer societal in the macro sense; governments have done a good job of eliminating or mitigating most of the structural barriers to advancement. Today’s problems are based on culture, lifestyle and even individual personality. You might call them the micro societal elements.

Government action to mitigate some of these problems has actually been counterproductive, leading to moral decline, increased rates of illegitimacy, dependency and crime. Advocating additional government action along the same lines is worse than stupid; it is cruel. One of the most successful anti-poverty programs of recent times has been welfare reform. President Clinton bravely championed in the face of liberal opposition from his own party. They said it would starve the poor. What it did was empower them, as conservative intellectuals predicted. Conservatives believe that the poor have the capacity and the responsibility to care for themselves. Help should come, but never be without requirements. That is true kindness.

As for the exercise of power, what do you think Republicans should do? If Democrats are cooperative, I am sure there will be cooperation. But I voted for George Bush because of the programs he advocated. I chose him because I thought what he offered was better than what John Kerry offered. A majority of Americans agreed. Why should we now take on the things we thought were wrong? I will be disappointed if George Bush nominates the same kinds of judges John Kerry would have. I will not like it if he doesn’t allow private accounts to be added to Social Security. I don’t want to seem unreasonable, but Republicans won. They get to chose the direction. It is like I am the boss and you are the assistant. I will take your opinions into account, but in the end the decision is mine. And I can tell you one more thing, the more complaining Democrats do, the less voice they will have in the next four years.

In the last election, both sides denigrated the other side. Republicans claimed that Democrats were not sufficiently patriotic and had no “moral values.” Democrats poked fun at the religious right and at the Western and Southern “hicks.”

The Republicans did a better job destroying the character of Kerry and the Democrats, so they won.

It’s time to forget weapon-words like “intellectualism,” “moral values,” “atheist,” “religious right,” “egalitarianism,” etc., etc. It’s time for Democrats and Republicans to talk to each other about their different philosphies of government.

Maybe then we will be able to call ourselves a real democracy.

Craig-
You’ve got to be kidding me. Who are the people who cut the funds to the FCC for putting TV Watchers in place to watch shows for violations? Who are the people who allowed runaway media concentration to thrive, saying that it was just the market at work? Who the hell runs FOX, which flaunts the bounds of good taste and decorum on a regular basis?

I tell you what, I live in a city where the concentration of mega-churches and strip clubs are both spectacularly high. Does that tell you something? And what about the insistence by the Republicans that drinking, smoking and overeating are a persons inalienable right?

It’s the Republicans who have lead the charge against “political correctness”, the Republicans who have lead the charge against media regulation. You reap what you sow. Now you’re finding out a little bit of political correctness and decorum are good things.

I’m not saying my people are angels. They’re not. I’m somewhat conservative on content myself. But the reality is, your party is no longer the party of Laurence Welk. It’s the party of Ted Nugent.

As for what Whoopi said about Bush, first you should know much of her material is that politically incorrect. Second, you should take a look at your party and examine it for crude remarks and innuendo as well. You might find that many of your fellow Republicans reflect what Jeff Foxworthy defined as “a glorious lack of sophistication”.

Frankly, I think all the focus on that stuff encourages the content more than it discourages it. If people think they can get a big response out of it if they show it on a regular basis, guess what they’ll do, especially given market philosophy on the subject of the media.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think every Republican’s a redneck, or every redneck or hick a Republican. I don’t think you’re all degenerates, I think you’re human. And I’m not pressing for more graphic material on television. I just find that silly. If anything, I wish the media would take a more mature approach, put more intellectual material on there, instead of relying on sensationalism to sell things. If given a choice between greater nudity and greater writing, I’d choose the latter.

Eric-
I believe I can understand the frustrations of those who believe the people in red states to be morons, but I don’t share their outlet of that emotion. I think where you start from, philosophically speaking, can change where you end up, given certain information.

I would blame conservative media ethics before conservative voters, really. The Conservative media has had a terrible track record on facts, figures and research, owing to the fact that they view loyalty to the ends of conservatism as more important than loyalty to a fair and objective means of reporting. Because of the compulsive need to cover the butts of Republican political establishment, the conservative media establishment has allowed their politicians to get very lax about serving their public well. Who needs to do things well, if somebody will always spin your mistakes and misdeeds for you.

As for tyranny, I defined beyond the kind of vagueness you imply. Tyranny to me is simply a system where on group of people have no recourse on the facts to have their greivances known and addressed, when dissent is greeted with an overwhelmingly hostile response (as in the recent Istook amendment, which would give congress the ability to access tax returns for whatever purposes they deem necessary.) When debate from one side is met with personally destructive tactics from the other under the color of law, that is what I consider tyranny.

Is your definition of tyranny more generous than that, or more stingy?

I don?t want to seem unreasonable, but Republicans won. They get to chose the direction. It is like I am the boss and you are the assistant. I will take your opinions into account, but in the end the decision is mine. And I can tell you one more thing, the more complaining Democrats do, the less voice they will have in the next four years.

The last thing Democrats need to do is sit down and shut up. As the opposition party out of power, our only way of doing good for the American people and our constituency is to stay vocal. Would you have advised the architects of the Republican Revolution of 1994 to sit down and shut up? They were out of power.

I’m horrified to say this ;-), but I think it’d be best to follow the Republican example in this case.

I’m really starting to think that the Democratic Party at this point would benefit from spreading the meme of the Official Opposition/Loyal Opposition that is common in parlaimentary systems. England and Australia being two prime examples. Searches for “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” bring up quite a bit of interesting information on this concept, which is tied intimately with the concept of patriotic dissent.

I will be disappointed if George Bush nominates the same kinds of judges John Kerry would have. I will not like it if he doesn’t allow private accounts to be added to Social Security. I don’t want to seem unreasonable, but Republicans won. They get to chose the direction. It is like I am the boss and you are the assistant.

Permission to grovel, Jack?

The flip side of your argument is that there are 44 Democrats in the Senate (or 45, depending on your POV) and 200 in the House. They were elected to represent their constituents, not roll over. I just helped re-elect Blanche Lincoln to the Senate. If she doesn’t do her utmost to block the most extreme elements of the Bush agenda, I’ll feel betrayed. If necessary, should use use the filibuster power that’s been used for centuries. If Republicans don’t like that, they should try to win more seats.

Well Stephen,

Republicans have only had control for a few years. Just think about the Republican minority who sat through a Democratically controlled congress for 30 some odd years. Actually, I think that is what most democrats are yearning for— to return to a past when bi-partisanship meant Republicans caving into their demands.

The difference is that at that time Democrats actually had the support of a majority of Americans. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Democrats will have to lean toward the conservative side in order to be bi-partisan. Yet I think the left’s definition of bi-partisanship has not yet changed.

Those who have built their power on the supression of another’s ideals, another’s philosophy may just find themselves on the wrong side of an issue who’s time has come.

So only if conservatives compromise and adopt progressive policies will they avoid ‘suppressing’ those who didn’t vote for Bush? Think about the standard you are using to judge the opposition here.

Conversly, does the enactment of liberal policies mean suppression of conservatives?

jack….

never before have i so wanted a new boss…..

you exemplify everything i hate.

thank you.

nah..i’m not done yet….

so jack….yer the boss and i’m the employee…well that’s great…..in a business…

not a country.

sure…if this was your business, which thank christ it’s not, you could fire me for disagreeing with you…

YOU CANT DO THAT TO A CITIZEN.

am i less worthy of being an american because i voted for the other guy? just cause i live in blue state you have some right to tell me how to live my life? ohhhh no no no…..this won’t do. you cannot “fire” a person for disagreeing with you, not in this country…not yet anyway.

i have every right to disagree with conservative policies, and will fight tooth and nail against those which i feel are unjust or overreaching, as you would fight anything that went against your own agenda, which, as far as i can see, is to shut us up.

such is great about America.

but to roll over and take it in the ass because your party has the majority and are feeling like they just overdosed on viagra…well….sorry…ain’t gonna happen….

sigh……

Rob

Hate is an interesting, but often misguided emotion. I am glad I can exemplify it for you, but I am disappointed that it is such a shallow reflection.

On rereading my post above, I see that there is some room for misinterpretation. I apologize for what might have seemed like a personalization. That is not what I meant. Without making it personal, however, I do think that Democrats are willfully missing the point of an election, which is to decide who will have the lead on making decisions. In a democracy, we have multiple sources of power, but that doesn’t mean they all have equal influence. Democrats should not expect an equal partnership. When Bill Clinton won with 44% of the vote in 1992, he didn’t feel the need to share power with Republicans. It wasn’t until they won power in elections in 1994 that he paid attention to them and even then it was often adversarial. That is how politics works.

George Bush won this election with a majority of the vote. No Democrat has done that since 1976. He increased his party’s control in the Congress. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, has done this since 1936. America has decided. Maybe in two or four years, the decision will change. But for now, what do Democrats expect of the president and what would they do in a similar situation?

Craig wrote:

It’s not about “you”. It is about wanting to watch a ballgame without a sexy blonde jumping in some guys arms naked. It’s about wanting to watch the super bowl without seeing a breast.

The Porn industry in this country generates more revenue each year than the movie, music and books industries - combined! And, the Blue States ain’t their only customer.

The only state with legalized prostitution is a Red State. The highest indecency fine assessed this year went to Fox! The NFL was shocked and appalled by ABC’s MNFootball craven depravity, yet Terrell Owens was wearing a licensed league uniform.

Stephen, when I visited Austin two years ago, I was surprised to find green vegetation, nevermind the occasional registered Democrat.

When my parents moved to Chicago in ‘59, White Flight to the suburbs was well underway. However, many of their children of my generation gravitated towards the urban areas of big cities, which offered more than their bland suburban existence.

They are proudly tolerant and progressive having been exposed, if not immersed in divergent cultures, a direct result of utilizing technology that eliminates stereotypes and fear their elders cling to.

I realize that I cannot assume an Overland, KS Blockbuster has as many copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 in stock, as mine does. Or, they have as many radio stations to choose from, or that everyone is wired for cable as my apartment building is.

Do I feel superior to Red State America? Honestly, no. Do I feel I’m better educated? Yes. Do I have the right to criticize them for being manipulated by those exploiting their fear and intolerance? Yes. Do I hate them for their faith? No. Do I object to those who do wrong, in the name of their faith? Yes.

Do I think America is better than this? Don’t you?

I enjoy reading this blog since most of the contributors use thought, introspection, and lucidity.

I was and am a Bush supporter. Not because I have an undying faith in the President, but because the Democrats have gone so far left that, if John Kennedy were alive today, he would probably vote Republican.

The liberals who complain bitterly about America being a “one-party” nation, should think for a moment about HOW the Republicans got that way - they were ELECTED by the American people. When are we going to get that?

jack:

ahhhh….nevermind….yer not worth the fight….

Bert

Bush voters and Kerry voters are – on average – very similarly educated. Republicans, in general, tend to be slightly better educated than Democrats. I voted for Bush and I am very well educated. I made an informed decision based on what I thought each candidate would mean for the future of my country. I have three kids and I care about the future beyond my own lifetime. I did vote partially on fear that John Kerry would not be as active in defense of the U.S. as George W. Bush. Kerry said he would, but his record didn’t. You may disagree, but it was not an uniformed choice. I have disliked John Kerry’s stands on many issues for years before he ran for president. After the election campaign, I actually had a slightly better opinion of him, but not enough to vote for him. I also voted for Bush out of hope for the future. I think that we have to go for an ownership society. I don’t expect miracles from the Republicans, but everything I heard from the Democrats harkened back to liberal policies that had failed or succeeded and had been overtaken by events. Again, you can disagree, but it was an informed choice. I got my information about the Kerry plans mostly from the Kerry webpage. I personally support gay marriage. Both Bush and Kerry opposed it, but Bush also opposed the judicial activism that brought the issue to the fore in the first place. I felt uncomfortable with the activist judges that would impose their views on the rest of us. We have legislatures to make laws.

One thing that bothered me generally about the Kerry campaign was its dark picture of the U.S. The economy, for example, isn’t perfect, but it did not seem to me to be that bad. The statistics were a lot like those of 1995. I would have expected a lot worse after the dot.com bubble and 9/11. The same was true about the war on terrorism and Iraq. I just did not accept the picture the Kerry campaign was painting and still don’t.

There was some emotional content in my decision-making. I didn’t like many of Kerry’s supporters. Generally, I will be against anyone supported by people like Michael Moore or Barbara Streisand. I recognize that is not rational, but it is how I feel. And I didn’t like John Kerry’s attitude. For example, when he ran into a secret service agent while snowboarding and said something like, “he ran into me; I don’t fall down.” He should have been a bigger man and taken the blame, even if it was not his fault.

On the other side, I didn’t like George Bush’s sneer or his speech patterns, but those were not enough to balance what I didn’t like about Kerry.

So, Bert, that is my Republican’s rationale for voting as I did. I expect many people disagree, but I don’t believe it is ill informed or stupid. People can come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. I am getting tired of the Dems assuming Bush supporters are dumb. I will match my education and SAT scores against any Democrats. Just stop it, already.

in regards to the red/blue states….having lived in both, i prefer the blue states….

i lived in tenessee for 3 years, and i don’t think a day went by where someone didn’t mention the damn civil war….

yeah….great…..i’m a yankee…i get the point…

it’s very hard to have meaningful discourse with people who won’t let go of the whole north/south thing….

Rob

Wise choice.

For example, when he ran into a secret service agent while snowboarding and said something like, ?he ran into me; I don?t fall down.? He should have been a bigger man and taken the blame, even if it was not his fault.

Funny, that reminds me of Dubya. Nothing bad that happens is his fault. It’s George Tenet, or the generals, or Bill Clinton. What a petty little man. Of course, nothing as important as skiing was involved.

Eric-
You’re doing riffs off a tune I didn’t play. I quite precisely defined what I thought tyranny was: People getting tax audits and FBI investigations purely for political dissent. I’m talking outright abuse of power here, regardless of who wields it, Clinton, Bush, Istook, Rove, Traficant, Daley- Anybody.

For me, the bipartisanship is that what I often see in people like Chuck Hagel and Carl Levin, that somewhere in all the political rhetoric, we got to stay in touch with the reality of the situation we’re in. To me, bipartisanship is an end to useless partisan bickering and manuevering, like that which sunk 9/11 legislation a day or two ago, stuff where the main concern is some bureacrat or administration figure’s turf battle with the intelligence entity that would be created.

So only if conservatives compromise and adopt progressive policies will they avoid ‘suppressing’ those who didn’t vote for Bush? Think about the standard you are using to judge the opposition here. Conversly, does the enactment of liberal policies mean suppression of conservatives?

You’re not even in the right ball park, much less the strike zone. Supression isn’t the lack of political power in my book- that’s just political fortunes. No, in my book, there has to be something on top of that, a rigging of the system in such a way that disadvantages certain participants unfairly.

Like the Redistricting, for example. The courts had already set a favorable majority for the Republicans, along the 60/40 population lines. That didn’t satisfy the GOP, who interfered with the political process down in Texas and had us redistrict off census in such a way that disproportionately gave an advantage to the GOP.

Or this whole Istook amendment fiasco: Congress’s agents nosing around in your tax returns. A nice little way of intimidating political opponents out of power.

Now legislation may pass on fairly elected congresses that liberals don’t like, but then they have a solution: persuasion of the voters towards different candidates next time. When the GOP sets up people who interfere with that process, then and only then can we Democrats claim supression.

Jack-
The 90’s were a horrible time for political discourse. Too much consolidation, too much dumbing down. The Republicans were the worse, but not the only offenders in these terms.

Really, I want people to think less rigidly about the political landscape, to communicate better about politics. I don’t want people to stop calling others on B.S., but we should learn more civility on the matter We should also learn not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Our institution will always be imperfect. No exceptions. They will be so because people are imperfect and pass on that imperfection to those endeavors they embark upon. Our attitude must be one of correction, as much as perfection, because ultimately, the best work we do in these regards is the refinement and improvement of society, not its absolute revision. Start small, and we can star enjoying small victories.

Bert,

Do I feel superior to Red State America? Honestly, no. Do I feel I’m better educated? Yes. Do I have the right to criticize them for being manipulated by those exploiting their fear and intolerance? Yes. Do I hate them for their faith? No. Do I object to those who do wrong, in the name of their faith? Yes.

Do I think America is better than this? Don’t you?

That right there… is the heart of the blue state condescension. Kerry voters have the intelligence to avoid being manipulated but Bush voters do not? Please. That is essentially what we’ve been hearing since the election about the ignorance of red state voters.

If you can’t respect the opposition to at least have the autonomy to be able to think for themselves you are assuming superiority.

Stephen,

Supression isn’t the lack of political power in my book- that’s just political fortunes. No, in my book, there has to be something on top of that, a rigging of the system in such a way that disadvantages certain participants unfairly.

I live in California, which just recently redistricted. Blue state. Democrats in control. Do you consider that any rigging and therefore ‘suppression’ might have possibly taken place?

eric:

i think it’s the folks that say jesus put bush in office that give us our fodder for condescension…

not that its right for us to do so….but c’mon….yer asking for it if you say god would vote republican…..

not that god would vote dem either….not that the almighty would give a damn about AMERICAN POLITICS!!!!!

some of the smartest people i know are republican, and i respect them very much. i have often asked them what am i missing? what am i not seeing that you see in your party? how can you be so right? why am i wrong?

to date….they have yet to convince me that what i feel in my gut is wrong. but they keep trying…my great uncle, a very prestigous lawyer…often lectures me in the school of conservatism…..

but when i look at some of the policies republicans champion, it just seems very unfair and limiting….deny a woman the right to choose, deny gays, well, yeah just deny them, and as jack has pointed out….your dissention is not tolerable…..

i’m still lookin for a reason to be republican eric. as a fellow californian, i don’t think i’ve been duped by the democrats, nor do i think you’ve been duped…i just don’t understand how you think your way is just.

but hey…what do you have to worry…your party will have all of us exterminated by 2008….

exterminated ????

AFter having read the debate between Jack and Rob, I have to say that Jack used logic and reasoning in his comments, while Rob did not. Jack showed WHY he voted for Bush, and allowed for disagreement on his premises.

Rob seems to make the faulty assumption that if someone disagrees with him, it must be because they have not thought about it. He seems to assume that had someone truly thought about the issues, they could ONLY have voted for Kerry. This is the arrogance that some on the left have in thinking that theirs is the only correct path.

No one on the “right” side in this thread has suggested that the Democrats should not have a voice. In our political system, there always have been and always should be multiple voices.

But what many on the “left” side seem to be saying is that there should be equal voice. Our political system has NEVER called for equal voice. In fact, it was set up by the Founding Fathers to NOT have equal voice.

This is why we have elections: an election means one side will take power in the White House. It is not unusual for the other party to control the House and/or Senate, but not necessary. Even when this happens, the “voice” is not equal. Both voices are there, but not necessarily equal.

It is this balance of power that is crucial. Democrats have never cried out for equality of voice when they have held the power, yet now they are out of power, they want this equality. This is truly just sour grapes.

Though I disagree with many of the Democratic ideas and strategies (note that I don’t use the word ideals, because I like their ideals), I want their voice to be heard. The balance of power is essential.

That right there… is the heart of the blue state condescension. Kerry voters have the intelligence to avoid being manipulated but Bush voters do not? Please. That is essentially what we’ve been hearing since the election about the ignorance of red state voters.

If you can’t respect the opposition to at least have the autonomy to be able to think for themselves you are assuming superiority.

All I can judge Bush voters by is what I have heard them say about Kerry: he wasn’t injured badly when he got his Purple Hearts, he windsurfs, he’s stiff, other arguments that don’t strike me as very logical or persuasive.

I also watched Bush’s intro at the GOP convention and learned that I should vote for Bush because stood on a mound with a bullhorn and threw out the first pitch at the World Series from the mound. I’m sorry, but if the best you can say for your guy is that he is an effective demagogue, I’m not very impressed.

Another more common argument for Bush was that we should re-elect him because we are at war. This is actually a little scary for me because he started the war on what turned out to be very shaky grounds. We seem to be setting a precedent that the path to victory is starting a war, hopefully one that lasts through the election.

Note that I’m not stereotyping anyone, just taking them at their word.

Craig Holmes said It is about wanting to watch a ballgame without a sexy blonde jumping in some guys arms naked. It’s about wanting to watch the super bowl without seeing a breast. It’s about wanting to watch a pro basketball game without seeing a street fight with fans. It is a backlash against a culture that needs some boundries set.

I don’t think those in the party of personal responsibility should be blaming liberals for the actions of Ron Artest, ABC (owned by Disney), and Janet Jackson.

And since when are the liberal elite the culture of low brow professional sports?

Woody:

I’d suggest you read, then re-read Jack’s reasoned discourse on why he voted for Bush, and why he did not like Kerry as a candidate.

You say that you can only judge Bush voters by what they say, and yet you totally ignored virtually every one of Jack’s reasons. You chose instead to throw out strawmen arguments that you could easily beat.

Now to be fair, why not re-read Jack’s comments, and answer to them. While you may not agree with his viewpoints, you certainly can assess the level of thought that went into creating them.

If you want to just go for simplistics so be it. Then Bush is a war hungry, money grubbing low IQ chimp, while Kerry is an effete, rich wife hunting, stiff, power hungry JFK wannabe Massachusetts liberal. Does either description do any good at truly looking at either man?

Balls in your court to choose which road you want to take. All the information is there at your disposal to use as you see fit.

I love Jack’s assertion (boiling it down to the nitty-gritty) that the Republican party actually has smarter people but doesn’t call them intellectuals, while admitting that “intellectual” has become a perjorative term. So, in essence, the Democratic party has people who pretend to be intelligent but aren’t.

And as for the idea posited by Craig that Red States voting against the sins of Hollywood — give me a BREAK! Do you really think all of those people who appear on (and watch) Jerry Springer are Ivory Tower liberal intellectuals? Nah, Republicans like their smut just as much as everybody else.

There is nothing inherently better about being from one party or the other. There are smart, principled, moral people on both sides, and trying to portray one set of people as better than another is distracting as well as being incorrect.

But Republicans won the election. That makes Democrats the junior partner. Democrats should not expect an equal voice or a seat at every table. To get that, they have to win elections.

Surprisingly Jack, I agree…

Democrats didn’t treat Republicans any better when they controlled things and I don’t expect them to do so again in the future.

…Well, you lost me there. Democratic legislators actually considered it a feather in their cap to have a Republican co-sponsor for bills, and most of the time Democrats held power in Congress they were working with Republican presidents, so there was always a lot of compromise going on.

Democrats will have to lean toward the conservative side in order to be bi-partisan. Yet I think the left’s definition of bi-partisanship has not yet changed.

Eric, you’re right. Republicans have changed the definition of bipartisanship. As Bush plainly said, the new definition of bipartisan is: “I’ll reach out to everyone who shares our goals.”

I hope the left never changes its definition of bipartisanship. It should always include the word “compromise”.

Alejo

I wasn’t saying that the Republicans have smarter, but I am also sure that Democrats are no smarter or better educated. My post was in response to that sort of disinformation that indicates that Bush voters are uninformed.

Re intellectual

I have long believed this about the term, ever since I heard Woody Allen described as an intellectual filmmaker and Norman Mailer as an intellectual author. After that, I read an interesting book called “Intellectuals” by Paul Johnson that poked fun at the species. It is a very good and funny book. There is clearly a definitional bias in the use of the word.

Jack:

I also contend that the bulk of today’s intellectual muscle is on the right, if you compare the “new idea” output of liberal and conservative think tanks.

That sounds to me like you’re saying Republicans are smarter to me.

(I love when I (to me, to me) submit a post before previewing previewing.)

Alejo

Intellectual muscle and intelligence are not the same. I do believe that the intellectual environment on the right is currently more fertile than that on the left. This wasn’t always so and probably won’t be in the future. Liberal inquiry is too often going down the blind alley of explaining victimization and/or the autoerotic study of one’s own ethnic/gender/social background and experience instead of proposing new solutions for America as a whole. These are not stupid people; they are just pursuing things that will not yield useful insights for people outside their own reference groups. They are planted on intellectually infertile ground and can’t expect much of a harvest. I am quick to add, that this is only my opinion.

Alejo

Intellectual muscle and intelligence are not the same. I do believe that the intellectual environment on the right is currently more fertile than that on the left. This wasn’t always so and probably won’t be in the future. Liberal inquiry is too often going down the blind alley of explaining victimization and/or the autoerotic study of one’s own ethnic/gender/social background and experience instead of proposing new solutions for America as a whole. These are not stupid people; they are just pursuing things that will not yield useful insights for people outside their own reference groups. They are planted on intellectually infertile ground and can’t expect much of a harvest. I am quick to add, that this is only my opinion.

Liberal inquiry is too often going down the blind alley of explaining victimization and/or the autoerotic study of one’s own ethnic/gender/social background and experience instead of proposing new solutions for America as a whole.

I think there may be something to that statement (besides the fact that “autoerotic” is just plain funny). I have to agree that the neocons are coming up with newer and more radical ideas than the liberals seem to — there’s no doubt that there is a certain nay-saying tone to the Democratic party — but I worry about the scope of the neocon vision. Bush & Co seem to be surprised by a lot of the effects of their decisions and there seems to be little focus on long-term goals (other than democratizing the Middle East).

I am quick to add, that this is only my opinion.

Of course that’s understood. I appreciate the fact that you have reasoned opinions and acknowledge that that’s what they are.

Alejo:

I commend you for being willing to look at Jack’s statements and see them for what they are. One doesnt need to necessarily agree with the Republican or Bush admin agenda in order to see that it certainly is aggressively pursuing new ideas and strategies.

When was the last time a President decided to focus on Social Security, known as the vaunted “third rail” of politics. It has been needing reform for a long time, but no one has had the guts to take it on. Taxes are another area where there can be disagreement on the direction, but there cannot be any disagreement that Republicans are forging a new path.

That said, there does seem to be some surprise to the results of the actions taken. I’m not sure if its genuine surprise, or perhaps just that they dont or cant say initially what they think.

Here’s what I mean: Its possible Bush admin foresaw how angry France and Germany etc would get over the US invasion of Iraq. But they may have decided it was worth it anyway. To have publicly stated this might have had detrimental effects, so better to appear surprised.

On the other hand, I think the Bush admin was TRULY surprised at the lack of WMD’s. This was an intelligence failure.

Alejo, again, thanks for being willing to see the forest for the trees. Too many on the left are out there complaining that they too could find the forest, but for the many obstacles (namely, trees) in their way.

rob,

1) Politics is one of those things, like religion, that can be highly subjective and is closely tied to identity. That people have differing views is not surprising.

2) I have yet to see any evidence offered of Republicans suppressing any dissent. When someone says you’re wrong that is not suppression. After all, that goes both ways, doesn’t it?

What we are doing here is part of the whole free market of ideas. The great virtue of democracy. I say you’re wrong, you say I’m wrong, we both make supporting arguments about why each other is wrong and argue about every point, etc. etc. Yes, it’s messy and to some disturbing, but the alternative involves the government attempting to control ‘the truth’ and I don’t think the government is able to do that. Neither does any Republican I know.

3) There will be no exterminations Rob. Be reasonable. The plan is that all liberals will be ‘relocated’ to reeducation ‘retreats’ for deprogramming, or rather ‘meme replacement therapy’. You’ll understand how wrong you were afterwards. Don’t worry.

Three condescending “jokes” from three different conservative posters. Full of yourselves? Or just emphasizing the point of the article?

Joeseph

I wasn’t joking and I wasn’t trying to be condescending. I used the word autoerotic to describe direction I honestly think much liberal thought is moving. Liberals used to have big ideas. You could disagree with them and even hate them, but you had to admit they were big and encompassed all of society or even the world. Lately, what I hear from the left is a fragmented litany of how a particular subset of society feels about what has happened to it and/or how they have been victimized. What is worse, non-members of the affected groups are not even deemed qualified to comment. It goes against the very idea of an inclusive civilization. Let me emphasize again, so that I won’t be misunderstood – I don’t think liberals are stupid or misguided. I do think that liberalism, as we have understood it in American for the last generation, is in crisis. Not a joke, not condescension and not something I take pleasure in believing, but I do not think that the left is keeping up its end of the battle of ideas.

(Crap. I just love when I type a lengthy, eloquent response and then delete it with some errant keystroke. Let’s see if I can remember it.)

jbod —

My feeling is, we have to agree to some common ground or really there’s no point in blogging, right? If I say everything the administration does or wants to do is wrong, there’s no room for discussion. Watchblog is actually very helpful to me because it forces me to find that common ground, and that makes the next four years somewhat less daunting.

Anyway, I think Bush does a good job of finding intelligent people to advise him, but the fact that their motives and agendas are obscured by his leadership makes me apprehensive. It means that if I’m going to believe in the administration I must trust blindly that they have my best interests at heart — and as a born skeptic, I’m not good at trust. In the Red column one of the editors — Chops, I think — was saying that Bush isn’t interested in the details of his subordinates’ decisions, a concept that makes me even more nervous. Even the president doesn’t know what his people are doing? I just can’t stretch to trust that far.

And as far as surprise, I think Bush and Co are still not recovered from the shock of the Iraqi citizenry not welcoming our military occupation with open arms. This worries me too, because it seems to denote a huge lack of foresight and understanding of a very simple concept: NOBODY likes being occupied. Nobody.

Alejo

As a Bush supporter and a supporter of the need for action in Iraq, I can tell you that I was surprised by a couple of things.

1. I thought our reception would be better (i.e. I thought we would be welcomed outside the Sunni areas.)
2. I was surprised by the extent of the looting after the fall of Saddam
3. I was surprised that the French didn’t come along at the last minute (although that expectation was based on my believe that the French were even more perfidious than they turned out to be. I thought they would want to be in on the victory contracts.)
4. I thought that the oil economy would pay for more of reconstruction.

I think that many in the administration were equally surprised.

On the plus side

1. I was surprised how rapidly the Iraqi resistance collapsed (in the war stage).
2. I expected much more destruction of the oil infrastructure
3. I feared a Turkish intervention and/or a Kurdish declaration of independence.
4. I thought the “Arab street” might erupt and destabilize our “friends” in the region and that terrorists could hit American targets.

It just goes to show that both war and politics are uncertain – it is the fog and friction of war. Some of today’s problems are the result of our surprises. The looting, for example, probably soured many Iraqis and prevented a better reception. I also think that the rapid collapse of the Iraqi forces (although it saved lives) left us too little time to either prepare for the aftermath or clean out the resistance. I also believe that our lack of good reception was related to our earlier “betrayal” of the Shiites and Kurds after the first Gulf War. We underestimated the amount of distrust that engendered. (If we do nothing else, I hope this time we protect the Kurds. I think we owe them.) Despite all these surprises, we are still mostly on track. I think the biggest surprise of all will come for our detractors when we actually turn over power to an elected Iraqi government and begin to pull out this spring and leave an Iraq much better than we found it.

The great irony of this post is that I have gotten many responses from Republicans telling me how Democrats really think. It’s a positive thing to get outside input, but gee, sometimes I just trust my gut on such things rather than uninformed opinion.

Eric-
Political opinion can vary wildly, but not necessarily the matters at hand that we must resolve. This is where the Republican media and establishment’s tendency to play fast and loose with the facts is coming back to bite it, because although public opinion often responds well to spin and rhetoric, it doesn’t budge real life situations all that much. Only baloons get moved by hot air. All other things take action, preferably informed, well executed action.

As for incidents of supression, I can name three, in fact. In the Florida Election debacle, a conservative weighted bench made a decision on an issue it traditionally should have left to lower courts to decide. It should have been a vote count and not a court decision that decided the election. I say this, even if Gore had not come out on top. I’m not one of the people who claim the election was stolen, but I do believe the Republicans were very short-sighted in their ruthless pursuit of the office, which ultimately tainted the president’s election with the appearance of a party line power grab. The legitimacy of the office is as important as the attainment of it.

The second case is the Redistricting Debacle. We already had the districts drawn to favor the Republicans, who had a sixty percent majority. Problem was, moderate Democrats with longtime followings were still getting elected. So DeLay goes for a hardball, knock-down drag’em out fight to redistrict the state and leaves permanent ideological resentment behind. Again, the appearance of legitimacy of power is sacrificed for the brute force fact of it.

The Third case, right of the top of my head is the Istook Amendment, which would allow congress access to IRS records, no warrant, whatever reason they saw fit. Again, Brute force power, in the hands of the GOP majority to consolidate power unfairly, to suppress challengers.

Let’s go for a fourth while we’re at it: The DeLay Amendment. It was all wonderful to threaten the position of a House leader when they did criminal things when he was suggesting the bill, but now that he stands a chance of coming under the law, he’s using his power to avoid the headsman’s axe. So, essentially, only Democrats need to be moderated by the law. The Republicans, it seems, are so righteous they need no such regulation.

If I went digging, I could come up with far more than four, but those are just the ones that come to mind. Now admit it, Eric: Republicans are human beings, who need to pay attention to more than just their own rhetoric, who need to sometimes put partisan concerns aside and do what’s necessary for the good fo the country.

Alejo:

This does help in finding common ground, though the format sometimes increases the polar nature of ideas. If someone says something bad about Dems, Dems feel they have to respond in kind or at least support the Dems, even if they see some truth in what was said. Republicans do the same thing, so sometimes this format leads to that kind of polarization.

I don’t agree with your assessment about Bush not knowing what his people are doing, based on what you say Chops said (…Chops, I think — was saying that Bush isn’t interested in the details of his subordinates’ decisions…)

I’d submit the key word in that is “details”. This doesnt mean Bush doesnt know what his subordinates are doing, just that he allows them to take care of the details. Now, its possible that he doesnt know what his people are doing, but you really can’t glean that from the information you provided.

Bush is not a details guy. Some on the left see this as a problem, but having worked for both detail and non-detail types, I can say its not a problem at all IFFFFFFF you get the right people handling the details. Bush is a vision guy, meaning he focuses on the ideas and direction, and allows others to do the spade work. Consider an architect—-they rarely lift the shovel, but are pretty darn essential to the building process.

In any event, thanks for providing your measured viewpoint. Yours is one that I value, despite not always agreeing with it. The viewpoints on the fringes of either side don’t intrigue me much.

I just finished a great article in the Economist (London) about why Bush won the election. It says it much better than I have, and I am happy to say agrees with most of what us “reds” have been writing here. I will give you one paragraph to chew on and then you can go to the link (FYI – the Economist supported Kerry in the last election.)

First, the [Democratic] party is increasingly dominated by people who have no yearning for growth: public-sector workers; academics and trustafarians who both live off inherited endowments; environmentalists who want to regulate SUVs and urban sprawl; and billionaires who are too rich to aspire to anything. (One of the best statistics of the campaign is that people worth $1m-10m supported Mr Bush by a 63-37% margin, whereas those worth more than $10m favoured Mr Kerry 59-41%.)
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3400772

Jack,

I admire your optimism about the future of Iraq, but I’m having a hard time imagining a legitimate, democratically elected leader coming out of this climate. There’s a real Catch-22 about American influence: Any leader who doesn’t have it, suffers from a lack of money and resources, and any leader who does can be accused of selling out the Iraqis. And then there’s the fact that the leadership has to be either Sunni or Shiite, while simultaneously representing the other side. (And we thought the red/blue divide was deep..)

I wasn’t joking and I wasn’t trying to be condescending. I used the word autoerotic to describe direction I honestly think much liberal thought is moving.

Seriously, autoerotic? Are you saying Dems/liberals rub their nipples when they do political surveys? Or when they form their political ideals?

eric: wow…a joke….nice work i know it must have pained you.

jbod: NEVER! I MEAN EVER! accuse me of logic, man! oh…the offense! can’t you tell my my poor typing and lack of grammar that i am above logic!!!! how dare you.

jack: yeah yer still not worth it…..

That article is interesting (although there’s plenty of conclusions I disagree with) mostly because of the final sentence:

In America, self-styled progressives look ever more the party of the past, and confessed conservatives are the ones focusing on the future.

I think it was Nostradamus who predicted that when conservatives strike out in bold new directions and liberals preach fiscal responsibility, it was a sign of the coming apocalypse.

Well, I can’t speak for all liberals, but I find a nice nipple rub to be an important part of my political surveys..

Joseph

No, I mean it metaphorically. They are doing things only in reference to themselves and even excluding others from consideration. I think the term can apply to mental as well as physical activity.

Rob

You are trying to prove the uneducated stereotype, right?

Joseph

No, I mean it metaphorically. They are doing things only in reference to themselves and even excluding others from consideration. I think the term can apply to mental as well as physical activity.

Rob

You are trying to prove the uneducated stereotype, right?

That’s sorta what Stephen was saying in the original post, about how the people on the right keep only considering their own point of view, to the point of viewing liberals as second-class citizens..

It’s like we’re all victims of ideological polarization, or something..

Jack:

You used the wrong tense. Rob has already proved it.

Josh

My point is a little different. It might be arguably true that conservatives (although I disagree) ignore the opinions of liberals, but conservatives also study liberal opinions, if for no other reason than to defeat them in elections. Many liberal intellectuals don’t even study liberal opinions anymore, much less those of the opposition. They have narrowed their inquiry to include only their own segment of society and it is an ever-shrinking segment. You actually hear questions like, “how does this policy affect the feminist vegan community?” Remember that the motto is e pluribus, unum, not the other way around. Again, I repeat, this is not all liberal that do this; it is LIBERALISM that is moving in this wrong direction.

Well, I don’t know about the direction LIBERALISM is taking, but I do see self-confirmation bias on all sides. For evidence, look no further than the President’s cabinet, the most dissident member of which (Powell) has now been replaced.

Besides, we can’t have a lot of disenfranchised freminist vegans on our hands, now can we? Gotta play to our base, that’s how you won..

no guys…you read me wrong…

but…i’ll let it go….your comments, and four fairly nasty emails, have made it clear….time to stop coming to watchblog.

am i uneducated? no. i have a college degree.
am i the smartest person? clearly no. my degree is in fine arts….what was i thinking?!

i’ll take my goofball sense of humor and leave yall be….

i’ve enjoyed posting on watchblog, you have all given me alot to think about, and i enjoy a good discussion.

go well and be well kids. if you have a chance, please take the time to donate some canned goods to a local homeless shelter. it may be a small thing, but it means the world to someone else.

peace,

rob

Rob,
Don’t listend jbod and the such. I have found your humor enjoyable and would not like you to leave the blog. In this sometimes overly serious world of ours a little poinient humor is often much appreciated. If us liberals can deride conservatives as stupid, we should also be prepaired to slander our own.

Be proud to be witty enough to see the humor in things. Post away knowing that you have made at least 1 blogger laugh.

Jack, I see now, you’re calling liberals a bunch of mental wankers (intellectual masturbators, for you over-educated elites out there). And it’s not an insult or condescending, it’s just the way you see it. Um, okay.

They are doing things only in reference to themselves and even excluding others from consideration.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying liberals don’t study conservative opinion? Liberals make policy only for liberals?

Lately, what I hear from the left is a fragmented litany of how a particular subset of society feels about what has happened to it and/or how they have been victimized.

This is interesting to me because there were a few thousand emails complaining about the Janet Jackson thang and the FCC sprang into action. Meanwhile there had been a few million emails and letters opposed to lifting restrictions on media ownership that Powell dismissed as some kind of focus group. You mean something like that?

This is present on both sides. I don’t know why you’d want to deny it or portray this as a (lately) liberal only phenom. I am constantly hearing how the right is victimized by Hollywood and their pagan hedonist ways. How their poor sensitive eyes were scarred by Monday Night Football’s back exposure. How gun collectors are being victimized by leftist nanny politics. How Christians are victimized by brutal teasing from secular humanists. How business folk are victimized by taxes. How the Viet Nam War was lost because of John Kerry and how every American POW was victimized by his protests. I think whining is pretty democratized.

Now, on a more serious note.
I would hate to say it, but it never really dawned on me that by insinuating that the priorities of conservatives and liberals had switched that I was also insinuating that they now represented different tenses (meaning one working toward the future, the other the past). I always thought that my progressive values were striving toward the future, but you guys make a very interesting point.

I would tend to agree that liberals sometimes suffer from “complainidis”. I would also agree that the extremes of our group (like uber-feminists and ultra-environmentalists) have missed the “point” as much as the extremes of the conservative side. The best solutions are always the ones that find common grounds.

To this end there might be some merit into altering how we sell our perception (liberals that is). If we are to exemplify our progressive title, we need to be just that. We need to stand for something new (or at least repackaged in a new way) and interesting and exciting. People like exciting.

So I’ll make a public promise to myself. I will spend these next four years re-evaluating all of my principles. If I am going to stand for my beliefs I need to know why I didn’t choose the other beliefs, not simply why I choose the ones I have. To this effect, I thank Jack for his post on why he voted for Bush. While I may disagree with him, I certainly can not blame him for lacking thought in his decision.

Not that any of your care about my promise to myself. I’m just tired and my synapses are not firing well today. I’m sure I’ll be back to my content filled self tomorrow.

I really don’t see how anyone can say that liberal/progressive ideas don’t have a broad vision of the future. Liberal ideas are all about making sure there IS a future, for all of us.

Guys

Let me just add that I did enjoy this discussion and respect all your opinions. I believe that both liberals and conservatives love their country and have its best interests at heart. Maybe not all liberals and all conservatives, but those of us who take the time to write to this blog, with no compensation except the desire to share our opinions surely do. In order to come to better conclusions, we have to fight hard and defend our positions.

In my family, we always fought the ideological battles. My father was a union activist and a socialist. I developed socialist tastes, but came to believe passionately in the free market. I believe there are some things we just can’t have and even more things that government just can’t give us. My father didn’t agree and was convinced that it was only the rich fat cats who were preventing a Utopia in America. We fought constantly, but never took it personally. Some of the people I like the best are those who I disagree with the most. I like integrity wherever I find it, even when it is on the other side. I apologize if I have insulted anyone personally.

JBOD wrote

I’d suggest you read, then re-read Jack’s reasoned discourse on why he voted for Bush, and why he did not like Kerry as a candidate.

You say that you can only judge Bush voters by what they say, and yet you totally ignored virtually every one of Jack’s reasons. You chose instead to throw out strawmen arguments that you could easily beat.

Joe,

If you are wondering why I didn’t give a critique of Jack’s arguments, the main reason was because I was responding to Eric. (I don’t want to be accused of “Blue State condescension”, but maybe you should re-read my comment.) Another reason was because I thought that Jack’s post was, on the whole, pretty reasonable. I never claimed that every single person who voted for Bush was an irrational buffoon.

I hate to be accused of intellectual cowardice, however, so I will humor you and analyze Jack’s comments…

Jack said that he voted “partially on fear that John Kerry would not be as active in defense of the U.S. as George W. Bush”. Personally, I voted for Kerry because I thought he would be more prudent. This is a reasonable difference of opinion.

Jack is largely against Kerry because he supports the kind of policies advocated by liberal Democrats. A reasonable viewpoint. He voted for Bush “out of hope for the future”. I voted for Kery out of hope for the future.

Jack likes Bush because he is against “judicial activism”. Everyone is against judicial activism, when they disagree with the judge’s decision.

Jack knocked Kerry for painting a “dark picture of the US economy”. Bush did too, when it was convenient for him. It is hard to run as a challenger without being accused of being “pessimistic”.

Jack also acknowledged “emotional reasons” for voting against Kerry, like being supported by Barbara Streisand. I have my emotional reasons for voting against Bush, like his phony cowboy shtick.

In conclusion, I found some of Jack’s arguments unsatisfying, but reasonable. He is hardly representative of the average voter, however, so I don’t think this really disproves my point.

You accuse me bring out straw men, but these are the kind of arguments I have heard. I watched the Republican Convention, and the main messages I got were a creepy nostalgia for 9/11, and highly emotional testimony to the effect that George Bush is a protective father figure and John Kerry is a pussy. Do you expect me to ignore all this and pretend that people voted for Bush for rational, well-thought-out reasons?

Speaking of straw men, I don’t see anyone denying that the Republicans won the election. I don’t see any Democrats asking for an “equal” seat at the table, either.

Jack wrote:

Bush voters and Kerry voters are ? on average ? very similarly educated. Republicans, in general, tend to be slightly better educated than Democrats.

I would’ve known my detractors would only focus in on this part of my comment. But Jack, if could supply some evidence to your assertion, please? Here is mine.

I also have no evidence to challenge your intellect, but you made this personal, by giving me evidence to challenge your judgment.

You included in your response Conservative ‘wedge code words’ (judicial activism), and the only positive economic news Bush would use during the campaign (ownership society).

Someone of your intellect should discern from the rhetoric, how judicial majority opinions are based in legal precedent, while adhering to Constitutional provisions. The smart thing to do would be to argue the specific merits of their decision, instead of mouthing just the Republican ‘activist’ chant.

You’ll probably cast my words on the economy as ‘dark’ and ‘negative’, even when I cite Greenspan’s dire warning of the repercussions from a continuing failing U.S. dollar. And, you’ll probably dismiss reports of a tide turning among neo-Cons, who are warming to the idea of a massive troop reduction starting early next year.

Eric wrote:

That right there… is the heart of the blue state condescension. Kerry voters have the intelligence to avoid being manipulated but Bush voters do not? Please. That is essentially what we’ve been hearing since the election about the ignorance of red state voters.

Eric, no matter how you Conservative ‘True Believers’ embarrassingly try to spin it, you won the election on ‘moral values’ (hate) and ‘security concerns’ (fear). How do I know this? Fox News told me so.

For the many months leading to the election, the WatchBlog Blue Column saw consistently strong and measured arguments - the vast majority of which, went begging for your (or any Republican’s) opposing viewpoint. Contrastingly, the WB Red Column entries were stuff with comments by those pointing to the many distortions, exaggerations and misstatements used to make the Right’s case - the vast majority of mine, also going unanswered.

I am not some cable news pundit required to start from the basic assumption that all voters are smart, informed and not easily deceived - there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

But, let me also point out to you, that since the election, none of us from the Blue Column have had to defend the judgment of Kerry voters, in this manner.

Bert:

Its obvious that you feel the Blue column arguments are “consistently strong and measured” simply because you agree with them. That you agree with them is fine…but it doesnt make them anything other than in agreement with you. Any argument that disagrees with you, and there have been those in all columns from what I have seen, is an argument that you consider unworthy.

This is the same mindset of the McGovern supporter who couldnt believe he had lost in 1972 and said, “Everyone I know voted for him…how could he have lost”.

Woody:

Thanks for the reasonable reply. You wrote: “All I can judge Bush voters by is what I have heard them say about Kerry.” Yet it seemed to me that you highlighted the trivial things people have said and ignored the more salient things that have been said right here on Watchblog.

What you pointed out in your latest post was that both sides can think through issues and come to different opinions. Some can see Bush as active on defense, while others see him as too eager. Some can see Kerry as prudent, while others see him as too cautious. All of this takes thought, reasoning and intelligence——things that some on the left are denying exists in the red states and column.

Joe,

Wow, we are having a “kumbaya” moment here. We should go kill a duck and make foie gras out of it, then listen to Streisand and Toby Keith.

Not all of the things I mentioned were ignored on Watchblog. I seem to recall pretty vigourous arguments about the Purple Hearts. (But let’s not go there. We’ve already tortured ourselves enough to make a Vietnamese interrogator take notes.) And as I said, people who post on Watchblog are hardly representative of the electorate.

The most frustrating thing to me is not voters’ quote-unquote intelligence but how ill-informed they are. I heard a seemingly intelligent voter on the radio saying that she was thinking of voting for John Kerry, but she wishes he would say whether he would raise her taxes…

Woody:

I’ll gladly give up both Babs and Toby for a little Bob Seger or CSNY……PLEASE. No offense, but especially lets give up Babs.

Seriously, though, about Kerry. I really felt like he couched his words so carefully that I really didnt know what he was going to do. I didnt take, for instance, his “global test” statement as a true test of some kind, but I do think its viable to think that he is so enamored of the UN and our allies that he would be influenced (unduly, in my opinion) by them. I guess the same thing could have gone for taxes, Iraq etc.

I have a theory on the moral values issue. I dont think it was so much WHAT Bush’s values are (ie, gay marriage, abortion etc), but rather that the public saw that he HAS values. I think Kerry left many with the impression that he would vacillate whichever way was the most politically pragmatic. When he started using the phrase “I will KILL the terrorists…”, I knew he was just posturing.

In any event, I’m glad to hear your side, as well as Jack’s side. I do hope this next 4 years can see a more bipartisan effort on behalf of our country. It will take both sides, of course, to allow this to happen. I expect there to be some dissension, but I hope there will also be connection. Bush needs this for his “legacy”, the Dems need it to not be seen as obstructionist complainers, and the country needs it most of all.

Bert

I have two problems with the evidence you cite. Did you actually read it and think about it? It is invalid. This is why.

1. It is based on the states again. This red/blue state divide is silly. It technically worked because of the Electoral College, but tells you nothing about the underlying trends among voters. States don’t vote; people vote. Bush voters (see the CNN report http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) are more likely to have some college or be a college graduate. Kerry voters fall into the two sides, HS dropouts and super educated. The same thing happens with income, by the way. The poor and the super rich voted for Kerry and the middle went for Bush. But these are not big differences and I don’t think there is particular evidence that either group is, on the whole, more intelligent.

Republicans have been slightly more educated than Democrats, but that was because they were a smaller party with more self-selection. Now that the Republican numbers have grown so much, they probably have similar demographics to Democrats. Such information is hard to find. When you do find it, it is politically loaded. It would also inevitably involve comparisons among racial and ethnic groups. Those sorts of comparisons are simply not valid.

2. It is based on information that the researchers could not attain (i.e. reliable state by state IQ data). Many people have never had an IQ test and we don’t track people who have. I may have had an IQ test when I was a kid in Wisconsin. I now live in Virginia and have previously lived in California, Minnesota, Washington, Maryland, Indiana and the District of Columbia. If there is someone keeping track of my movements to the extent that they can adjust state IQ, I think we have more to worry about than an election.

Garbage in garbage out. The conclusions you draw from information can be no better than the information itself.

You fell for bad data, manipulated in a statistically invalid fashion. Bad data manipulated in a statistically invalid fashion is the whole basis of the blue/red state debate. There are red voters and blue voters who live in every state in the U.S. They are not an ethnic group. Some of the red voters must have voted blue last time and the reverse.

This fixation on macro geography is unhelpful. Smart politicians work their voters down to the precinct. If Democrats can’t see beyond the state level, perhaps that’s why they are doing so poorly.

This fixation on macro geography is unhelpful. Smart politicians work their voters down to the precinct. If Democrats can’t see beyond the state level, perhaps that’s why they are doing so poorly.

I very much agree with this. I think we need to get away from the whole idea of red states, blue states, and swing states. Though I would go further in one area. I would say that really smart politicians work their voters down to the man. (Then again, I’m one of those radicals who thinks every vote counts.)

I think Jarandhel hit the nail on the head. I think states are good to deal with on a certain level, especially with the election decided by electoral college, but it’s also important in my mind that we look at states with dynamic change of key communities in mind. We need to expand our territory, stop writing off Southern, Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states. The Republican establishment is becoming too rigid, is making too many policy mistakes. Now is the time to exploit the microfractures in the material of their base and start tearing off chunks.

Stephen:

The key to that strategy is to do it sincerely and without selling your soul. By that, I mean not making pandering promises simply in order to get votes, knowing that you won’t follow through. I say this for BOTH sides, though I know its utopian to think it wont or doesnt happen.

Stephen, that’s a great tactic because all you have to do is talk about it. You don’t actually have to do anything.

Look at Bush’s gay marriage amendment. There was no way it was going to pass, but the GOP used the wedge issue successfully to make it appear that Democrats support gay marriage: bye-bye support from the Midwest.

Joe-
Agreed. I’m more intent on changing minds and political landscapes than I am for pandering to them. granted, compromise should be sought whenever it does the best job, practically speaking, but compromise should not be an end in and of itself.

AP-
You’re seeing the situation in too static of a manner. Reality is, the Blue State/Red State dichotomy is nothing more than a product of people’s beliefs and attitudes. Such things can be changed. We need not cut off our nose to spite our face. I think we can do this and remain true Democrats. In fact, I think it works best when we remain true Democrats.

Jack,

I’m going to have to disagree with your citing of the CNN polling. How can you assert that Kerry voters were on the low end HS dropouts, when 1% percentage point separated the candidates? And, how can you make such sweeping generalizations about other sub-groups, when the margins were less than 10% percentage points?

Which in turns, hobbles your dismissal of the IQ survey I supplied. The fact that you’ve yet to supply supporting evidence that Republicans are better educated, also remains a glaring omission.

Glad to read rational and civil discourse about all this. Except for some, of course. During the election the volume was too high, too shrill, and at times purely stupid.

The country has become too coarse and uncivil in too many places, too many times, too many ways.

Glad to see there is still room for decent exchange of views.

In fact, I think it works best when we remain true Democrats.

: at November 24, I totally agree with you. Although, I think we can effectively use the same tactics the GOP does.

For example, Kerry is going to introduce legislation to cover health insurance for 8 milllion children who can’t afford it.

There’s no reason we can’t - in some more clever way - imply that Republicans who oppose it want to murder 8 million American children.

Just a thought. :)

I’ve read alot of the posts and my conclusion is that people actually believed the stuff Kerry proposed. All he did to campaign was blame Bush for anything he could get his big nose into. Thats why he lost. He didn’t say “I will do…”, but rather, “He did that…”. Thats why he lost by a large majority. Sorry if anyone disagrees with this, but it’s what the Media portrayed him as. Maybe it’s the Media’s fault he lost.