Why People Vote Republican

[Prophet 451]

Crossposted at suggestion of another poster:

Firstly, remember that 19% of the US population thinks the sun orbits the earth. A fifth of the electorate are dumb as dirt, in other words.

Then you have to allow for a media that is, on the whole, right-wing. Contrary to the mantra that the public have been brainwashed into believing, all US media (outside of three hours on MSNBC in the evenings) tilts right to a greater or lesser degree. And that's a direct result of the fact that almost all broadcast media is owned by a small number of corporations and corporations tend to be conservative.

That's important for two reasons. Firstly, the human mind is incredibly susceptible to repetition. Hear it often enough and you will believe virtually anything (and I do mean anything). The RW media acts as an echo chamber that constantly reinforces the Republican message and doesn't call out Republican's outright lies. Secondly is the phenomenon known as "incestuous amplification". What that means is that, when you keep people getting their information from sources which agree with them, their beliefs tend to get more extreme. Take a few guys who think W was an ok president, lock them in a room for a while and they'll come out thinking that W was the best president ever, the sun shone again on his watch and he should be on Mount Rushmore (and yes, this has already happened with Reagan).

Media is also what shapes your ingroup and outgroup. Put simply, your ingroup are people like you or who you aspire to be and your outgroup is everyone else. All of you automatically and unconsciously discriminate in favour of our ingroup and against our outgroup. That's automatic, happens even in the very young and has been shown to operate even when the assignments to groups is explicitly random. Through the corporate media have trained people to always kick downward when they are dissatisfied. Trained them to resent the poor shmuck on welfare, not the corporate suit making millions (and that's in addition to the fact that I have never known a country that hates it's poor like the USA).

The rural population also identifies Democrats with cities, with hated elites, with minorities, with the modernity they hate and fear. Obama caught hell for saying that the rural people, scared of a changing world, cling to their flag, guns and religion but he was entirely right. They also identify Democrats with abortion. In the western world, abortion is only an issue in the US and Ireland and Ireland is virtually a theocracy. Consider also that the USA is one of the few countries where being intellectual is widely considered something to be hated and resented. Egg-headed elites who think they're better than us shitkickers. Education and intellectual achievement are not only not admired but actively resented.

People used to tell me that the USA was a classless society. That was bollocks. The USA is even more classist than my own UK, it's just that your classes are trained to only hate those on the rung below them. So the people on welfare are despised most of all. The average citizen has been trained to regard every cent spent on welfare as a dollar stolen from him personally. And the USA venerates greed. Only in the USA is libertarianism, a philosophy which boils down to "people should starve rather than taxes supporting them", still a thing. Only in the USA and UK do people still think of poverty as a moral issue, that the poor are poor not through teh vagaries of the employment market or increasing company consolidation or even just because the capitalist system requires winners and losers and requires a certain level of unemployment to keep wages down. In the US and UK, the unemployed are blamed for their own poverty. The PtB still think in Dickensian terms of the "undeserving poor", that the poor are poor because they drink or do drugs or "don't have the habit of work" (our demonically evil DWP minister).

Consider also the cognitive bias that means if we hold a wrong belief, not only will we resist correction, we will hold the belief even more strongly and resent those who tried correcting us. When your Republican brother-in-law sends you some chain email about how terrible Democrats are and you mail back a correction, he doesn't change his beliefs. He holds them even more strongly and resents you for trying to correct them. Maybe you should skip Thanksgiving this year.

Consider that fundamentalism, a theology that, in Weird Al's words "I'll be laughing my head off, as you're burning in hell", a theology that essentially exists simply as a revenge fantasy that promises everyone the believer dislikes will burn, is a powerful political force and Republicanity is now the dominant Republican faith. Republianity is a mixture of lip service to Jesus (while jettisoning virtually everything he actually taught), Nieztchian will-to-power, Randian beliefs to justify psychotic anti-tax zealotry, Nazi-level nationalism and worship of the military and Rapture beliefs that were invented wholesale out of a few twisted-from-context Bible verses about a century ago. It has it's own high priests (Pat Robertson, Limbaugh, Beck), it's own messiah figure (Reagan), it's own devil figure (Obama although really, it's whoever the most high-profile liberal of the time is), it's own designated scapegoats (liberals) and it's own versions of history, economics, psychology, theology and jurisprudence. And a lot of your countrymen have been brainwashed to believe that fictional view of the world. They even have a museum and "university" to promote that faith.

In addition, the US still have a race problem. A big one. African-Americans are arrested and imprisoned at vastly disproportionate rates. And the response in much of the USA to that is not to suggest that there is something deeply wrong with the way law enforcement is doing things but to think that African-Americans are disproportionately likely to be criminals and that criminality is not attributable to their environment (such as poverty, the single most reliable indicator of criminality) but to something about black people in themselves. This is an example of what's called the "fundamental attribution error", a psychological bias that says, when we do something wrong, we will attribute it to outside factors but when someone else does something wrong, we will attribute it to them as a person.

Finally, the Southern US still votes Republican almost as a block. And in much of the Southern US, the education is almost laughable, includes much "USA, best country in the history of ever!" triumphalism and the Civil War is still viewed as the "war of Northern Aggression" and it totally wasn't about slavery, dammit!

It is not difficult to manipulate humans. Humans are instinctively obedient, Milgram proved that. Humans are instinctively conformist. Asche proved that. Keep the lie simple enough, repeat it often enough and people will believe it. Hitler proved that.

[merrily]

1. Big issue: Republicans convinced people that "Democrats are the party of tax and spend."

All the tax increases Reagan signed did not change that because many people operate fact-free. "Truthy" suffices.

If people do not think government is functioning well and govenment is not helping the 90%, they will vote for the party they believe will cost them less.

Also, Republicans convinced people that Democrats are lewd and lascivious, haters of America and the party of abortion while Republicans are the party of "family values," patriotism and "life." Again, "truthy" suffices.



Apropos of nothing, except it made me laugh: Eyes not fully open yet saw "composted at the suggestion of another poster."

[Prophet 451]

25. Compost would likely be more useful

Compost helps stuff grow, my writings just frustrate people.

I forgot to include taxes. And Americans are fucking insane about taxes.

[merrily]

39. No, stop that right now. It's a great post.

[daleanime]

45. That's the first time that I......

disagreed with you.

Those you get frustrated need to be frustrated.






Oh and a big K&R!

[Prophet 451]

46. Thank you very much

[Warpy]

123. They should be.

Taxes on people who work for a living are at a high point because of all the niggling little regressive taxes conservatives have passed for years. After all, until just recently, we were still paying phone taxes for the Spanish-American War.

One thing I would like to enshrine as a constitutional amendment is progressive taxation, indexed to inflation/deflation, and a ban on regressive taxation that hits the poorest of us the hardest.

[randys1]

103. Sspeaking of that idiot Reagan, new sitcom on AMAZON "Alpha House"-John Goodman

had scene where the repubs are at conference and the Reagan impersonator Jim Morris I think his name is comes in and does Reagan, says the things he said about the environment and war and of course all the cons booed...

Fucking classic

[merrily]

106. FDR was elected four, count 'em, four times. And then Truman was elected after serving out almost a

full term of FDR's. An entire generation of Democrats in the Oval Office. Yes, Eisenhower won two terms after that, but, geez, he was a World War II hero.

Meanwhile, the New Deal and the Fair Deal gave Congress to Democrats again and again. So, the left was a formidable force then. We have to remember that when we wax nostalgic about how left-ish the likes of Nixon and Reagan seem in the rear view mirror. Just like any politicians, they did what they thought they had to do to get elected.

Besides, Reagan excelled at talking out of both sides of his mouth to feather his own nest. (How's that for mixing metaphors? When Hollywood looked all left, he was not only a garden-variety Democrat, but head of the actors' union and a strong campaigner for Democrats. When Joe McCarthy put an electric rod up Jack Warner's ass, Reagan turned, practically on a dime. No principles, other than what's good for Ronnie is good for Ronnie.

Campaigning for Truman--and against Republicans in Congress.

[randys1]

108. Too bad he he had to commit treason to be elected prez

[merrily]

110. That was by far not the only reason he got elected, IMO, but he was certainly willing to do whatever

he thought it might take to get elected.

[Bortman33]

2. Why Sheeple Vote rethugliCON

might have been a better title line.

[Prophet 451]

26. I dislike the term "sheeple"

Firstly, because it underestimates how easy it is to be programmed and how difficult it is to break programming. Secondly, because it so often comes attached to some statement of barking insanity, "The Nazis have a moonbase and they've cloned Hitler! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!".

[bmac19gg]

3. i enjoyed reading your post

But I have to say that some points could be mirrored under the topic "why people vote Democrat". Media, geography, cognitive bias, racial motivated issues, etc. And your last paragraph is especially precise and applies to nearly all persons not just Republican voters.

As I said did enjoy reading your post and you should consider writing that "why people vote Democrat" as well. The real test will be in seeing if you are as honest in that case as you have been here in this one. PM me if you do I'd hate to miss it.

[The Wizard]

8. Both sides do it,

really?

[Scuba]

9. People vote Democrat because of the media? Really? Please elaborate.

[WinkyDink]

13. The word is "Democratic"; to use "Democrat" as an adjective is to be puerile.

[merrily]

18. I think it's being used as an adverb in his/her post, but I agree it sd be "Democratic."

[merrily]

19. How much did you mean to tell us about yourself?

[drm604]

53. Seriously.

It always cracks me up that, not matter how hard they're trying to come off as reasonable and objective, they always give themselves away by referring to the "Democrat Party" or to people "voting Democrat". It's like they can't help themselves.

[merrily]

69. ....

As I said did enjoy reading your post and you should consider writing that "why people vote Democrat" as well. The real test will be in seeing if you are as honest in that case as you have been here in this one.

A real test of what? And why should anyone on a board named "Democratic Underground," whose TOS include "Vote Democratic" be considered dishonest if he does not write a post insulting people who vote Democratic?

Yes, "Vote Democrat" is a tell, but not the only one in that post. I don't think any Democrat would have written it.

[drm604]

77. I don't disagree.

My point isn't the he was trying to pose as a Democrat, he obviously wasn't. My point was that he was trying to pose as reasonable and fair minded, but then used the juvenile game of misspelling the name of the party.

What gets me about the whole "Democrat" nonsense is that they think it makes us mad when actually, we just shake our heads at the immaturity and stupidity of it (at least I do).

[merrily]

82. If s/he is posting on Democratic Underground and is not a Democrat, then s/he is trying to pose

as a Democrat. This board is for Democrats only.

[Capt. Obvious]

89. You know you don't just have to be a pretend bouncer of this place

you can sign up for the real job here

[merrily]

90. You want free speech for Republicans, but keep trying to shut me up?

If I were acting like a pretend bouncer, I'd be posting directly to the poster whom I question, not to dmr, who started a conversation with me. You know....like your posting directly to me, trying to shut me up, like a pretend bouncer would. But thanks for your, er, whatever. And for the ironic post. I always enjoy irony.

[Capt. Obvious]

92. I'm just making a helpful suggestion

You're all over this thread acting like the site's bouncer. I gave you a link to apply for the job of being bouncer so you no longer have to pretend to be the bouncer.

As for your false statement of my intention to shut you up, I'll await your apology.

[merrily]

93. And you're not all over this thread, making sure no one interferes with bmac's "right" to imply the

OP is dishonest unless he criticizes those who vote Democratic on a board that is for Democrats only?

How many years are you prepared to wait for my apology?

[Capt. Obvious]

99. Apology accepted

Your latest false statement about me in this post I'll chalk up to your misdirected anger.

[Skittles]

158. let's just say it: dumb a fence posts

[Prophet 451]

21. Some points would be the same

But also, some would not. Yes, the same cognitive biases toward obedience and conformity apply but to a lesser degree. Conservatism, by it's very nature, seeks to uphold tradition which, again by definition, creates a tendancy toward conformity. Liberalism, as an ideology which seeks to tear down (or at least modify) tradition, doesn't exploit the same kind of bias toward conformity. Now, one could make an argument that liberalism suffers from a tendancy toward change for it's own sake and that has certainly been true in the past (the Sixties and Seventies especially).

The passage on Republianity applies almost exclusively to Republicans (hence the name). While there is also a long tradition of religions supporting liberal causes (for example, Rev Martin Luther King or, more radically, the now-infamous Rev Wright), in modern times, liberals have tended to stay away from explicit religious entreaties (although there are certainly exceptions). Likewise, as Christianity in the US has become more fundamentalist and influenced by fundamentalism, the perception of the church has drifted to the right. Pat Robertson has his own tv channel. Al Sharpton does not. The preachers deliberately violating their tax exempt status by directly speaking on political issues are almost entirely those on the right.

Geography, yes, that affects both sides. Urban dwellers, being much more likely to live in racially mixed communities, to know gay people and to embrace modernity, are much more likely to vote Democratic.

Racial issues would be in both essays although, again, for different reasons. Democrats are more likely to be sympathetic to racial issues. They weren't always, of course. There was a time when Republicans were by far the more racially tolerant party. But when the Dixiecrats fled the Democratic party after integration, they settled mainly in the Republican party and have heavily influenced that parties direction. Democrats, by contrast, have become more racially tolerant in recent times. Are there still racists in the party or who vote Democratic? Absolutely and only a fool would deny that. Are the Republicans willing to accept black people who allign themselves to the party? Certainly. But Birtherism, which was entirely racist in nature, is a phenomenon of the right and one doesn't need to look very far to find coded or explicit racial messages coming from the right. Think of the numerous times you've heard Republicans bewail "welfare queens" and how the social construction of those on welfare is almost always of a black person. In addition, the conversation about race in America is, at least partly, a conversation about poverty and criminality. Black people are vastly more likely to live in poverty and poverty is the most reliable indicator of criminality (put simply, people on the edge are desperate and have little to lose). And how many times have you heard right-wingers complain about "political correctness" or "white guilt", phrases that have only ever meant "I should be free to be an asshole/racist without anyone calling me on it".

Media, again, s almost entirely an issue that applies to right-wingers because the overwhelming majority of US media tilts right to a greater or lesser degree. Again, the media is corporate and corporations lean conservative for the fairly simple reason that they don't want to pay taxes (and America is fucking insane about taxes). The degree of tilt varies between slight (MSNBC which has three hours of liberal hosts but Scarbrough for three hours every morning and he's further to the right than any of them are to the left) to the centre-right (CNN) to just being a mouthpiece for the RNC (Fox). While the tendancy toward incestous amplification still applies to liberals, liberals tend to make an effort to view many different news sources while conservatives stick to a few that agree with them. When surveyed, Pew found that liberals trusted 28 out of 36 news sources which were a mixture of liberal and moderate sources. Conservatives, by contrast, trusted only eight, almost all of them strongly right-wing except the Wall Street Journal (which has straight reporting in the main but whose op-ed page is notoriously only just short of fascism) and 47% rated Fox as their main news source. Fox is, of course, so far to the right as to be virtual secessionists and so distorted that it repeatedly and provably lies to it's viewers every day. Local radio came second at only 11% (Link. The Tea Party, in particular, was entirely a Fox creation, promoted very hard by the utterly delusional Glenn Beck.

If I speak about Republicans and their thoughts, that's largely because this is a liberal site, I'm a liberal and there's a much stronger body of research to draw on, such as Altemeyer's work on authoritarianism (Outside of economics departments, which tend to be very right-wing, academia really does lean left although nowhere near as strongly as conservatives believe). Dissecting liberal thought processes would mean dissecting my own which, counter-intuitively, is more difficult than observing those of others (because most of our biases are unconscious. I might do it, I might not. I don't pretend to be fair and balanced, part of what has ruined media is chasing after false balance. Balance is presenting a documentary about the Holocaust but devoting equal time to Holocaust deniers. Reality is not balanced. It has, after all, a well-known liberal bias.

[bmac19gg]

155. well done, thanks for taking the time

I posed the question to get exactly this type of answer. Because these days I personally see so many people convinced that the reason to vote for Candidates of the United States Democratic Party ( did I do it right ) is because "we're smart and they're dumb". We want people engaged and knowledgeable and I think becoming complacent and dismissive of everybody else is a step backwards.

I see a great deal of posts directed at, or because of, me so I'll use this post to respond. I'm not a Republican but have twice in my life voted in local elections for Republicans because of perfectly valid reasons. I do vote Democrat both locally and nationally. My current election of interest is Florida's gubernatorial election but to be honestly I'm not yet sure Charlie Crist will get my vote because he hasn't been as strong on Florida environmental issues as he promised he would be. I often use the word "Democrat" and while it might not be grammatically correct I don't use it pejoratively and I think harping on that is a little on the silly side.

[TBF]

27. ....

[Capt. Obvious]

47. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Oct 27, 2014, 08:32 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

i enjoyed reading your post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5720726

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Compares loyal Democrats making an intelligent choice to filthy rethuglicon sheeple.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 27, 2014, 08:44 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is one of the most dishonest and idiotic alerts I've ever juried.

Shame on you alerter.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I didn't see him make that comparison at all. leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Vote Democrat?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Many so called Democrats on DU do not make intelligent choices, they just choose the (D). Sheeple come in many varieties not just Republican. The poster was very well mannered unlike the one that alerted. Why do you want a jury to intervene? Can't figure out how to debate the poster yourself?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[drm604]

54. That's a good jury decision.

The post really doesn't violate any rules. I don't like it or agree with it, and the "vote Democrat" idiocy does get tiresome, but that's not reason enough to hide it.

[Prophet 451]

56. Not sure yet

The poster has only been around for two days and has about 65 posts. The way his post was phrased makes me wonder if he's a right-wing troll ("both sides do it&quot but I hope to be wrong.

[merrily]

57. Do you think the poster votes for Democratic candidates?

That's part of this board's terms of service.

By registering a Democratic Underground account, you agree to abide by these terms. A single violation of any of these terms could result in your posting privileges being revoked without warning.

The Democratic Underground Administrators have a great deal of confidence in our system of citizen jurors and software tools, but we are well aware that trolls are constantly on the lookout for new ways to cause trouble and therefore on rare occasions it may necessary for us to revoke a member's posting privileges for reasons that are not covered by these Terms of Service. Because of this necessity, we retain the right to revoke any member's posting privileges at any time for any reason.
Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.


Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

I didn't alert because I've noted that juries now are likelier to bash the alerter than anything else. But I don't think this poster accepted this board's terms of service, either.

Things like "Democrat" used as an adjective or an adverb are the very kinds of things we are supposed to be free from on this board.

[drm604]

59. The post didn't actually advocate against voting for Democrats.

We can't hide posts simply because we disagree with them. The question is whether or not there's a rules violation. Posters, including me, responded and pointed out the problems in his thinking, and his use of "Democrat". That should be sufficient. Publicly disagreeing and pointing out the errors is, in many cases, superior to censorship. Free speech is a Democratic value and we should always err on the side of it. We're not Free Republic and we shouldn't act like them. Let's show them by example that we're better.

[merrily]

60. The TOS say "Vote for Democrats," not only "Don't actually advocate against voting for Democrats."

Do you think the poster will be voting Democratic in November?

The TOS also say this is a board for liberals.

You don't have to be Free Republic to want a board that is only for Democrats. There are many boards that welcome Republicans, from Conservative Underground to Discussionist. This doesn't have to be one of them and was not set up to be one of them.

[drm604]

63. This is not something I want to argue about.

There are more important things to discuss.

[merrily]

64. Then don't.

[Capt. Obvious]

66. I'm sorry your alert failed

[merrily]

71. I didn't alert and you're not sorry. You fit two false statements into five words. Kudos?

[Capt. Obvious]

78. Here's another totally sincere hugging emoticon

because I care.

[ieoeja]

95. Blatant Republican does not get hidden. Proof postive this site has been taken over. n/t

[bettyellen]

148. the Libertarians here took over moderation a looong time ago.

and this crap is what we get. I have a feeling this one's flameout is going to be hilarious though.

[bigwillq]

143. Love Juror #7's response.

[bettyellen]

147. LOL!

[HERVEPA]

149. Take a hike son, take a hike.

[BillZBubb]

152. It's nice to get feedback from republicans on issues like this!

BTW, "vote Democrat" is a huge tell...

[Enthusiast]

4. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

This article sums it up. It is precisely correct.

[Prophet 451]

28. Thank you, sir

Or Ma'am. Or neuter. Or some alien third gender.

[Enthusiast]

38. Male and hetero all the way. Not that there's anything wrong with the alternative.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[ctsnowman]

5. Great post.

[Prophet 451]

29. Thank you n/t

[The Wizard]

6. What we are experiencing

is the fruit of Reagan's deliberate dumbing down. When ignorance is a virtue, the fall is imminent. People voted for W because they thought he would be a good drinking buddy. Roman Empire, you're about to get some company.

[Prophet 451]

23. All empires fall eventually

It's the nature of empires to over-extend themselves. The trick, which none have mastered, is to see it coming and prepare accordingly. I would suggest what you're seeing now is what might be termed the "pre-revolution" period. What happens is that the plebs rebel, demanding fair wages and some protections for their labour. The terrified elite gives them those protections (albeit, always watered down somewhat). Then people go back to work and the world keeps turning. Over time, the people who saw the crash and revolution gradually die off and another generation of the elite comes along who think the world should belong to them and they set about corrupting the levers of power, shrinking wages and eroding worker protections, hording more and more wealth until finally, the bubble bursts, the people get fed up and they have a revolution (sometimes violent but not necessarily).

All of this has happened before an all of it will happen again. Look throughout history and you will find the exact same pattern: More wealth and power flows to the top -> the people get sick of it and revolt -> the elite gets it's power curtailed -> the people go back to work -> the elite sets about undoing all the protections. Just before the Wall St Crash, the same old theories about it being good that money was concentrated at the top were being propogated, the same hatred of teh poor was widespread. Then came the crash and some safeguards were put in place. But, just when the people who remembered the Crash and the Depression started dying off in numbers, those same theories came back into fashion and the same thing happened. The Reagan "Revolution" (which was really a counter-revolution) swept into power, knocking out those safeguards (although some blame must also go to Clinton for his shameful gutting of welfare).

What concerns me is the possibility that, this time, the plebs have been so brainwashed and placated by mind-numbing pablum, that they will never speak out. Television, and it's worship of the "average joe" (who is not average at all, tv tending toward the lowest common denominator), it's power to shape opinion, may have the people too brainwashed and placated to stand up for themselves. I'm not a snob (you simply cannot be both a snob and a wrestling fan) and the best tv has an ability to stir the heart and mind but most people aren't watching the best of tv. They're watching American Idol or Jeremy Kyle (think a British, shouting, classist, judgmental and moralistic Jerry Springer; my SO likes his show, I think he's probably the Antichrist). TV's power to educate and inform has been mostly forgotten in the pursuit of ratings (the BBC, which doesn't need to chase ratings because it's publicly funded, has informing and educating the people written into it's charter). The TV tells the plebs to kick downward, that America is the best country in the world and it's their own fault if they don't make a million.

[KingCharlemagne]

61. At least when the Roman Empire fell, it left the world some great traditions and artifacts. The

fall of the American Empire will leave what? Laverne and Shirley and the Golden Arches? (Well, we did manage to produce Abraham Lincoln and FDR

[Prophet 451]

67. Oh, you've contributed more to civilization than that

I know I've spent a lot of time here bashing Americans but your country also has much to be proud of. Lincoln and FDR are a good start but you could also add jazz, western movies, superhero comics (before you dismiss them, Watchmen), Hemmingway, Asimov, Sinclair, Bradbury and Steinbeck among many others. I have a particular fondness for Springsteen, myself.

[KingCharlemagne]

72. Clint Eastwood ended the genre of the Western with 'Unforgiven' (imo). But, yeah, I

forgot jazz. And I'll grant you Hemingway and Steinbeck too! Whew, good to know this 200-year-old experiment in self-government wasn't all for naught!

[Inkfreak]

105. You didn't like Unforgiven?

Don't mean to derail the thread, just curious. I thought it was fantastic and there haven't been it of good ones since. If that's what you meant, apologies.

Appaloosa
Broken Trail
Open Range

3 of the best ones since Unforgivem, imo.

[KingCharlemagne]

107. No, i was positively floored by "Unforgiven," so much so that I turned to my wife and said, "No one

wil ever be able to make a serious Western after this. The genre is officially dead." I was using hyperbole, but when that young man turns to Eastwood and says something like "I don't want to kill no more" that put the stake right through the heart of the Western as a genre.

I also thought Sean Penn's The Pledge did the same for the genre of the Police Procedural, but I think I was wrong on that, as Sean Penn subsequently appeared in Mystic River and re-established the genre somewhat. BTW, The Pledge is an awesome film, based on short little novella by Durrenmatt.

Sorry I wasn't clearer in my first pass.

[Inkfreak]

112. We're on the same page then!

The movie was phenomenal. Just curious what your thoughts were. And now I'm off to find The Pledge. I've never seen it & am very curious now. And btw, Mystic River is a must watch every time I see it on Tv. Riveting movie.

[KingCharlemagne]

115. Without being a spoiler, I will say that there is something magical that

happens when Sean Penn directs Jack Nicholson. First noticed it in The Crossing Guard (also strongly recommend) but it really sines through in The Pledge. The novel by the same title is available in English translation and is well worth the read, although I actually think Penn's film outdoes its literary source.

[RufusTFirefly]

140. Further derailing the topic: If you haven't seen "This Man Must Die," you might want to

It's the 1969 Claude Chabrol (French) film that allegedly inspired The Crossing Guard.
It's somewhat like Lawrence Kasdan's Body Heat in this respect. It's a movie that's a lot trickier than it seems at first.
Whether you "get" its second level of meaning, it's still a gripping, entertaining film.





P.S. I also liked Unforgiven a great deal (even though I'm not a big fan of Westerns). Screenwriter David Webb Peoples excels in creating morally ambiguous characters. There seldom are good guys and bad guys in his movies. Everyone has flaws.

[KingCharlemagne]

146. well, now I've learned something new (that "The Crossing Guard" had

an antecedent source that inspired it). I'll definitely be checking out the Chabrol source film based on your recommendation.

In taking a quick look at Chabrol's filmography, I realize there's a significant gap in my cinematic education, as I don't believe I've ever seen a single film of his. None of the titles rang a bell, so I'll probably be dipping my toe into deeper Chabrol waters in time. Thanks again for the tip.

[RufusTFirefly]

150. De rien. Chabrol is sometimes known as "the French Hitchcock"

That's a vast over-simplification.
He makes dark thrillers that are quite different than Hitchcock's (although he was a big fan of the Master of Suspense. He even co-wrote a book about him).

If Chabrol's name doesn't ring a bell, you should know that he was one of a group of film critics turned directors in France who all wrote in the 1950s for the same French magazine, Cahiers du Cinema (basically "notebooks on cinema&quot . They hated the bourgeois, drawing room nature of post-war French cinema and, inspired by what was going on in post-war Italian cinema, argued that it was time for a change in France. Partially out of necessity and partially out of defiance, they shot movies on the streets of Paris instead of on sound stages and used lightweight equipment that granted them unprecedented visual freedom. The names of some of the other critics for the same magazine may be more familiar to you: François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Eric Rohmer, and Jacques Rivette. (If none of them rings a bell as a director, you probably saw Truffaut as an actor, playing the part of Lacombe in Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Spielberg and his contemporaries were huge fans of Truffaut and his colleagues. Appropriately enough, Spielberg was star struck to have Truffaut in his movie.)

Numerous people have suggested that a number of Chabrol's films are in the spirit of Patricia Highsmith, the author who wrote the stories upon which Strangers on a Train and The Talented Mr. Ripley were based. (In truth, Ripley was another remake of a French classic, René Clement's Plein Soleil, aka Purple Noon) Unlike the Hitchcock comparison, I think the Highsmith one is a little more accurate.

It's funny that the Americans and the French maintain such animosity. I view it as a sibling rivalry. After all, their respective revolutions share the same fuse -- Thomas Paine -- and they've been begrudgingly drawing on each other's cultural influences for centuries. In fact, the aforementioned French critics loved film noir. In fact, they named it!

[KingCharlemagne]

153. Wow. It's been awhile since I've been deeply immersed in French cinema and I never

reached your level of expertise, I can say with absolute certainty. Some of those New Wave names are most definitely familiar: Godard and Truffaut chief among them. Who can ever forget Jean Seberg in Au Bout De Souffle?

Little cinema joke: I saw Wenders' Paris, Texas for the first time in Paris, France (in a little art theater on the Left Bank in 1984). Speaking of being floored. That's another Western genre-killing film, imo.

90% of the ideas behind the American Revolution derive from the philosophes of the French Enlightenment. And we might never have achieved independence from Great Britain without the (admittedly opportunistic) assistance of the French navy. So that animosity is doubly rude, smacking of the rankest sort of ignorant ingratitude. OTOH . . . our efforts and casualties at Normandy in 1944 also sometimes seem to not receive the gratitude they deserve.

[RufusTFirefly]

156. Loved Paris, Texas... although I saw it stateside

Wonderful movie about -- appropriately enough -- the failure to communicate. Note how many of the characters in that film have some sort of obstacle coming between them and the person with whom they want to reach. Sometimes it's a language difference, sometimes it's a telephone, and sometimes in the case of Nastassja Kinski, it's a glass window. Probably not my favorite Wenders (I prefer Wings of Desire), but it's up there.

I've seen a few movies in Paris (France, not Texas), including Bertolucci's Dreamers and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. Point taken about both the French Navy and Normandy. Neither country wants to admit how dependent it has been on the other. I've taken the DC Metro to Lafayette Square many times and have been to L'avenue Franklin-D.-Roosevelt and Avenue du President Kennedy while in Paris.

[KingCharlemagne]

162. Wonerful anecdotes. If you get a chance, Wenders' "Land of Plenty" (2004) is a minor tour de

force that shows Wenders still has his directorial chops (and that completely dismantles and demystifies the ethos behind the so-called "Global War on Terrorism" along the way). I cannot praise Wenders as a director highly enough. The guy seldom seems to hit a false note.

[RufusTFirefly]

163. Thanks for the recommendation!

I'll check it out for sure!



(Oddly enough, of the directors from the New German Cinema, Wenders is the one I know least. I've seen lots and lots of Fassbinder and all the important Herzogs as well.)

[merrily]

76. If the US falls, it will have left the concept that a modern people can overthrow a king and form a

Constitutional republic instead. And lots of nations that followed our lead, starting with France.

Even if the US did nothing else, that would have been quite a legacy.

[KingCharlemagne]

79. Good point. It's not for nothing that Abe Lincoln in his Winter Address

to Congress in 1861 called us "the last, best hope of Mankind." He was referring to exactly what you reference (and good of you to do so

[merrily]

81. Oh, dear. Just realized the connection between your screen name and my prior post.

I meant nothing personal, King!

[KingCharlemagne]

84. No offense taken. In the future, though, 'We' would appreciate being referred to

as "The Father of Europe" or, failing that, a simple "Your Magesty"

[merrily]

85. No, but, I will not take out on you my grudges against King George (or King Charlemagne).

[TexasProgresive]

7. K&R

Well said.

[Prophet 451]

30. Thank you n/t

[Scuba]

10. Excellent post, thanks.

[Prophet 451]

31. You're very kind

[cantbeserious]

11. Good Summary - Citizens United Trumps All

eom

[Prophet 451]

32. Yep

The power of repetition means that being able to run a million ads, thanks to unlimited corporate cash, will be very powerful.

[WinkyDink]

12. The succinct version: Fear and Avarice, with a measure of Bellicosity.

[Prophet 451]

37. I'm just naturally wordy

I was going to be a teacher at one point, the urge to lecture never left me.

[Stardust]

135. That's a shame--some students missed out on some great lectures! Great OP and follow-ups!!!

I only want to add that msnbc has liberal programming throughout the day (with the exclusion of Schmoe and Chris Matthews, who is now on my shit list, too.) There's Andrea Mitchell (I know who she married to but she leans liberally), Al Sharpton, Chrystal Ball, Steve Kornacki, Joy Reed, and more. I learn something from all of them.

[Locrian]

14. all levels...

The propaganda and divide / conquer work at all levels: you give each class just a hair more 'perks' and fool them into keeping everyone else below them in order.

Kiss up and kick down. The great capitalist way.

[Prophet 451]

36. Hardly new tactics

but tried and tested ones.

[Locrian]

50. yep - it's really the same old tactics - tried and true n/t

[MFM008]

15. very good

You could have shortened it to just say they are morons. There is NEVER a good reason for voting gop. Ever.

[Prophet 451]

33. Sure, but we say that every day n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

68. I would have voted for Abe Lincoln in 1860 and 64 (I think). Beside that, though, I

think you've got a point!

[kentuck]

16. Most Republicans believe they are morally superior to Democrats...

They are better persons. They are better Christians. They are better Americans. They are better with the budget. They are better at national defense. And they are smarter. They believe all those things.

[gordianot]

22. Had one a brother in law thought all Democrats are pacifist.

After threatening my wife his sister he found out that is not the case. Final insult was to call us Democrats and not Christians. It is satisfying to shatter Republican illusions but was able to point out he was not a Christian.

[Prophet 451]

34. Of course

Goes back to ingroup/outgroup.

[ncjustice80]

42. Lol its funny/sad because the truth is the opposite :(

[The2ndWheel]

17. Damn right

It is not difficult to manipulate humans.

Hell yeah. One side is dumb, one side is smart. We're on the smart side. Woohoo!

Humans are instinctively obedient, Milgram proved that.

You're right, Republicans are idiots.

Humans are instinctively conformist. Asche proved that.

Republicans are idiots. Who's not going to agree?

Keep the lie simple enough, repeat it often enough and people will believe it. Hitler proved that.

We're all smart, they're all dumb. We're all smart, they're all dumb. We good, they bad. We good, they bad.

This is why politics are funny. You're all easily manipulated morons...now listen to me.

[Prophet 451]

24. This is why I will never stand for office

That, and I'm pretty sure some of my exes would write tell-alls.

[KingCharlemagne]

75. My wife won't let me run for office due to all the skeletons in my closet, most

of which stay there even during Halloween!

[ncjustice80]

43. Is that sarcasm?

Because those statements are true. Democrats are smarter than rethugs (several srudies show this). If you vote rethug, you ARE in fact a terrible human being.

[daleanime]

49. But we are ALL human....

and can improve.

[ncjustice80]

160. Im not convinced rethugs are human, more like some species of troll :p

[daleanime]

164. It is possible to cross breed....

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

so QED,

[TRoN33]

20. For Republicans in Senate race...

Like or dislike Obama, he is not going to be in the Senate. The voters who vote to elect a Republican Senator, just to hurt Obama, don't understand the Constitution or how our government works.

[Prophet 451]

35. I think voting Republican is mainly emotional

Of course, they would say the same of us but recent research means I have the stronger case.

[vlyons]

40. We have to stop being intimidated by Christian BS

I make a very very big distinction between the established historical Christian church and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The established Christian Church and its theology was invented by St Paul, who was kicked out of Jerusalem by Peter and James; and Constantine the Great, who latched onto Christianity to rule an empire. The RW Christian theology, as mostly promulgated today, is a hodge-podge of non-sense, beliefs for crowd control, and wealth building for oligarchs. When was the last time you heard a sermon on forgiveness, tolerance for people-not-like-you, care for the poor and the suffering, practice of peace, patience?

No the RW Christian Church is pretty much what the church has been throughout the centuries: submission to authority, emphasis on guilt for a multitude of sins, disregard facts and science that challenges beliefs, duty to TITHE TITHE TITHE, and punishment, punishment, punishment. They think that if you're not one of them, then you are controlled by Satan and going to Hell. They want to shun non-christians, and make their religion to be a state religion. That ol' Jehovah god is a very jealous god. Always romping and stomping out the competition

Give me a break already! More and more, I see that type of Christianity as a very evil system. And BTW, if I have offended Christians here on DU, guess what? I don't care, because I'm really very tired of Christians trying to make me feel ashamed of being me. You want me to like your religion, then actually demonstrate the real teachings of Jesus to practice peace, tolerance, and loving kindness towards the poor, and heal the sick.

[Prophet 451]

44. I'm not a Christian

but I was raised by a devout Christian, my grandmother, who devoted her life to caring for disabled and disturbed kids. She drew a great deal of strength and inspiration from her faith (albeit quietly, religion being seen as an intensely personal matter here). She was also pro-choice and pro-gay.

I would suggest that there are Christians who really are trying to live the teachings of Jesus. But, by and large, they're not the ones you hear about. Pat Robertson's church is essentially just a publicity machine for him and media has a bias toward teh sensational. What's going to draw more ratings, Pat Robertson saying something outrageous or Rev Jim Jones collecting blankets for the homeless?

There is still a contingent of Christianity that is progressive and there always has been. Google "Christian left". While Robertson and those like him would be burning heretics the very second they could get away with it, they're not all like that.

And I'm a Luciferian Satanist.

[vlyons]

80. well I'm a Buddhist, and yes I understand that there are many Christians, who

practice the real compassion teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was not a big fan of rich folks, especially the rabbis and high elite priestly class, who sold out and kissed Roman asses. Many of us of the Tibetan Buddhist variety consider Jesus of Nazareth to be a Boddhiisattva. And if you read ancient history, Mahayana Buddhist teachings would have been transmitted along the silk road down from Bactria and Ghandara in what is now Pakistan, Iran, Syria etc. Mahayana Buddhism being the universal vehicle, which placed emphasis on compassion and being of benefit to those around you. And a lot of what we know as Greek philosophy was also transmitted along the silk road, complements of Alexander the Greek. Google "Greco-Buddhism." It irks me no end that fundie Christians don't know squat about the real history and influences of their religion. And that ladies and gentlemen is why education is so important. I should get a gig teaching Sunday School somewhere.

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

[Prophet 451]

86. And that's why they're trying to corporatize education

I like Terry Pratchett's version: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make ye fret".

[vlyons]

97. hahaha

No please don't fret, unless you're playing a guitar!

[Bluenorthwest]

101. There are also tiny segments of Republicans who are pro choice and pro gay....

and there is a reason that they are not the ones you hear about, it's because they are vastly outnumbered by those who are virulently anti choice and anti gay. They are actual, but also statistically irrelevant and without power within their own Party. It's exactly the same with the wide world of faith. It's pretty easy and very accurate to say Republicans are anti gay although there are a few LGBT Republicans. Their existence does not negate the reality of the larger issues in that Party nor the need to talk about them clearly and forcefully.
I'd suggest that asking for religious groups to be judged using standards different from those used to judge other groups is asking for preferential treatment, superior status. As a non religious person I say groups of humans should be judged according to the same standards. You should apply to religious groups the same standards you apply so well to the Republican Party. It's that simple. I see no difference between a religious group with political goals and a political group with religious rhetoric. Because there is not one.

[Prophet 451]

111. We do not punish the son for the sins of the father

Those who differ from the norm should be encouraged, those who try and change things from within should be encouraged. And they're neither hopelessly outnumbered nor statistically irrelevant. Roughly 80% of the USA claims Christianity in some form but Biblical literalists (as a convenient measure of fundie) are, last I checked, about 25% of the population. Mathematics then leads us to conclude that 55% of the population are Christian but not fundie, a majority. That they appear to be a majority as, as I said, down to the media megaphone and confirmation bias (a psychological bias that means we remember those who confirm our beliefs far more than those who disprove them). Group identification makes us overgeneralise our outgroup, creating our own prejudices against them. When we start overgeneralising from the individual to the group, we end up at punishing children for teh sins of their fathers or vice versa (something that was seriously suggested here after the riots a couple of years ago was stripping a family of welfare if their kids had been involved).

I'm a man of faith (an extremely minority faith but still faith). I believe wholeheartedly in things I cannot prove. I would suggest we all do. Now, you might want to differentiate yourself from that. That's fine, that's natural. But, because you are on this board, I would imagine you believe in things like democracy and truth, at least to some extent. And yet, if we were to smash the world to pieces and grind it into fine powder, not an iota of justice or truth would be found. But that doesn't change that these concepts are valuable. To those who believe, god is real and to them, she/he/it is. The concept of god, of justice, of democracy, attains reality of a sort because it affects human behavior, whether it factually exists or doesn't.

When I pray, I feel my chosen deity's presence. And that affects how I behave and so, is quite real to me. Am I crazy? Well, firstly, yes I am. I'm on massive doses of four psychotropics just to keep me functional enough to get out of bed some days. But secondly, the experience of the deity's presence, personal gnosis, is quite different from my occasional "visions" or voices. Understand, I'm not trying to convince you to follow my path (choosing for yourself is a big part of my faith), simply making a point about how concepts matter because we believe them. I'm sure you have some system that you use to guide your actions, even if it's just empathy. Same thing applies, because it guides your actions, it attains reality whether it exists or not.

Now, this is not to say that all generalisation is invalid. But it is to caution against overgeneralising based on the actions of some. There is a school of psychology (I'm studying Forensic Psychology) called "Social Constructivism" that says our beliefs, constructed through dialogue, are the only things that really matters. That the experience of being human is inherently a social one and doesn't really have any sort of meaning outside that. Don't believe that? Fair enough, I'm not sure I do. But one can easily consider the liberal Christians, the compassionate Republicans, to be seeds which can be nurtured into trees. It wasn't that long ago that Republicans were the more progressive party, that Christianity was defined (in the public mind, at least, and social constructivism says that's all that counts) by MLK.

The believer in me would like to believe that anyone can change. Rush Limbaugh, whom I have wished death upon many times, has a rescue cat that he adores. Maybe it's naive of me but I tend to think that someone who loves animals can't be totally, completely evil. That there is some tiny spark of compassion, goodness, in there somewhere. Yes, we can and should condemn what he says, we should ridicule and boycott his show. But we should not abandon the hope that somehow, someway, he can find it in himself to be a better person.

[procon]

41. Very succinctly said, and well writ indeed! nt

[Prophet 451]

48. Thank you n/t

[samsingh]

51. because they are selfish and stupid people

[Prophet 451]

55. Partly

I attempted to dissect the main motivators.

[Major Nikon]

52. I grew up in rural America

Although I can't speak for all of rural America, but given voter demographics it's hard to imagine it's not the same everywhere. Back then many rural areas voted for Democrats, but the only real reason was because the Republicans were seen as the party of Lincoln and the North. Religion, anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and close mindedness are all well ingrained into rural America. Stupid and ignorant are considered virtues.

[drm604]

58. K&R

Good post. It nicely puts into words things I think most of us know intuitively but find hard to express.

That said, and intending no criticism whatsoever, what do we do about all of that? People talk about these very things all over the net. We recognize the problems. We write fantastic articles and posts about them. But we never do anything.

What can we do? Sure, we can work on GOTV and simply outvote them, but even when that works it just increases their anger and makes them even less reasonable. The country can't continue down this path with so much of population so full of hatred and willful ignorance. That way lies fascism. That way lies disaster.

What do we do about it? How do we break through the cognitive bias? It's obviously possible. Many other countries aren't like this, and many people in this country aren't like this.

Even if Fox News, Limbaugh, Breitbart, et al went away tomorrow (and I'm not suggesting censorship, just making a point) this kind of thinking would continue and they'd find other echo chambers and other ways to reinforce their beliefs.

So what's the answer? Mass psychotherapy? (And I say that only half-jokingly). Prozac in the water? (That I do say jokingly.)

[Prophet 451]

62. That's where I run out of ideas

For the time being, the right have won. They have the House and are using it to kill all legislation. They have a tame SCOTUS that holds any law they dislike to be unconstitutional. They have a pet media that trains people to keep blaming the left. And they have limitless corporate cash to keep buying that media. In the areas they can't win, they just use voter suppression to ensure their lack of supporters doesn't matter.

The demographic shift will kill the Republican party (at least, in it's current form) in about 10-15 years anyway, assuming they haven't reinstated the property clause by then (at least one of them is arguing for it). Until then, I suspect we may be stuck simply trying to fight the worst of their excesses. I'm buggered if I know what else we can do.

[drm604]

73. The demographic shift is what's making them act so drastically.

They're desperate to find a way to quash it. That's scary. As I say, the more we win the more desperate they get. They may eventually get violent. I think it may be partly what's behind all of the nonsense lately regarding guns and open carry (the gun industry lobby is also a big part of it).

The one thing I can hope for is that their hatred of government will get to the point that the government, and the corporations that control it, will finally realize that they've created a Frankenstein's monster that's a threat to themselves and will attempt to moderate it somewhat.

[KingCharlemagne]

83. The Friends of Mary Shelley Society (FMSS) pleads with you not to

compare the noble Dr. Frankenstein's monster to the nincompoops, scalawags and wastrels that form today's Republican Party Republicans aren't fit to kiss the dirt upon which Frankenstein's monster walks or, dare I say, strides.

Now Pandora's Box and the creatures within? That's a comparison FMSS can and does accept!

[CANDO]

96. What happens if the demographics shift...

Starts, for whatever reason, seeing things their way? I don't think that can happen, but what if? Then we are truly screwed. For now, as f'd up as it is, I think the cons are going to really turn off a lot of people in the next 2 years. And that's assuming they take the Senate and go hell bent warfare against PBO. (As if they haven't been for the past 6 yrs)

[drm604]

141. If that happens then they win.

But seriously, the demographics we're discussing aren't going to start agreeing with a bunch of anti-immigration racists.

[KingCharlemagne]

65. Thanks for cross-posting this (and not 'composting' it :) I hope it

gets wide exposure and a 1,000 recs.

Sincere hat tip.

[Prophet 451]

70. Thank you, sir

Or should that be Your Majesty?

[KingCharlemagne]

74. Ha-ha. Well I prefer to be known as the 'Father of Europe'. But

'Your Majesty' will do in a pinch.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

87. Three words: RACE, HATE, & FEAR!

[RadicalGeek]

88. No Arguments Here

<EOM>

[hifiguy]

91. Brilliant post.

And they are properly called "sheeple" for just the reasons you state.

[maryellen99]

94. Another reason they vote Republican

Their pastor at their mega church tells them to.

[Prophet 451]

98. As I sid upthread, I dislike the term

Firstly, because it underestimates how easy it is to be programmed and how difficult it is to break programming. Secondly, because it so often comes attached to some statement of barking insanity, "The Nazis have a moonbase and they've cloned Hitler! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!".

[hifiguy]

104. I probably do underestimate how easy it is to program

people, particularly those inhabiting the bottom half of the bell curve. I was born a question-asking skeptic and am also on the autism spectrum - I'm Asperger's - so in my brain logic overrides emotional reactions to virtually everything. I am a hopelessly evidence-based creature and insist on extrinsic evidence. I am Data, and I say that only slightly in jest.

A great piece, though.

[Prophet 451]

113. My kid brother is autistic

Mind you, I say "kid" but he's in his early Twenties now.

As a man of faith, I've learned to be accepting of some mysteries in my life, even if I never cease looking for answers.

[Vinca]

100. It's very discouraging that "Obamacare" polls horribly in Kentucky, yet . . .

KYConnect (or whatever it's called) gets rave reviews. Mitch says "the web site can stay" and the sheeple think they'll still be able to buy their "non-Obamacare" insurance there if they elect Mitch.

[Prophet 451]

102. Media and poor education

Media doesn't correct Republican lies and gives them airtime, and the people don't know enough to look further.

[One_Life_To_Give]

109. Couldn't be the still POS economy

The left and right vote for idea's, but combined we only make up a minority of voters. The Regan Democrats and Clinton Republicans are more likely to vote against one candidate than they are to vote for their opponent.

Any party that can deliver on ensuring that every person who want's a job, could get a job. Would win everywhere, except with raising campaign funds from the elites.

[Prophet 451]

114. Sure, that's part of it too

But the fact is, if it was that simple, Democrats would just resurrect the WPA. Republicans, as the political arm of the monied elite, prevent that.

[Martin Eden]

116. Republianity

Excellent definition:

Republianity is a mixture of lip service to Jesus (while jettisoning virtually everything he actually taught), Nieztchian will-to-power, Randian beliefs to justify psychotic anti-tax zealotry, Nazi-level nationalism and worship of the military and Rapture beliefs that were invented wholesale out of a few twisted-from-context Bible verses about a century ago. It has it's own high priests (Pat Robertson, Limbaugh, Beck), it's own messiah figure (Reagan), it's own devil figure (Obama although really, it's whoever the most high-profile liberal of the time is), it's own designated scapegoats (liberals) and it's own versions of history, economics, psychology, theology and jurisprudence. And a lot of your countrymen have been brainwashed to believe that fictional view of the world. They even have a museum and "university" to promote that faith.

[Prophet 451]

117. Thank you

Been working on it for some time.

[Martin Eden]

118. A former GOP staffer refers to the Republican Party as a CULT

Mike Lofgren quit the GOP in 2011 when they held the economy hostage over a routine procedure to raise the debt limit. The article he wrote in Sept 2011 (linked below) provides a spot-on analysis of the Republican Party -- from a person who was a Republican operative for 28 years.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult

[Prophet 451]

119. Thanks for the link

You may well be right in calling them a cult.

[Prophet 451]

120. Excellent article, thanks

Worth reading the comments for the GOPers commenting who exemplify everything he mentioned.

[hfojvt]

121. I like it at first

but then it just started to sound like "because they are a bunch of racist morons who hate progress".

And for some reason they also think that liberal elitists have contempt for them.

[Prophet 451]

124. Well, opinions vary

Sorry you didn't like it.

[Docross]

122. He's from the UK...

"The USA is even more classist than my own UK"...hello... He's not from here.. but
maybe has a much clearer picture than those 'inside'.

Good to remember that the South is being really infiltrated with ..Democrats.
Also that the one thing Americans..of any party..hate most, is
PEOPLE TRYING TO FOOL THEM!~

Most Republicans 'know' that their party is telling falsehoods (being nice here), being
deceitful, and using money and trickery to win their elections and don't care about
the little guy.. Then they also know that one day...under the right circumstances...
they could turn on them.

By 2040, white people will be a minority in the United States. That will be interesting.

Grandpa: I swear that half of Americans are like a large herd of cattle-
and one gunshot will turn them all the other way. Careful with your guns Republicans.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

125. Quick answer? Idiots who vote Republican because they "believe in working for a living"....

As if the Dems are all about Welfare.

This has gotten worse after Obama was elected and Romney and his "free stuff" comment.

I've heard other idiots who claim the Republicans are all about Wall Street but the Dems are all about the Banks. Try to get them to elaborate and they mutter about "bailouts" and when you point out that was Bush they act like that's a lie and then act like the Bush Era was too damn Liberal.

[11 Bravo]

126. Fear, stupidity, and racism (not necessarily in that order).

[humbled_opinion]

127. I never understand

how the middleclass working class person could ever vote for a repub. Somehow the righwing noise machines have convinced many working people that it is they who personally foot the bill for all of the Social programs in this country. Truthfully, I wish Democratic politicians were better at explaining wealth distribution better. Our side also gets beat down when we try to increase taxes on the most wealthy, certainly multi millionaires are not middle class and should be forced to pay more so everyone can get ahead.

[Prophet 451]

128. I don't diagree with any of that n/t

[napkinz]

129. voting against their own interests

[Prophet 451]

131. The third is the most accurate

Racism is a big part of the hatred directed at Obama, for sure. But the whole situation is more complex than simply racism.

[world wide wally]

130. You get an "A+" for your well written and thoroughly thought out analysis of the US.

It is difficult for many of us to see the forest through the trees over here.

Thank you

[Prophet 451]

133. Thank you also, for the kind words n/t

[zentrum]

132. One of the best compendiums

....of reasons people vote Repub as I've read. Thanks.

[Prophet 451]

134. Thank you n/t

[Eleanors38]

136. Respectfully, you missed the Main reason "why."

The Democratic Party doesn't define itself, and has discontinued offering clear, concise policies for some decades, now.

IOW, the Party has left that to the GOP.

The Republicans enthusiastically do double duty -- defining the Party and defining itself -- with nary a whimper from our leaders.

The rest of your points are interesting, have some validity, but are ultimately secondary.

[Prophet 451]

137. While that's part of it, I'm not sure it's the primary reason

Right-wing control of the media means they are always going to have more success in "branding" both themselves and their opposition. I could be wrong, of course.

And with that, I'm out for teh night. Peace with you.

[Eleanors38]

139. Goodnight to you as well...

A party loses its vitality when it no longer stands for anything; after all, why have one?

The money, the MSM, the Beltway Bandits --
all must follow this Basic rationale for a party.

[Dont call me Shirley]

138. And many of hitler's henchmen moved here after the war.

[Half-Century Man]

142. Well thought out and succinctly put.

I agree with most (95%) of your post(s). And I am reassessing my opposing 5% (as well as refining our shared views).

[valerief]

144. Ha, fundamentalism is a revenge fantasy. Aptly put. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

145. ,

,

[DCBob]

151. well said.

[reimaginethis]

154. Nope.

I'm really not comfortable stereotyping anyone. Further, as a lifelong Southerner educated in Southern schools, I know that the next-to-last paragraph is blatantly false.

Thus, I can't give a thumbs-up to this post at all.

[nikto]

157. Well said

Eloquent post.

[jonjensen]

159. people who vote for republicans have their reasons and they are not being dumb!

Ask people why they vote republican and they will tell you the republicans will leave me alone if I vote for them and democrats won't! They will tell you if they vote republican their guns won't be taken away. They will still be able to buy their big gas guzzling suvs. Their taxes won't be raised And republicans won't be doing social experiments with their kids or let all of the criminals(minorities)out of jail. I tell them don't you want your social security and medicare? They say they will risk it to keep their guns.

[ncjustice80]

161. Sooooo...their reasons are racist and dumb? That makes them dumb.

I wonder if there is an anti "Get Out the Vote" campaign we could launch to encourage the rethugs to stay home on election day lol