Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Death masks
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
If “constructive” is a euphemism for “makes me feel better,” Adam Felber’s concession speech is constructive as all get-out:
There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time for healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends here in Los Angeles. As the night progressed, people began to talk half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split. The reasoning was this: We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about ‘em. We in the blue states are the only ones who’ve been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling “Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!”More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I’m impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who might die in this war know it’s not true, the people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it’s not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury.
I’ve been waiting a long time to hear someone say that.
How long? Probably since the day my brother the dittohead told me that when it comes to national security, I “just don’t get it”—when he lives in a cushy suburb in the Midwest, and I live in Brooklyn and work in Manhattan. (via)
And the award for near-simultaneity goes to ...
*wild applause*
I want the United Blue States of America. I want to live in a nation where progressive candidates have a real chance of being elected to office. I want to lure Ann Richards up to our neck of the woods so she and Barney Frank can be co-presidents of the UBSA. Dammit, I want real change in my lifetime, and the red states are holding us back.
Am I bitter? Yes. Am I alone? Hell, no. I've been making "Proud to be blue" and "Red with shame" LiveJournal icons, and they're getting snapped up like crazy. Clearly, the divide in this nation is only getting deeper, and I don't think it sounds so crazy to say, well, why not just divide and get it over with?
Ms. Nielsen-Hayden, as much as I love both you and Adam Felber, and as much as I normally agree with every word you both say, I respectfully find the first paragraph of the section you quote to be downright offensive.
I have heard the "blue state"/"red state" separation comment one too many times since the election, and it's starting to get to me. I live in a so-called "red state," and funnily enough, Kerry didn't lose by very much. In fact, you'll find close margins in the majority of the states, regardless of what color the media map decides to paint them. (Before someone jumps on this, I am aware that there are states where this is not true; I said "majority.")
I realize that the secession thing is supposed to be a joke, but today one of the professors I work for came up with a map wherein all the states that went to Kerry had become part of Canada, while all the states that went to Bush became "Jesusland." All I could think was, the last thing we need right now is people making generalizations about entire sections of the country.
We're frustrated too! We're all disheartened, and tired, and sad, and angry! Most of all, we live in states that are still dominated by reactionary thinkers. We need people who live in more liberal states to give encouragement, not abandon us, even in jest.
Believe it or not, I understand where you and Mr. Felber are coming from, especially with the second paragraph of the quote. I'm just getting tired of the supposed blue state/red state split - as though every person in the state of California voted for Kerry, and every person in the state of Illinois voted for Bush. I hope I don't come off as offensive, because I'm not trying to be. I'm just upset. And now, of course, I'm rambling, so I'll take myself off.
Okay, Tiercel. You're hereby publicly and officially pardoned for living in a red state.
>As the night progressed, people began to talk
>half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue
>state split.
I see I'm not alone in my idea for the People's Republic of Volvostan.
Blue-state comrades! We in the Free Republic of Lattestan salute you!
Adam's brother may get it all too well someday.
WTAE (Pittsburgh's Channel 4) is reporting -- even as I type, perhaps -- that the FBI has uncovered evidence of potential terrorist activity in "smaller" cities like Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Kansas City, etc. Not a lot of detail yet; apparently they're saving the good stuff for tonight's newscast. But this teaser for the broadcast hints at "something that recently happened at a security-sensitive facility in western Pennsylvania, and what federal agents are doing about it."
(Note: I put "smaller" in quotations because, although these cities are smaller than New York or Chicago, they are much bigger than, say, Weirton, West Virginia. Which is only 35 miles from Pittsburgh, so that people here think of Pittsburgh as The Big City.)
when it really comes down to it, we're all purple states.
Lois, the dittohead is my brother, not Adam Felber's.
that the FBI has uncovered evidence of potential terrorist activity in "smaller" cities like Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Kansas City, etc
Fuck!
I live in Minneapolis. Minneapolis is not a "smaller" city (at least not to me, anyway.)
Whoops! Sorry Lois. I was so panicked by your link that I didn't read the rest of your comment. Thanks for acknowledging that "smaller" isn't small. (Also, I wasn't angry that you said smaller. Just panicked.)
shadowsong - Thanks! That map led me to an article at MSNBC, which led me to a county-by-county map. Interesting stuff, especially if you mentally map cities on top of that.
Ms. Nielsen-Hayden - I can't decide whether or not you were being sarcastic, so I'm just going to let it lie.
You know, I *do* feel better after reading that.
WTAE (Pittsburgh's Channel 4) is reporting -- even as I type, perhaps -- that the FBI has uncovered evidence of potential terrorist activity in "smaller" cities like Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Kansas City, etc.
I'm sure the people of Oklahoma City are going to be terribly surprised by this revelation.
(Also, it's worth noting that, while I have the greatest respect for the people of Pittsburgh, my in-laws among them, and want them to stay both safe and informed, local television stations are not where I am going to turn for dispassioned analysis of my vulnerability to low-probability but ratings-friendly events. I live outside DC; you should see the hype Channel 9 can crank out when it's just a snowstorm.)
Tiercel is correct. I did the demographics on my state, because I think we can trust the ballots to be fair here - it's a small state, and last time they cheated, in 2002, it was by a KITV by phone DOS attack. We use paper ballots, clearly printed, marked in big circles with pen, and many many of them had to be hand counted this time, because they ran out of the optical cards and had to photocopy them instead.
The returns were showing to me *such* dramatic patterns, based on the fact that I've driven all over this state and I know people who live and work in the parts I don't, or know people who do, after having lived here a quarter-century, that I charted them all out on maps.
The *real* rural poor voted blue. The people who have bought up the 200-year-old family farms that went out of business, and either commute to Boston in their Escalades, or live off their severance packages or investment incomes, those regions voted red, by the largest margins. Yet even those townships did not go over 70% red.
It was the educated, wealthy, well-traveled people whose kids attended school with me, the ones who went to Mexico and Spain and Bermuda on holiday, the ones who live in the central corridor, or up around the Lakes Region, or in the Libertarian bits of the North Country (not the lumberjack and millworker bits) that nearly gave NH to Bush. Many of those people along the Seacoast side of the southern border and central corridor are MA expats who want to make the big dollars but not pay the big taxes, and can afford to send their kids to Pinkerton or St. Paul's and not care about the problems with school funding.
Claremont and environs went blue.
And so did most of the towns around the Navy base - far more than can be explained by the college town nearby. *That* trumped the Very High Property Values factor, in all but two small suburbs of Portsmouth.
It was greed that almost did us in, here, the pledge of bigger business, lower taxes.
And very few of the Bush/Benson voters here, had signs out or stickers. It doesn't seem like they were proud or confident enough to display their allegiance, not compared to the number of bumper stickers I have seen for Kerry.
I suspect, if we were able to chart out each state, town by town, and match it up with local economies and demographics, we would see far more of this over the country. But I can't do it for anywhere else, I only know little bits of MA and less of VT myself.
You know, if I were a Kerry voter living in a red state (and it was close in New Hampshire; I very well could have been), I wouldn't be feeling particularly mollified by an official pardon for living there.
I was born in Florida, and raised in Florida and Texas, and primarily educated in Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, and most of my blood relatives still live in those last two states. Some of them even voted for Kerry, because believe me, nobody hates Bush like somebody from Texas who's been voting against the man since before he was governor. And having my family and regional roots comprehensively vilified all up and down over blue blogland does not, for some strange reason, serve to make me feel one whit better about the outcome of this election.
It is also the anniversary of the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian uprising, today.
It was e.e. cummings' poem, "Thanksgiving 1956," discovered by chance at around age 14, that caused me to question *everything* I thought I could rely on, in terms of the CW, such as that the US was at least honest and honorable in being anti-communist and pro-liberty, as well as that there was a unanimous patriotic acceptance of the Cold War.
Reading about that, subsequently, trying to make sense of it all, is why I was not so terribly surprised by anything that has been revealed of US dishonourable conduct in *this* war.
I am not one to believe in omens, but as a sign it offers various possible interpretations.
Debra, you and Jim are in NH too, right? You might want to look at my charts and see if they make sense to you, too. (Sorry they're so large files - about 2MB ea - I had to do them in photoshop, and keep them readable.)
bellatrys -
That's really interesting. I wish I knew as much about what caused the voting patterns in my state, which can't be explained by the standard rural/urban dichotomy. There's two counties that are bright blue because of the liberal arts universities, but those are the only ones I can pinpoint.
Debra -
That was a beautifully succinct summation of exactly my feelings. May I quote you? And did I spell succinct right?
bellatrys,
the pattern you're describing was, at the last time I checked (midnight or so Nov. 3, when they still hadn't called my state as "blue" and I was panicked), entirely consistent with what went on here in Michigan. Believe me, we went blue by the (brown) skin of our urban (Detroit, Ypsi, Flint) and ivory tower elite (Ann Arbor, Ypsi, Marquette) teeth, unless those patterns changed significantly during the wee hours.
Michigan is only partly blue, really. The rest is militia, cows, fertilizer, corn and Oakland County (Very High Property Values factor, which is trumped here in Ann Arbor by the Ivory Tower factor).
Hence the Blue-State-Yet-Gay-Hating thing. We're all very, very ashamed by the way. Well, not all of us. Just the ones that voted "No." Unsurprised, but ashamed.
You know, if I were a Kerry voter living in a red state (and it was close in New Hampshire; I very well could have been), I wouldn't be feeling particularly mollified by an official pardon for living there.
Indeed, Debra. Especially when my "red state" sent a new Democrat to the Senate, and a new Democrat to the House, and sent control of our state legislature to the Democrats, and passed a clean energy bill and a tobacco tax, and came within spitting distance of sending that freak Marilyn Musgrave back home where she belongs.
Hello, Teresa was born in South Dakota and grew up in Arizona, and she still passionately loves the Southwest. Anyone who thinks she needs to be lectured on the idea that there's virtue in the so-called "red states" has perhaps lost their place in the text.
Felber's blog post is a jape, and a very understandable reaction to the fact that the other side has been, for years, remorselessly calumnizing the urban "blue" parts of the country. Or did nobody notice? As usual, it appears that the moment liberals fire back, even in jest, a certain number of their friends stand ready to dump on them from a great height for being wickedly unfair.
Tell you what: After we've gone a generation with every other advertisement and newspaper column and political speech casually asserting that Brooklyn and Chicago and Seattle are the "heartland" and that rural areas and Great Plains states are welfare mooches and generators of disease and unrest, be sure to complain. I'll be all sympathy.
I'm relieved to hear that you're going to let it lie, Tiercel.
Debra, I was raised in a red state too. That's the single biggest reason I sell t-shirts with slogans like "Just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side."
The argument from the requirements of humorous writing: If you can come up with a replacement term for "red states" that pulls the same weight and has an equally small footprint, I will personally write to Adam Felber and suggest that he plug it in in all the places where he said "red states".
The argument from something else: Felber was talking about red states as unitary political entities, not complex regions with finely distinguished characteristics.
Let me talk about the red state I come from. Arizona, home of innumerable self-important Republicans, is economically a screaming welfare queen. Its leapfrogging development is fueled by a combination of cheap desert land, public money (some federal, some state) for roads, utilities, schools, and other civilized amenities, and the perfectly enormous federal subsidies that underwrite cheap water. For a while there, investment in the area was also fueled by S&L dollars, which the feds eventually got stuck for as well. Nevertheless -- and I freely admit that the state has many intelligent, sensitive, politically savvy inhabitants -- as a collective body politic the state has a real fondness for whining and feeling sorry for itself over all the dreadful taxes they have to pay. Many of the state's citizens are also prone to make unkind comments about the productivity and civic irresponsibility of people in NYC -- a city which, year after year, pays far more in taxes than it ever receives from the gummint.
Arizona! Love it! But dang, you hear a lot of BS there, and not just in places like Sedona. It's the authentic American heartland, you betcha, where they make it illegal to build houses from adobe, then construct poorly-insulated balloon-frame houses that look as much as possible like New Mexican pueblos. Then they sit around in 'em telling each other how they're real folks, not like those deracinated airy-fairy aesthetes in Brooklyn.
I dearly love Arizona, but I'd dearly love to turn my neighbors loose on some of its flapjawed citizenry.
Anyone who knows me knows that when the subject goes to politics I tend to go back to The West Wing.
Hence:
"We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, homophobic, anti-eductaion, anti-choice, pro-gun, 'Leave it to Beaver' trip back to the fifties,' we cowered in the corner and said 'Please, don't hurt me.'"
--Bruno Gianelli
The West Wing 3x06, "Gone Quiet"
It's about time liberals went on the attack.
By the way, this
http://www.adamyoshida.com/2004/11/four-more-years-aka-take-that-you-sons.html
is what we're up against. (Didn't use html for the link because I don't want that guy coming over here.)
From now on, just use "conservative" as a euphemism for "stupid."
Tell you what: After we've gone a generation with every other advertisement and newspaper column and political speech casually asserting that Brooklyn and Chicago and Seattle are the "heartland" and that rural areas and Great Plains states are welfare mooches and generators of disease and unrest, be sure to complain.
Heh. Scenes we'd like to see. I have to say contemplation of the little scenario described above picks my head up off my shoulders momentarily, twirls it a couple of times, then sets it back down where it supposedly belongs.
I think the notion has more than a certain ring to it. I say we adopt it as a talking point.
And I'm happy to finally hear this point being made. I live in NYC and have long felt that we ought to just bail the hell out, cut a deal with a friendly power, and become one of Europe's Great Cities, Somewhat Removed.
I am, for the impaired, being hyperbolic. I love my country, even when I hate it.
As someone who was at the foot of the WTC towers when they were hit, I also rather resent people living in their leafy suburbs telling me that I "just don't get it". And in light of OBL's promise to bring down the U.S. economy, and as someone who works in an area of the city that is taken by many to be the symbol of the U.S. economy, I have to say that while I'm moderately gratified that 53% of the voting public thinks Bush will make it safer, I pretty much feel that Bush's election has brought me closer (because of his incompetence) to the day when I will get Blowed Up Real Good. I suppose I could move to a red state, but then that would be Letting The Terrorists Win, wouldn't it?
But enough of that. I do find the seccession strategy a gratifying fantasy, but I realize it is only fantasy. And so I find myself thinking about ways in which those of us in the blue states might be able to assist those in the red states in carrying on the argument against intolerance, stupidity, anti-scientism (?), and so forth.
I do have some experience with residing (or visiting family) in red states, but I confess I probably have a stereotypical notion of what those of you in the red states are doing for yourselves in this battle.
Are you running for your schoolboards, making your arguments there? Are you working in the political off-seasons with your local progressive community to see what you can do to improve things for the next election cycle? Are you letting your local elected officials know that there *is* a progressive element in your community and that you'd like to be paid attention to? I dunno, what?
What are you doing, o ye of the places where the battle is farther from being won?
That's not a smart-ass veiled accusation that you are sitting on your asses. I understand perfectly well that those of us here in the blue states have an easier time of it in our communities than you do in your communities there.
It's an honest question.
And here's another honest question. What can those of us here in the blue states do to help you in the red states bring your communities around?
Practical suggestions, please. I'm done with the sending people good vibes thing, helpful though it may be in many circumstances. The problem is we've only got two years until the next congressional elections, and only four until the next presidential.
It's time to get crackin'. What can we do to help?
Another constructive approach: www.MarryAnAmerican.ca
Actually, it's just a gag.
Which is too bad.
As one who had family in Arizona and even went to the U of A in Tucson for a while, the only thing I can think of that Teresa failed to mention about the place is that it's a haven for midwesterners escaping snow but bringing their mindset with them.
Perhaps there ought to be a t-shirt saying:
"Red State America - biting the teats that feed it"
With an appropriate image, maybe of little red piglets or puppies, named for the states, lined up to a big blue momma who doesn't look happy.
Well, I live in a blue state so it's a little hard for me to run for the school board of a red state. What I did do this year was donate money to people in tight races in red states. They all lost. So I don't know what to tell you to do.
MKK
For what it's worth, the Steven Emerson guy quoted as a "terrorism expert" in the story noted above is the same guy who went on national television in 1995 to blame the OKC bombing on Arab terrorists.
Further, John Sugg, senior editor of Creative Loafing here in Atlanta, cleaned his clock in a "terrorism-related" (not!) libel case not long ago.
I'm not saying the story isn't true, just that I wouldn't put much weight on Emerson.
That Yoshida guy is awfully brave writing a screed like that but without capacity for comments.
Adam Yoshida is a loon. Hopefully he's a loon without support.
That much was clear. And a coward, too.
The thing that most chills me in the Yoshida guy's screed (good choice of words there) is the use of "Academics" as a derogatory. A political movement that hates intelligent people because they might think for themselves and worse, inform others...
Well, I guess "conservative republican" really is a euphemism for "stupid".
Heh. The Ohio county I live in voted 70% for Bush. This was, of course, utterly unsurprising to me, as it's small, rural, economically challenged and only 10% of the people in it have a college degree (in the little town I live it, that percentage is in the single digits).
All y'all who are flummoxed at how red staters can think and vote the way they do are cordially invited to come on out; indeed, I recommend a decent stay so you can understand the psychology of the red stater and why so many of them vote against their own economic self-interest.
My basic thumbnail for you (which is almost absurdly simplified) is that it really *does* come down to perceived values, and not just in a religious sense; there's many a NASCAR fan here in my little town who dearly should vote democratic, but have also bought in to the idea of the Democratic party as the party of weakness, the party of people who can't help themselves and need the government to bail them out.
It's an image problem and it's not going to get fixed overnight if it gets fixed at all.
I'm personally deep blue with some unexpected red streaks; I'm not a perfect fit around here but I don't feel uncomfortable either. Our neighbors see us as odd birds, but given that three out of four of my male neighbors drive trucks for a living, that was going to be the case anyway. Our local school is focused on getting kids the educational basics and not on shoehorning religion in where it does belong; ironically, itself that the area is filled with Mennonites, Amish and other Brethren variants, most of whom have as a tenet of their faith a healthy separation of church and state.
Our local library has a few gaps -- when I got here it had more books on astrology than astronomy -- but I take it upon myself to donate books in the places where I see a need (and it goes without saying that while the first copy of my upcoming novel I get stays with me, the second copy goes straightaway to the library).
I don't find the locals here intolerant, insane or illogical; I wish they were better informed, but I wish that of all people. On balance, I live with good people who are tolerant and good neighbors. But again, a lot of the Democratic problem here is one of perception. Republicans have managed to hone in on the midwest festish for self-sufficiency and stocism, which is as strong here as I imagine blue staters imagine the religious impluse is. The Democrats have to address both of these.
Although I voted for the Other Side on Tuesday, I'm actually glad to see this latest comment thread. Less talk of slitting wrists or moving to New Zealand, more political strategizing. That's the ticket.
It'd help, in the long run, to take fewer swigs from the "they're all stupid/evil" bottle. Sure, performers like Ann Coulter do it on the other side, over and over. But they don't do the Republicans any long-term good, either.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a Democrat win in 2008, just on a general move-on-to-the-next-crew basis. And for that reason, I think there's going to be a wild and fierce competition for the nomination. Y'all should get ready to make the most of the 2006 elections and then nominate the biggest butt-kicking vote-magnet you can find in '08.
Robert - you maybe be more accurate that you thought when you called Adam Yoshida a "loon."
According to his weblog's archives, as of a year ago at least, he was a Canadian citizen from British Columbia.
Go figure. It sort of puts his post in a different light when you realize that he probably couldn't even vote on Tuesday.
All y'all who are flummoxed at how red staters can think and vote the way they do are cordially invited to come on out; indeed, I recommend a decent stay so you can understand the psychology of the red stater and why so many of them vote against their own economic self-interest.
That's not really practical, of course, but it sounds like you have good & reliable information to pass on to us.
My basic thumbnail for you (which is almost absurdly simplified) is that it really *does* come down to perceived values, and not just in a religious sense; there's many a NASCAR fan here in my little town who dearly should vote democratic, but have also bought in to the idea of the Democratic party as the party of weakness, the party of people who can't help themselves and need the government to bail them out.
OK, this is good information in that it not only defines a specific problem, but suggests a possible attack on it. I guess the question now is whether you think, being Our Man In Ohio, there is something you and/or others in your community who might share more progressive values can do about getting these people to see that they *should* be voting Democratic? Or is that just completely impossible?
I assume you have heard of and possibly read Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter With Kansas? Anything useful to you in there?
Our local library has a few gaps -- when I got here it had more books on astrology than astronomy -- but I take it upon myself to donate books in the places where I see a need.
Excellent. It couldn't hurt, and probably could help some bright kid find a different way of looking at things.
I'm just grabbing ideas out of the air, here. It's probably all crap, but are there books (or other stuff, for that matter) those of us in the blue states can send to you that you can donate, as a local, to the local community that would support the cause?
Would anything like that do any good, or would it just make us feel like we were doing something when we weren't, actually?
Didn't Yoshida drop out of a bunch of different schools? But he's not alone. Apparently tenured professor Glenn Reynolds feels like the problem is academic elites.
Which I guess begs the question "Why then are you participating in an anticompetitive system like tenure in a public university system where the taxpayer is paying the higher price for your services? Why not resign and work as an adjunct and let the market decide?"
Apparently libertarianism is not a suicide pact.
The Democratic Party has proven, to its own surprise, that it can raise a lot of money from a lot of people. Why not pump some of that money into local programs that need help? "The party of the people" should be out there working with them out in the rural and semi-rural counties, helping people help themselves. Or funding local cultural and educational groups, similar to the Grange and Chatauqua movements. And doing projects in the Projects, too.
And then when it's time to do campaign rallies - do them in Blue-tinged counties that are in Red states, too, and have them be work parties for some local project, where the candidate helps to plant a row for the hungry or put a new roof on the local senior center.
Y'all, John Scalzi is a voice of reason, and those of you who are spending your time bashing those of us who live in red states (an intellectually lazy shorthand) are not.
I know, I know, you've got a lot of anger to work out. Take it out on someone who deserves it, eh?
I'm sitting here in Atlanta where we have a good Democratic mayor, Shirley Franklin. Who do you have in New York City? Michael Bloomberg? Hey, screw you, red city inhabitants. How did you get so stupid as to elect 'publican mayor after 'publican mayor? It's your fault that jerk Rudy Guiliani ever got started in politics. Yeah, and Meyer Kahane, too. You take Manhattan.
And as for you Californians, two words: Howard Jarvis. Two more: Arnold Schwartzengroper. And two more: Ronald Reagan. And two more: Tom Metzger. And three more: Go cheney yourselves.
Let me tell you how we do it here in the red states.
We fight and we fight and we live in a certain amount of fear from the results, because we don't have the comfy, self-satisfied environment the rest of you have.
When we go out for gay rights, sometimes we get kicked around--it's happened to me. When we demonstrate againat Reagan, ditto--it's happened to me. When we petition for tenants' rights, the landlords take the petitions and blacklist us for signing--I've watched them ask for the lists, and get them. And when it's done, we go back for more, if not the next day, then the one after that.
I'm from Arkansas, home of Bill Clinton and Maya Angelou and Daisy Bates and Johnny Cash. Even our mistakes, like Faubus, start out populist progressive and turn corrupt later.
In 2002, we were the only state in the union to kick a 'publican out of the Senate and replace him with a Democrat, Mark Pryor, a nice guy (I was in Student Senate with him) and a decent politician.
We've got two Democrats in the Senate and three out of our four House reps. Beat that, okay?
We're the home of Dale Bumpers and David Pryor and Vic Snyder and a whole big batch of lesser-known but equally stand-up proud liberal politicians (Jim Lendall, for instance) who keep on doing what they do and believing in what they believe despite the surroundings in which they find themselves, and sometimes it destroys them, economically, politically, and personally.
I love you people, but this red state blue state crap makes me mad. It's playing into divisive 'publican strategic hands. You'd think smart city folks would know how not to get mugged.
So you can either tone it down a little or kiss my hillbilly ass.
Sincerely yours,
John A Arkansawyer
P.S. Deep in the heart of Texas, Dallas County elected a hispanic lesbian sheriff. And you? What have you done for me lately? Oh, right--Guiliani, Bloomberg, and Schwartzengroper. Gee, thanks.
'I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Though the people disagree with the President on almost every issue, you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming. That's really special. And I mean "special" in the sense that we use it to describe those kids who ride the short school bus and find ways to injure themselves while eating pudding with rubber spoons. That kind of special.'
It might make you feel better, but you might find this much more useful: To My Fellow Democrats.
Fortunately, for the Republican Party, I don't think you will.
url - http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/to-my-fellow-democrats.html
The Democratic Party has proven, to its own surprise, that it can raise a lot of money from a lot of people. Why not pump some of that money into local programs that need help? "The party of the people" should be out there working with them out in the rural and semi-rural counties, helping people help themselves. Or funding local cultural and educational groups, similar to the Grange and Chatauqua movements. And doing projects in the Projects, too.
These are stunningly, old-fashionedly good ideas. I hear strains of Woody Guthrie filtering through the background noise. Reminds me of my FDR Democrat grandpappy out there in Idaho.
I wonder if there is any existing part of the Democratic Party's structure in place to take something like this on.
See, the thing is, they've got the churches. If we can't have the churches (at least to the degree they have them), we've got to make our own churches, of one sort or another.
Hmm... kind of gives the slogan "Help is on the way" a new meaning...
Help is on the way, and it's the Democrats.
And then when it's time to do campaign rallies - do them in Blue-tinged counties that are in Red states, too, and have them be work parties for some local project, where the candidate helps to plant a row for the hungry or put a new roof on the local senior center.
I think you are on to something important here. It might be a way to address the Church Gap.
Michael Weholt asks:
"Would anything like that do any good, or would it just make us feel like we were doing something when we weren't, actually?"
The latter, mostly, since most people don't go to the library for their political educations. They get them at home and at church and in the workplace (in other places they also get them in places of higher education; where I live, not so much).
There is no short-term fix. To get all Cory Doctorow on you, progressives have been culturally pwn0rzed by conservatives in most of rural America, and getting back is a long path.
"Being Our Man In Ohio, there is something you and/or others in your community who might share more progressive values can do about getting these people to see that they *should* be voting Democratic?"
Heh. Well, you don't know it, but in the very formulation of your question you've just become a prime example of why progressives don't get much traction out here in the sticks.
Read what you wrote: "Getting these people to see that they *should* be voting Democratic." This implies that they're doing voting *wrong* and need to be corrected. And maybe they do and maybe they don't, but one thing is for sure is that people don't like being told they they just need to *see* how they should be doing other than what they're doing. Ask yourself how you would react to a conservative asking how liberals could be made to see that they *should* be voting Republican. I'd imagine you'd get your back up.
The question should be framed thusly: "What can progressives do to show that they deserve to get these peoples' vote?"
The answer to that is, simply: Be there. By daily acts and deeds show that the progressive agenda is positive one. This requires, among other things, accepting and celebrating that most Americans have faith-centered lives, and that progressive politics not only accomodates this but can incorporate it, without compromising its own ideals.
It also recognizes the NASCAR fan mentality when it comes to government help -- which is that it needs to be framed in the context of work. This is something Republicans get that Democrats don't: That it's better politics to give welfare to business than to the individual because it preserves the individual's dignity in work.
And most of all, it requires progressives get that stick out of their ass and accept the fact that just because you went to college and got that edumacation don't make you better than no one else. Lots of people in my town are not particularly well-educated, but they sure aren't stupid, and they don't appreciate the idea that someone who isn't where they live might tell them what they should do or think.
Also, let's have a moment of honesty here: The little town I live in is exactly the sort of town that people who self-select to be progressive will work real hard to get away from. Hell, the only reason I moved here was because I write for a living and I can do that anywhere, and my wife wanted to be closer to family. Progressives in small towns can't just move away from those small towns and be shocked, shocked when all that are left are conservative folks, or folks susceptible to conservative messages. People in New York City can go months without talking to genuine conservative; you could do the same here without meeting a genuine liberal.
Let us posit and acknowledge that much of the reddening of the heartland is not only the creeping clutches of conservatism, but also progressive abandonment, both in body by moving away, and in spirit through condescension. That's not going to solved by tossing a few books and trying to make the locals *get* that they should be voting Democratic. It's going to take a lot more than that. As I said. it's a long term project.
Like John Scalzi, I have a feel for how Red America thinks. I was born and raised in Fulton County, Pennsylvania. I still live and work there. Technically, Pennsylvania is a blue state, but 76% of the votes in Fulton County were for George W. Bush. If that ain't red, I don't know what is.
On the county-by-county map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/PA/P/00/map.html ) for Pennsylvania at CNN, Fulton County is on the bottom center of the state, the smaller and redder of the two reddest counties in the state.
As it happens, I think the Democratic party can expand their base in this demographic if they address the issues properly. However, I suspect that some red state concerns, particularly those based upon fundamentalist religious footing, may not permit accomodation. *sigh* Not your fault, theirs. Their God doesn't really allow for compromise.
Full disclosure: I voted for the Other Side on Tuesday.
Michael -
I think the kinds of things you can do to help us "trapped in the red staters" out are the same kinds of things you've been doing - namely, contribute money and/or time. A lot of people from all over poured into the swing states as volunteers at the polls, and a lot of people donated to Democratic campaigns in those states. (Which is great if you have the money and/or time, but doesn't really offer you much of a suggestion if you don't. Sorry.)
When I made my initial comment that what we needed was support, I wasn't really thinking that everyone should go "There, there, you poor suffering dears" or anything like that. I live in the most liberal section of my state; I am privileged and I know it.
It's just that I know a lot of people who spent the entire pre-election period sitting around arguing with friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors, getting called ugly names and having their opinions dismissed outright, and now a lot of us feel like we're being attacked by the other side as well.
The biggest way you can help right now, for us, is to not tar us with the same brush as those who did vote for Bush, 'cause we're pissed at 'em too.
I guess I just want everybody to take a deep breath and stop yelling, including me.
So, I have a serious political history question that someone here might be able to answer. What is the big supposed insult (at least in some parts) about someone being a "Massachusetts liberal?" I'm pretty young and we never got past WWII in any American history class I was ever in - maybe that's something we should work on - so I feel like I'm missing some historical context.
By the way, though I'm an Adam Felber fan, I liked this concession speech much better. An excerpt:
I mean fuck, America. Seriously. You just royally fucked yourself. Good luck. I mean I’m going to survive. I was in fucking ‘Nam. I’ve looked a man in the eye, and shot him in the face, and now thanks to your once and future king George, assault weapons are now readily available, so you better watch your backs, man. That’s all I’m gonna say about that.
Great rant from adamsj, but it does appear to come from a world in which none of the stuff I talked about here ever happened. Maybe it never did, judging from the gigantic non-response my commment got. I guess all this joking around about "red states" just came out of nowhere, it's just a riff Adam Felber and Teresa invented in order to piss adamsj off. No history here! And remember, right-wingers can write and say anything whatsoever, no matter how vile, but the moment Teresa is less than perfectly fair, it's time to bang on the table and order her to "kiss your ass". Nice.
Scalzi writes: "And most of all, it requires progressives get that stick out of their ass and accept the fact that just because you went to college and got that edumacation don't make you better than no one else." Yeah, that's definitely Teresa's and my problem, the way we feel superior due to our big old college educations.
People in New York City can go months without talking to genuine conservative...
Not in my situation, I can assure you. I'm surrounded by them.
Let us posit and acknowledge that much of the reddening of the heartland is not only the creeping clutches of conservatism, but also progressive abandonment, both in body by moving away, and in spirit through condescension. That's not going to solved by tossing a few books and trying to make the locals *get* that they should be voting Democratic. It's going to take a lot more than that. As I said. it's a long term project.
What is your opinion of ginny's ideas up the page? I completely take your point that a bunch of NYC or LA Liberals can't sweep into your county and Bless the Locals with their presence. But what about those of us in blue states sending money or some other sort of aid through the Democratic Party to people like you in your community and you get to decide how best to use the funds to change feelings about Voting Democratic? I love her ideas about working with rural and semi-rural communities. I do think it might address what I'm rather dumbly calling the Church Gap.
And just as a point of personal privilege, you are the one who first said people *should* be voting Democratic...
...many a NASCAR fan here in my little town who dearly should vote democratic...
I meant it in the sense you meant it; not that they should listen to me because I know better.
Michael Weholt writes:
"And just as a point of personal privilege, you are the one who first said people *should* be voting Democratic..."
The issue isn't the word "should," really. The issue is "Getting these people to see."
Re: Sending money -- Dunno. It would have to be done in a very low-key fashion, I suspect, over a reasonably long period of time. One would not want to look as if one is obviously trying to buy votes.
Tiercel -
It's just that I know a lot of people who spent the entire pre-election period sitting around arguing with friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors, getting called ugly names and having their opinions dismissed outright...
Oh, I don't even bother with the conservatives that surround me. I actually don't think that sort of thing is of much help. Or, at least, not as of much help as we need at the moment.
What do you think of ginny's ideas up the page? I really think we have to give people a better idea of the values we share with them so that they can see us as people as opposed to the cartoons we are painted as. I'm not sure you can argue your neighbors into anything, but you might be able to get them to not see you as left-wing cranks with nothing at all in common with them. Maybe that can be done through the sort of things ginny is talking about.
Jon Stewart of the Daily Show had some funny bits about this same sort of attitude. Something to the effect of:
"I guess those of us in New York, who were the target of the terrorists attacks in 2001 and who also have a large gay population, were too close to the issues to see the truth. And I just wanted to say to the rest of the country, 'Thanks for saving us from ourselves'"
You cna see the show here:
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/
click on the link near:
"Bush wins, Kerry concedes, and that whole democratic process apparently works."
funny stuff.
Patrick, I wasn't addressing Teresa or anyone individually or personally, but the whole lot of you red state blue state let's divide ourselves up so we can have a better fight crowd.
I enjoyed Felber's concession speech, though my wife did not--a reminder to me to blogroll him.
I just think you're being intellectually lazy to perpetuate this red state/blue state garbage. Ohio was 51.02% Bush, Michigan was 51.24% Kerry. That matters for one brief moment of vote counting. With a different campaign strategy on the part of one or both candidates, maybe an unexpectedly open Senate seat, hell, even an early blizzard, that could have flip-flopped, springhead.
It's hard to know when to be like the opposition and when not to be like them. Principle has a lot to do with it. Dividing up ordinary people into black and white--excuse me! I meant, the color of their roses...dammit, red and blue, red and blue-- is not principled. It's like reading Thomas Frank--I'm halfway through One Market Under God, and he's too smart for our own good.
So don't take it personal.
Except maybe that you're better at dishing it out than taking it. Let's see...Michael Bloomberg. The man who turned your city into a police state for the GOP convention. Heh. Heh.
Even our Republicans are better than yours.
Your Governor Rockefeller gave you the nation's most draconian drug laws. Our Governor Rockefeller put Faubus out of office and blacks into the state police.
Al D'Amato. Heh. Heh.
Okay, that was a low blow. I'll quit now.
And very few of the Bush/Benson voters here, had signs out or stickers.
That sort of Republican--the ones who have enough money that they can buy an indulgence for their moral sins--don't do lawn signs. Might ruin the property values, don't you know.
To adamsj:
Wow, a guy goes home to eat dinner and he misses out on all the misplaced self-loathing bloodletting that I thought would be limited to the Democrats actually working in DC.
Look, I live in a red state. Hell, I live in the second reddest state in the union (yes redder than Texas). And I still run into far more passionate, vocal and enthusiastic Democratic supporters here in blood red Idaho then I ever did in true blue Oregon. Wednesday morning I stood across the counter from a Starbucks girl who voted for the first time in her life with passion and commitment and, God bless her, hope. And she tried to hold it back but she was crying.
She is a college freshman, born and raised in Texas, attends church every week. She was crying quietly because somehow someone somewhere showed her the difference between a party of hope and a party of hate. Crying because she believed, because she tried hard in a place where two out of every three people she meets believes that her beliefs make her a traitor and only talk-radio hosts tell the real “truth”.
What can you blue state supporters do for us red state believers? For now, give us some reassuring words from beyond the boundaries of this insanity. We will stand here and give the disappointed and despondent red-state Starbucks girls of the world a shoulder to cry on and an encouraging voice to listen to, but when we go back to our desks and our homes we need someone to perk us up again too.
Don’t like our anger? Anger is a motivator. Anger is a release. Anger helps me see the bandwagon riders and shark jumpers from the real party faithful - from the CAUSE faithful. Am I just some punk idealist in a land of ignorance and fear? I hope so, I truly do.
I live in a state where an incumbent representative (rep. Butch Otter) closed a debate with his female democratic rival with the line “May the best MAN win.” (emphasis his). He not only won his seat handily, he got 70% of the female vote. Sexism isn’t just a reality here, it’s a platform plank.
This red state/blue state crap makes me mad, but not in the same way it does for you. It gives me the anger that I can turn into action. People in my local party didn’t understand my passion for Dr. Dean. They wanted a moderate candidate. They wanted someone who could stand in the middle. They got him and look what it got us. We rolled over again. Dr. Dean’s scream of frustration at a campaign rally wasn’t a collapse; it was the unborn voice of my current rage at American ignorance.
So how about I don’t “tone it down”? How about I stay angry, and I use that anger to stay involved. To stay motivated.
And if you don’t like it how about you kiss my ass?
Oh, I don't even bother with the conservatives that surround me. I actually don't think that sort of thing is of much help. Or, at least, not as of much help as we need at the moment.
Alas, I am forced to agree. We just weren't always given a choice in the matter, you see - or sometimes we just snapped at the dinner table after hearing one too many comments about "them damn liberals that want France to run the country."
I like ginny's ideas a lot in ideological terms, but I do wonder if some folks wouldn't just associate it in with Democrats=big government. Even if it's all based on donations, there's those who'll see it as their tax dollars.
As Mr. Scalzi said above, the more work-related the program is, the better it would probably be received. In other words, if it's a program that helps people do their own work, with vocational training or something like that, they'll see it in a better light.
I think that's why so many of the people in my state don't think of farming subsidies as welfare - the *image* in their minds is of the "welfare queen," laying back and collecting checks while not even looking for a job, whereas they receive subsidies but still have to work pretty hard to make a living. This is, of course, bullshit, but it's hard to overcome that image.
Jimmy Carter may not have been the most effective president we ever had, but he's the only one I know of who volunteered to build houses for people who needed 'em. And his home state looked pretty red Tuesday.
Maybe progressive volunteerism should be our answer to the "morals" charge. Even if it doesn't work, we've done something good, something unifying....
Apologies to Adam's brother, if he has one.
Teresa, not only am I sorry for forgetting it was your brother, but I can sympathize. I have a brother-in-law who's also a dittohead. At a family get-together last month I had to try very hard not to get in any political discussions so as not to ruin a special occasion. (The one time we lapsed, though, I discovered that many of my relatives in Potter County, one of the reddest parts of Pennsylvania, were planning to vote for Kerry, which gave me some hope.)
I also, now, have relatives in Arizona: two of my nieces, their husbands, and their total of four kids, all live in the Phoenix area. These nieces are my brother's daughters, thus an outcropping of the Texas branch of the family. (Talk about having to avoid politics with people I love dearly!)
And, may I note, I also find myself living in a red state: the county I live in went 51% for Bush, and the state 56%.
As for me: on the Bujold mailing list I use as a .sig file the line "I didn't vote for him" (which recurs in some of the Vorkosigan books). I won't be changing it for a while, it seems.
More on the terrorist threat in Pittsburgh here, for those who may want the details.
One threat that the FBI took seriously was a truck-bomb attack on the Federal Courthouse and Post Office building similar to the one in Oklahoma City. Another was an attempt to steal a fuel tanker truck. (Apparently one such truck has been stolen in New Jersey and not yet found.) Information on Pittsburgh area potential targets, such as our many bridges and tunnels, were also said to have been in "a cache of photographs and written descriptions of potential targets" found in Saudi Arabia, and in "a cave in Afghanistan."
Dr. Dean’s scream of frustration at a campaign rally wasn’t a collapse; it was the unborn voice of my current rage at American ignorance.
Um, just to keep the record straight. If you're referring to that silliness they played after Iowa, it wasn't a campaign rally and it wans't a scream of frustration. It was the party after the caucuses and it was the kind of whoop politicians give in the course of rallying their supporters. Only, he had practically no voice left at that point and no control over what he did have.
I know, I was there.
MKK
I'm sorry. In terms of respecting the faith-based nature of red state life and donating stuff to rural libraries, what I feel like doing is bulk shipping them a bunch of Iris Dement albums.
I'll bet some of the librarians would sneak them onto the shelves. And if I were 14 years old and living there, I'd be grateful for the rest of my life.
Eh, Patrick beat me to it -- what PNH said to adamsj, who is hereby cordially invited to kiss my angry blue-state ass, and John Scalzi, to whom ditto but mind the stick don't put an eye out.
My red county & city has three Iris Dement albums already, so you should be sure you're not sending duplicates.
(The librarians used to save the computer sign-in sheets, but now they shred them at the end of the day.)
I would like to thank John Scalzi for what I believe was in no way a personal attack against anyone but a bullseye display of the kind of attitude that the progressive party supporters should work on if the blue are to gain ground in red stater's hearts and minds.
I wish I would have been able to word it this good.
Dems will have a hard time reclaim church from the Reps, and it's art'o'war 101 that you don't let the enemy chose the battlefield if you can avoid it.
Blue states are bringing in the most taxes ? Then there's money in the blue stater's blue pockets, possibly enough to rival the conservative church-monies, the more if those big higher-ed progressive brains focus on using it smartly to make the kind of difference NASCAR fans will find relevant.
[disclaimer: I found Adam Felber's concession speech hilarious, yet also liberating in the way you have to get this "throw it all" impulse out of your system before resuming rational thinking, imnsho.
That's the atheist high-school dropout socio-liberal axis-of-evil country citizen speaking here, so let's move on.]
(OK, I'm a lurker, and I'm not even an American, so that's two counts on which I should probably butt the hell out, but ...)
Felber's blog post is a jape, and a very understandable reaction to the fact that the other side has been, for years, remorselessly calumnizing the urban "blue" parts of the country. Or did nobody notice? As usual, it appears that the moment liberals fire back, even in jest, a certain number of their friends stand ready to dump on them from a great height for being wickedly unfair. --PNH
I know it sucks -- royally -- but you've got to be better than the other side. You've got to rise above the temptation to call them names every bit as horrible as the ones they call you. You've got to be better -- otherwise when you do win it won't mean a thing, 'cos you'll have turned into them. It's the exact same reason Abu Ghraib, Camp X-Ray and the Patriot Act aren't the way to win the "War on Terror" -- the difference is of degree, not kind. Expose their lies, engage them on the issues, but don't resort to their sort of mudslinging. Raise, don't lower, the level of the debate. Be better, 'cos you are.
And I sincerely believe there's cause for hope. To my mind, the key phrase to come out of this election cycle is "reality-based community". That's who was defeated on Tuesday, the entire reality-based community -- the people who turned out and gave the election to Bush are the sort of people who are so disconnected from empirical reality that they think science textbooks should be based on the first book of the Bible, and foreign policy on the last. Sooner or later the reality-based Republicans are going to wake up -- how long will small-government types put up with people who want it big enough to extend into every bedroom in the land? -- and there'll be a showdown within their party. Consider that Arnie, who got to Sacramento on a huge share of the vote, would never have made it onto the ballot if he'd had to go through a Republican primary, 'cos he's *horrors!* pro-choice.
Heck, the cracks are already starting to appear -- look at all the conservative endorsements of Kerry on Shrillblog. If the reality-based wing wins, you can go back to having an opposition with whom you profoundly disagree on almost everything, but can at least respect for, you know, actually living in the real world. And if the disconnected-from-reality side wins, they'll have rendered themselves unelectable for a generation -- unless you piss off the sane group so much that they still think those guys are closer to them than you. You've got to be better.
"Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you. Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
(Richard Nixon said that. Richard F***ing Nixon. I feel like the guys in this week's Doonesbury.)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch my West Wing DVDs on a continuous loop for the next four years, only skipping the credits each time so I can tell myself it's a documentary.
PNH writes:
"Scalzi writes: 'And most of all, it requires progressives get that stick out of their ass and accept the fact that just because you went to college and got that edumacation don't make you better than no one else.' Yeah, that's definitely Teresa's and my problem, the way we feel superior due to our big old college educations."
Patrick, your and Teresa's enthusiastically autodidactorial ways qualify the two of you as college-educated *de facto* if not *de jure.* You walk like a duck, quack like a duck, fly like a duck, and hang out with ducks. You merely don't have the piece of parchment from Duck University.
Re: Sennoma's "kiss my angry blue-state ass" -- well, okay, if it makes you feel better. Hope *you* don't mind kissing red state ass in the next couple of presidential elections. I doubt *that* will make you feel better.
Look, this is a relatively simple issue of psychology. As part of their overall strategy, Republicans exploit the perception the Democrats have a superiority complex in regard to the lower-middle-class and/or rural white Americans, and these people buy into it over and over and over again, in part because their self-image is of being independent and self-reliant and proud of it -- and being just as good as anyone else. You can choose not to address that quirk in their mental makeup, but look at where that got you this last election cycle.
Patrick:
Great rant from adamsj, but it does appear to come from a world in which none of the stuff I talked about here ever happened. Maybe it never did, judging from the gigantic non-response my commment got.
May I suggest that lowering yourself to Rove's level will only alienate your red-state allies?
I'm very close to declaring a pox on both your houses instead of staying involved. A lot of us, the socially liberal but fiscally conservative, were drawn to the left by their supposed belief in tolerance. Without that, what do you have to offer me?
You're angry. I do get it. But don't let that anger lead you to throwing away 40-49% of the population of those red states just because our brothers and sisters and cousins and neighbors didn't vote the way you wanted them to.
Because what's coming across is that you (plural) want to punish us red-staters because we didn't do what you told us to.
If you're going to hate us instead of trying to understand us and our saner, though slightly redder shaded, kin, what exactly is the difference between the parties again?
A friend gave me a link she found on a forum she frequents (where most of her American friends there are talking seriously about joining us up north). It happens to be the selfsame picture from Tiercel's professor.
http://home.comcast.net/~c.seibold/site1018.jpg
With the exception of one, all my south-dwelling friends were very depressed by the results of the election; the one who was pleased wouldn't give me his reasons except that he's privy to more information than most by virtue of several friends currently in active military service in Iraq. He refused to elaborate, but damn, would I ever like to know.
Although I personally would have preferred to see Kerry win, I am genuinely curious as to what Bush's supporters see in him when his methods and reasoning have so often been called into question. While I think that we *should* question our leaders every so often, Bush's flip-flops on several policies are well-documented, and I find certain actions regarding the treatment of American soldiers' physical, mental and financial well-being extremely questionable -- but maybe that's just me, I dunno. I won't even get into what I think of the Iraqi civilian casualties; Riverbend stated it clearly enough when she said, "100,000 deaths in a year and a half, and the number is rising. Keep Bush another four years and we just might hit the half-million mark..." Mind you, she wrote that November 1, and is just as disappointed at the results, if not more, as some here have already expressed, though I'm significantly less bitter than she (and selfishly glad I thus far cannot empathize with her position).
I'm might have mentioned this before, but Durham, where I live, is a BLUE city. 70% voted for Kerry. Of course, North Carolina went red for the Presidential and Senate race, but nearly everybody else voted in was a Dem. Which tweaks my brain. Is it cognitive dissonance? I haven't been here very long--only a yearish, so long enough to vote--but the politics here are teh_WEIRD. The Dems in office do seem to be more conservative than their counterparts elsewhere (although not in the rest of the South).
I honestly think there's more we could do here that would make a difference. Greater outreach to the Hispanic community here, which tends to get overlooked a bit. As somebody mentioned upthread, getting involved in school board elections at a local level, and letting the local officials know about the progressive element. I worry that my talk is cheap and I'll become a graduate of Sgt. Colon's School of Wot Some Bloke In A Pub Said. (Not the precise terminology, but you get the idea.) I can think of a lot of things I DIDN'T do, and I feel guilty somehow. (My very Red-State parents raised me to be politically active--I just don't think they realized they were raising a potential Democrat when they did so.)
I'm pissed about the election, sure, but I don't have anything to say that 800 other people haven't said better.
I just wanted to say how sweet it is to see Patrick jump in and be fierce on Teresa's behalf. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside and I need that right now. Warm and fuzzy beats rage any day.
When posting online, remember this cautionary tale.
Consider that while it may be a mistake to say "Things get worse before they get better," then go out to make things worse so that things will get better, it's true that things are probably going to get a whole lot worse, real soon now.
With any kind of luck things will get better later on. Reality has a way of always winning.
Here's what John Belisarius has to say about the election and its aftermath:
The true scope, the genuinely impressive magnitude of the Democrats' success this year can be expressed in a single sentence: In 2004 the Dems accomplished in 8 months what it took the Goldwater-Reagan conservative movement over a decade to achieve.Last December, the Democratic party was internally divided, unsure about its message, uncertain how to talk about war and foreign affairs, financially dependent on donations from corporations and affluent donors and only beginning to build a grass-roots voter mobilization campaign. There was great anger and energy among the party's core supporters, but it seemed extremely unlikely that the party as a whole would be able to agree upon a message, unite around a candidate and mount a serious challenge to a personally popular wartime president whose approval ratings hovered close to 60%.
Yet, by the time John Kerry addressed the Democratic convention in July, he was leading a political party that had become firmly united, was supported by new and powerful grass-roots mechanisms for fund raising and internet organizing (pioneered by Howard Dean and his supporters) and which was building a new voter mobilization network that was reconnecting the party with its political base.
I know it hurts to lose. I got my clock cleaned the time I ran for office, and I've only managed to actively support one winner since then. No, wait--two winners, but one of them was a poor little Greenie who left town in the middle of a four-year term on the city council to follow his girlfriend to San Francisco. I'm still waiting for a refund of my generous campaign contribution.
But you know what? Winning is the most important thing, but it's not the only thing.
This election was a loss, but this campaign was a win. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Can we have a reality check here? I agree that the "red state" / "blue state" dichotomy is mostly a granfalloon. So does Teresa. I've made very similar points on many occasions. So has Teresa. I'm not an affluent, college-educated Northeasterner; I'm a high-school dropout who was born in Michigan and raised all over the country. The largest part of my childhood was spent in Arizona. John Scalzi can assert all he likes that I deserve to be as resented as any Ivy League graduate, but the fact remains that no matter how well I've done with my life in spite of no educational credentials, there are all kinds of doors closed to me because of that fact. Oddly enough, being told I deserve to be resented for privileges I don't have makes me soggy and hard to light.
Yes, this is an emotional issue for many of you. All I've been trying to get across is that other people have emotions, too. There are some excellent points to be made about the inadvisability of buying into the "red state" / "blue state" thing. There's also a lot to be said for cutting one another some slack. I'm increasingly unhappy with the tenor of this thread because some of you seem to be using a pretty damn innocent post from Teresa as the occasion for talking to her as if she was some kind of arch coastal elitist who'd never shown any evidence of knowing a thing about America between Park Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. Meanwhile, Michael Weholt does his level best to ask useful questions about how this perceived social chasm (granfalloon or not) might be bridged, and for that he gets to watch himself used as a target, his language held up as the source of the problem. Michael Weholt's language isn't the source of the problem. The fact that powerful people depend on keeping us at one another's throats is the damn source of the problem.
I hear and sympathize with the angst of the non-Bush-supporting red-state people in this thread. Cripes, how do you think (for instance) Teresa feels when some of you generalize about what "Christians" think? May I please suggest that before anyone issue further invitations to kiss any other asses, that we take a look at who we're talking to and remind ourselves of the history of what they've said in the past? For crying out loud.
(No, I don't hold up my own prior behavior in this thread as any moral example.)
Two comments, marred by my imability to quote:
pnh: It's totally unfair to describe the leech states as "disease spreading." Like the cannibalism thing and the child abandonment thing, this is a case where a few bad apples undermining public health systems give the rest of their ilk and fellow travellers a bad name. Most Reds will never taste manflesh despite the example of Packer, Newt is not the model of fatherhood most Reds use and any disease spreading by most Reds is merely an accident of poor sex education and a feeble public health system.
Also, Adam Y*sh*da, much as I hate to admit it, and I really really do hate to admit it,is Canadian, born and bred. He would make an excellent Red, though, since he is quite fond of ideologically inspired porkies, like his claim, back when he was a teen, to be making a six figure salary so that he could complain about the taxes he was paying. Only he wasn't and he didn't. Adam would like to join the armed forces as an officer or says he would, despite resisting all attempts to help him with this goal, and I know a number of us will be running a pool on just how long it takes him to get fragged by his men. I am in for two weeks.
Dang, Patrick, that's a great post. I for one am genuinely sorry if I've managed to cause you or Teresa or any of the other good-hearted people here any pain. My behavior hasn't been exemplary either.
What you say here:
Yes, this is an emotional issue for many of you. All I've been trying to get across is that other people have emotions, too.is what I should have been saying.
I think we've found common ground. True?
Well, fair enough, adamsj.
Let me just say something I should have said earlier. It seemed to me that when Teresa prefaced the Felber quote by saying:
If “constructive” is a euphemism for “makes me feel better,” Adam Felber’s concession speech is constructive as all get-out--she was wryly acknowledging that Felber's jape was less than perfectly constructive. That being the case, it was kind of startling to see the post used as an occasion for diatribes about the unfairness of stereotyping all "red state" inhabitants as poltroons. I felt as if Teresa was getting zero credit for having given lots of prior evidence that she knows this. Okay, rant mode off.
John Scalzi -
Look, this is a relatively simple issue of psychology. As part of their overall strategy, Republicans exploit the perception the Democrats have a superiority complex in regard to the lower-middle-class and/or rural white Americans, and these people buy into it over and over and over again, in part because their self-image is of being independent and self-reliant and proud of it -- and being just as good as anyone else. You can choose not to address that quirk in their mental makeup, but look at where that got you this last election cycle.
Well, I'll take one more stab at all of this, and then bail on the subject in here. I don't want to turn Teresa's comments section into my personal platform. (Hey... maybe I should get a blog... like the world needs one *more* of those...)
OK, it seems to me that the question sort of goes this way, can the red states be turned or can't they? If, in the judgment of the local red state progressives they can't be turned, then we have to just accept that. We have to accept that the image of progressives in the minds of the majority red staters is and always be, you know, that we are a bunch of Barbara Streisands and Alec Baldwins. There's no point in talking about any of this.
If, however, in the judgment of the red state progressives, there *are* things that can be done, beyond getting into pointless arguments at family gatherings, or driving widely dispersed Demos to the polls on election day, then what are those things?
You have to tell us. I fully understand and sympathize with the notion that blue staters are in no position to tell red stater progressives how they should proceed. I fully grasp and accept that you know what's best in your local communities. So, you know, what can you do practically?
There's a reason that unions, back in the day, became such a powerful weapon in the Democratic Party's arsenal. They were organizations that helped people in their daily, down-to-earth lives, and they were associated and supported and advanced by the Democratic Party. The face-to-face, people-to-people, neighbor-to-neighbor politics of that made it possible for the unions to overcome the way they were portrayed by the power structure ("Bolsheviks! Anarchists!").
They were to progressives back then what the evangelical churches are to the conservatives today.
Unions weren't Welfare Queen Support Groups. They were groups that addressed the question of how a progressive agenda could actually change people's lives... how it could help your neighbors improve their own lives.
That's the sort of progressive political/social infrastructure that has to be built from the ground up in order to overcome this absurd notion that is sold to people about What A Democrat Is Like.
I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do. I'm not trying to tell anybody how they went wrong. I'm not trying to pass judgment from afar. I'm not saying you should do anything except to maybe think about the notion and see if there is anything that works for you in your local community.
You're the people who can change the image of progressives in the red states. I'll stand by to help you in any way I can, from here in my blue-state enclave, if you will only tell me how.
I don't need to be told I don't understand your problems, or the difficulties a blue heart must face by living in a red state. I know it is difficult. If you want my help, I'm ready to give it, but you are the ones who have to come up with the ideas. It takes more than pre-election politicking, it seems to me, but maybe I'm wrong. That just seems obvious to me, but, hey, tell me if I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong, what's the right approach?
I refuse to believe that there is nothing that red state progressives can do. I mean, if there *isn't* anything you can do to reach your neighbors, then doesn't that mean the Republicans are completely justified in making their assertion that *they* are the ones who best represent the real interests of your local community?
Are they right about that? Do you agree with them? Why aren't you one of them, then?
Mr. Scalzi: Let us posit and acknowledge that much of the reddening of the heartland is not only the creeping clutches of conservatism, but also progressive abandonment, both in body by moving away, and in spirit through condescension.
Okay, agreed. But we can also frame that as, "these are areas that make it intolerable for progressives to live there." How does a gay man run for school board in an area where "homosexual" is a synonym for "child molester"? How does a Jewish woman get elected in an area where people still believe there's a secret Jewish cabal that controls world finance? Jeez,
Comments on Glad to hear it: