Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


In view of the agonizing reappraisal a lot of my DFL acquaintances are going through after the election, may I suggest that some of you are jumping to conclusions? The "moral values" response in the exit polls (which we should all be viewing with great suspicion, imao) has been linked with the gay marriage initiatives to form a meme that it's all about the gay, to paraphrase Margaret Cho's mom. Those of you coming to that conclusion ought to take a look at this and think about it some. Correlation !=causation, and I'm afraid a lot of well-meaning DFLers are jumping to conclusions about the moral issues and how they played out in motivating blacks and Hispanics to vote for W and the GOP this year.

I'd also like to recommend this essay, which has some things in common with what 433 said in his post but also covers issues 433 didn't.

Meanwhile, intellectualoids like Jane Smiley need to be ignored like the thimblewits they are, and that includes that gomer Garrison Keillor. He used to be funny back when he wasn't choking on his own bile, but that was a couple of elections ago. I can't stand to listen to him any more, and I really enjoyed his Lake Wobegon books back in the day...and once you understand why people like me consider him an object of mockery and not a humorist you'll be a little closer to understanding your political enemies.

Why am I suggesting these things? Because a swing district is more fun than a safe one. Because having good opposition makes for progress through hard work and creative thinking. Because I don't want to see the Reagan Revolution get weak and sclerotic because you people have devolved into a bunch of pouty, name-calling neo-Leninists. Dynamic tension is more than just a line from Rocky Horror, you know.

Most links shamelessly stolen from Professor Death except for the link to Jeremy's essay, gacked from michaellee.


( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 5th, 2004 07:27 am (UTC)
The point that Lileks has made is quite telling. Contrary to popular opinion, the 'right' is incredibly diverse. Yes, the Evangelicals are a major part of the 'right' but they don't sum up the 'right'. The differences between Mark Steyn and Pat Robertson and Thomas Sowell and Ann Coulter are immense. But they are united by a base-line love of country, respect for individual rights and belief that truth and morals are objective and binding. It's not my experience that conservatives expect you to march in lock step with them. You can be a pro-choice conservative (for exampler) but I really don't think you can be a prochoice liberal.
Nov. 5th, 2004 07:51 am (UTC)
The problem is, I find the right wing government abhorrent, and I believe George W Bush has been, and will continue to be, a disaster for our country, but I also love my country (even when it's f'ed up, like it is right now), respect for individual rights, and a belief in truth. That's like saying everyone loves their mother. (Well, everyone doesn't, but still...)

Though you're right about diversity in general -- there are coalitions on both sides of interests, various different "special interest groups" that have to ally together to get to 51% percent. It's not just one giant group. (And obviously, part of it is that most people aren't a part of just one special interest group.)

Nov. 5th, 2004 08:01 am (UTC)
Well, you seem to understand the theory just fine, but this "Eeeuuuuwww!" reaction towards "the right wing government" is going to get in the way of really understanding your opposition, because it keeps you from appreciating that a lot of us see the country as fscked up but not in the same way you think it is. I cannot recommend Wretchard's essay in reaction to Jane Smiley's rant strongly enough to you, and I especially recommend the comments.

When you have 23% of the gay vote going to W and 40% of the Hispanics, I think the DFL needs to rethink this notion that the Republicans are a bunch of homophobic racists, and I don't think a lot of the folks you hang with are there yet.
Nov. 5th, 2004 09:03 am (UTC)
Indeed. It's an interesting article.

Sorry, still hate Bush and think he's been -- and will continue to be -- a disaster. But yeah, it's worthwhile thinking about why good people vote for bad politicians.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )