"Still, what matters most is attitude, a mind-set that does not convey the message that people who vote the "wrong" way are dupes. These people know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is the people who insist otherwise who are the true dupes in this case -- not of some political candidate, but of their own wishful thinking."
If they are not dupes, they are just plain greedy, evil pigs.
However, seeing a blue-collar worker vote Republican inspires all manner of thought. Initially, the belief that they are dupes springs up. But I think it is more likely that they believe in the "Tinkle Down" (to quote Ed Crankshaft) theory of wealth. The ultimate wishful thinkers, who believe that the prosperity of the Republicans in power will spill-over and flow to their pockets.
Not exactly. I don't think they think they will get rich. I think they identify with the powerful. Who wants to identify with the weak, the poorer, the economically displaced? I think this 'duped' theme is also very wrong. Perhaps some of the undecided voters were duped. Some of them voted according to their (problematic, wrongheaded, scary) commitments. They believe in destroying public spending, making abortion illegal, expanding the American empire, etc. They've been convinced. And I think they won't be unconvinced until they are much less comfortable than they are now. They will be, but not for a little while.
Well, it could be that the overwhelming majority of them chose not to know who was behind 9/11, but then the overwhelming majority of customers of penis enlargement pills have probably read somewhere that they don't work.
penis enlargement pills do not work in the sense of increasing the size of the penis. What they do (in some cases) is maximize the potential of what is already there. That is to say, someone in their late forties who MIGHT have had seven inches of usable penis in their 20s - 30s but have lost some of the pressure needed to expand the organ to it's full size, find that the chemicals MAY make up for it. I don't know if this has anything to do with the question, but...
Ugh. Covert Antisemitism. Why not study Catholic voters? Or Episcopalians, who often tend toward being socially liberal? Why focus on Jews? Because it's so damn easy to focus on an already-maligned group among the red-state mindset, and deepen the divide.
Well, you know, Cohen is the kind of "pundit" who makes my teeth hurt.
Bush got his highest numbers among people who are in the throes of delusions about Iraq, 9/11 and about our place in the world.
The problem can't be that the media (responsible creatures that they are, with standards) didn't trouble to make those things clear?
I'm also charmed by his contention that the only self-interest worth discussing is economic, and that somehow having other priorities makes the economic damage these people have done to themselves vanish in a rosy cloud of self-righteousness.
He's gonna have a problem with this, though, because the "libertarian independents" are backpedalling away from these people so fast their asses are gonna turn to light.
The funny thing is I agree with some of what he says, but not in the way he thinks I will.
His arguement isn't for economic self-interest, it's for short term greed.
The wealthy who vote for liberal, and progressive, social programs (and whom he isolates as Jewish) are voting in their self-interest. They see a more balanced, and stable, society; with less misery, as worth a bit of money.
Is there anyone who really believes Bush's tax cuts will help them (of those who aren't in the upper... lets say 10 percent)? Because if they do believe that, the word dupes is appropriate, just not savvy.
I'm not crazy about those tiresome pundits either, but actually, I thought that there was a valid point lurking around in there somewhere.
I've been hearing a lot from right-wingers lately whose response to the "those people don't vote in their best interest!" statement is: "No, we don't. That's because we good folk of Heartland America care about our values more than our pocketbooks--unlike you greedy cultural elitist Marxist types, who cannot conceive of anything more important than money."
Is this a hideous mischaracterization of those who think that economic issues are, y'know, kind of an important factor in politics? Yes, of course it is. But it's also a very prevalent meme out there. "Oh, the Republicans voted their values!"
Well, la-di-da. Everyone votes their "values." We all value things. The real question is: what things do we value? And what other valuable things are we willing to sacrifice? How do we prioritize those values?
Eh. I dunno. I don't really mind people trying to make the point that Republican working class people aren't the only people who ever vote against their own economic self-interest.
I do wish that people would pay more attention to the real statistics, though. In truth, income was a reliable indicator of voting practice in this election, regardless of what state you look at. Poor people voted for Kerry. Rich people voted for Bush.
I'm curious about the anti-Semitism argument, though. The essay didn't strike me as particularly anti-Semitic, in spite of the fact that I'm Jewish myself and often (I think) can be pretty sensitive to that sort of thing. What struck you that way about it? I'm not trying to be confrontational here; I'm just honestly curious. Was it that you felt it was promoting the dangerous stereotype of the Wealthy Jew?
I just found it interesting that he chose to make his point about the economic self-interest of poor voters by setting it off against what the jews, who are rich, do. Where on earth did that come from? In what way does it advance his (ludicrous) argument? It'd be apples and oranges even if they weren't foam rubber oranges (this administration is the best economic hope of the poor because if we tried to fix everything they've fucked up it might not work? Bitch, please).
It was a real sour note to see him go there in the course of venting his annoyance that he wasn't able to convince anyone with his previous four years of incoherence. It's Andy Sullivan-style. Yeah, I jumped the fence, but I don't like anybody over here, because I'm the only one who's here for the right reason.
Not antisemitic in intent, I'm sure, but given the history of times like these rather stupid.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 08:34 am (UTC)If they are not dupes, they are just plain greedy, evil pigs.
However, seeing a blue-collar worker vote Republican inspires all manner of thought.
Initially, the belief that they are dupes springs up. But I think it is more likely that they believe in the "Tinkle Down" (to quote Ed Crankshaft) theory of wealth.
The ultimate wishful thinkers, who believe that the prosperity of the Republicans in power will spill-over and flow to their pockets.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 11:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 12:25 pm (UTC)What they do (in some cases) is maximize the potential of what is already there.
That is to say, someone in their late forties who MIGHT have had seven inches of usable penis in their 20s - 30s but have lost some of the pressure needed to expand the organ to it's full size, find that the chemicals MAY make up for it.
I don't know if this has anything to do with the question, but...
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 12:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 08:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 08:53 am (UTC)Bush got his highest numbers among people who are in the throes of delusions about Iraq, 9/11 and about our place in the world.
The problem can't be that the media (responsible creatures that they are, with standards) didn't trouble to make those things clear?
I'm also charmed by his contention that the only self-interest worth discussing is economic, and that somehow having other priorities makes the economic damage these people have done to themselves vanish in a rosy cloud of self-righteousness.
He's gonna have a problem with this, though, because the "libertarian independents" are backpedalling away from these people so fast their asses are gonna turn to light.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 10:18 am (UTC)His arguement isn't for economic self-interest, it's for short term greed.
The wealthy who vote for liberal, and progressive, social programs (and whom he isolates as Jewish) are voting in their self-interest. They see a more balanced, and stable, society; with less misery, as worth a bit of money.
Is there anyone who really believes Bush's tax cuts will help them (of those who aren't in the upper... lets say 10 percent)? Because if they do believe that, the word dupes is appropriate, just not savvy.
TK
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 05:33 pm (UTC)I've been hearing a lot from right-wingers lately whose response to the "those people don't vote in their best interest!" statement is: "No, we don't. That's because we good folk of Heartland America care about our values more than our pocketbooks--unlike you greedy cultural elitist Marxist types, who cannot conceive of anything more important than money."
Is this a hideous mischaracterization of those who think that economic issues are, y'know, kind of an important factor in politics? Yes, of course it is. But it's also a very prevalent meme out there. "Oh, the Republicans voted their values!"
Well, la-di-da. Everyone votes their "values." We all value things. The real question is: what things do we value? And what other valuable things are we willing to sacrifice? How do we prioritize those values?
Eh. I dunno. I don't really mind people trying to make the point that Republican working class people aren't the only people who ever vote against their own economic self-interest.
I do wish that people would pay more attention to the real statistics, though. In truth, income was a reliable indicator of voting practice in this election, regardless of what state you look at. Poor people voted for Kerry. Rich people voted for Bush.
I'm curious about the anti-Semitism argument, though. The essay didn't strike me as particularly anti-Semitic, in spite of the fact that I'm Jewish myself and often (I think) can be pretty sensitive to that sort of thing. What struck you that way about it? I'm not trying to be confrontational here; I'm just honestly curious. Was it that you felt it was promoting the dangerous stereotype of the Wealthy Jew?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 05:49 pm (UTC)It was a real sour note to see him go there in the course of venting his annoyance that he wasn't able to convince anyone with his previous four years of incoherence. It's Andy Sullivan-style. Yeah, I jumped the fence, but I don't like anybody over here, because I'm the only one who's here for the right reason.
Not antisemitic in intent, I'm sure, but given the history of times like these rather stupid.