It was extraordinarily illuminating to read that thread. I already knew Freepers were smug and delusional, but I've never taken the time to read a really long thread and parse their banter.
The first part of the thread is supposedly talking about how "Kerry and Edwards are so out of the mainstream," accusing them mainly of four things: being pro-choice, somehow subverting the "rule of law," wanting to quash religious expression, and wanting to tatter the institution of marriage.
For one thing, both of them say they don't favor the amendment, but aren't in favor of gay marriage -- but could get on board with civil unions. Very Howard Dean, very reasonable, very moderate.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htmBy perusing the above link, and ironing out some discrepancies due to differences between nominal and ordinal survey results -- it appears that, at most, Americans are split evenly on the amendment, with a majority favoring civil unions, and a strong majority of 70 percent who said that this is not "a high priority" issue.
Score one for the "godless" democrats who have the same opinion of gay marriage of at least 50 percent of the population.
Now, this rule of law thing, I think refers to "activist" judges, and also the actions of Gavin Newsome. I think the activist judge thing is dead in the water, because it's one of those issues that you have to dig a little deeper into to understand. Also, I think that if they were to bring that out -- you could say that the most activist court was supposedly the Warren Court, a court predominantly appointed by and made up of Republicans. Easy enough.
Third -- a majority of Americans are pro choice. I mean -- what are they smoking? It is a smaller majority than it used to be, but to suggest that choice is "far apart from the mainstream" is ludicrous and delusional.
Fourth -- quashing religious expression. This is an argument that knows know fucking realities. There is so much bad information and bad analysis surrouding this on both sides that the clearest and simple point is always blurred: the same laws that protect non-Christians, are the same laws that protect Christians' rights to worship. They need to be called out on this, and fast. There is no "hard and fast" evidence that this nation was founded with or without God. For some, like Thomas Jefferson, it certainly was not. For others, like George Washington, it was a little more blurry. But there is enough evidence on either side to suggest that it's a draw. So for me, the evidence of a draw means EXACTLY the separation of Church and state. That IS a draw. You get to worship the deity of your choice, the government stays out of it. This is not an extreme position. What IS extreme is stripping away all semblance of this being a pluralistic nation where the laws are laid equally at the feet of free persons. What they really want IS a Christian theocracy -- and I say: make them say it. Because it is clearly unConstitutional.
So I think, despite all the arguments on the thread, that the election will be decided upon their uneducated perception of whatever is most important to them. Meaning some people, as always, will vote abortion. Some people will vote "I don't like snooty New Englanders." Some people will vote "my gas prices are too high." Some people will vote taxes. Some people will vote civil liberties. Some people will vote change. Some people will vote to stay the same.
It's really going to come down to not "why" someone votes -- it's WHO votes. Whoever can get their voters the most interested, and get them to come out to the polls.
I do think "values" will play an important part. But something very interesting happened in that Freeper thread, and not ONCE were values like: working for your community, egalitarianism, kindness to your fellow humans, empathy, sharing, etc. mentioned. How can you have a debate on values without mentioning these things? The values, as I've long suspected, have been twisted to that "GOP Civil Church of Mammon and the Blonde Jesus" vaule-thing.
They're taking our REAL values away. And that's what worries me. And not only values -- but values upon which this country was founded, and numerous brave individuals saw fit to expand to include minorities, women -- and now GLBTs.
They are making us out to be extremists, when we are REALLY actually very tempered. Think about it this way: fundamentally the difference between the "personal responsiblity" GOP model and the "workers' paradise" model is very shallow. Each attempt to attach equally valid value systems to each -- one, to work to sustain yourself, and one to work to sustain your community, and help others.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know too terribly many Democrats, and even "liberals" who fully advocate nationalize-everything, no-private-ownership, stand-in-line-for-toilet-paper Communism. I know it's a right wing wet dream that we think that -- but come on. On the other hand -- how many mainstream Republican politicians are actively attempting to "choke" government and want to privitize just about everything? Several. And further, the Libertarian veiw of economics, which is even more extreme, is seen as a moderate position, in some sense by supporters of the GOP.
We are the compromise. We are the sustainable compromise of responsible capitalism, YES with some restrictions for the good of ALL, and a limited, but effective and unwavering social welfare system, which helps people when they need it.
How the holy rolling mother fuck are these things SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE MAINSTREAM???????
The GOP is not CONSERVATIVE VALUES. I can get on board with some conservative values -- I think government can be reduced in some sense (so did Bill Clinton, who shrank government more than any other Republican president's jack off fantasy), I'm on board with states' rights. I'm OK with most gun ownership. I don't like NAFTA. I'm good with protectionism.
The GOP we are dealing with, after much research, is an amalgam of corpo-fascists* who want to replace the government with corporate rule (Big Brother's Twin Brother), their odd flirtations with some serious religious fundie whackjobs, and these neocon characters who want the perpetual war.
As we learned from our "Party affiliation as social cognition" study, the conservative electorate, being more loyal, and more black-and-white thinking, are much more easily led and kept by absolutes, the appearance of authority (also: moral authority) and power. I don't think all of them have been swept up by King George, but an overwhelming percentage has. The dominant traits in the GOP are people who are: upper middle class, suburban/rural, traditional, white and religious.
The swing voters, I venture to guess, are consumers, largely. Of both material goods, and media.
The Democrats comprise several major groups of minorities, hard-core (more socialist and communist-leaning) liberals, Clintonian Democrats (moderates) and the youngest and oldest of voters. It seems to me that the Democrats have a more dispersed coalition -- of equal importance to electoral victory -- which causes both party disorganization, as well as infighting. We have our idiots too -- but very different idiots than the GOP.
The fact that the GOP is a more homogonized demographic group helps with both unity and message.
They may, in fact, be the "majority of people who think the same," and the best coalesced electoral block, but I would venture to guess they are not the MAJORITY of Americans.
So that's how they arrive at their "majority," which was another HUGE misconception on that thread.
Sorry this is so long -- I'm just hoping some of them peruse this and read it, and have to think for ten seconds.
Anyway, it was an eye-opener.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
