Frightening analysis of Kerry's problems in West Virginia

[tomfodw]

This is a very long article from the English-language Web edition of Le Monde Diplomatique in France. There are some parts where the writer is too uncritical of what he is told, but all in all, it is a frightening look at just how out of touch the red and blue states are with each other. The stuff about how West Virginians fear environmentalism and environmentalists really had me shaking.

What’s the matter with West Virginia?

The race between the presidential election candidates in the United States is close. George Bush’s policies in his first term mainly benefited the rich but surprisingly he is most popular in the poorest states, which were former union and Democrat strong holds.

By Serge Halimi

SOME of the most down-at-heel homes in the remotest villages of West Virginia sport posters for George Bush and Dick Cheney, although their occupants surely do not expect to gain from any further reductions in capital gains tax. We see a lot of "We support our troops" signs. We meet a brother and sister in the state capital, Charleston, who will vote Republican for "religious reasons"; yet the brother is a schoolteacher and he has no health insurance.

:::snip:::

In Charleston we talked to a former Democrat, now a keen Republican supporter. He was very excited to have attended a very similar meeting at another venue, and said: "Bush, when you see those photos of him on his ranch down in Texas, with jeans and a cowboy hat, that’s genuine. I was in Beckley when he was there a couple weeks ago, and that crowd, 4,000 people, they loved the man. They loved the man. Personally. You had to have been there to know what I mean, and you can’t manufacture that, you can’t fake it. They love him. They connect with him, they think he understands them, and I think he does, too."

:::snip:::

"Genuine"? I wonder how many of them have a clue that Bush bought his "ranch" in 1999 as a prop for his first presidential run!

As I said, frightening. Is there any way to reach these people? My dad worked for the Clothing Workers Union and knew plenty of people in the United Mine Workers. John L. Lewis was as staunch a Democrat as one could be. In my lifetime (I'm 49), West Virginia was as solid a "blue" state as there was. What happened? It's not just guns, abortion, and environmentalism. It's not just shaggy-haired hippies burning the flag in the 1960s. What happened? And how do we reverse it?

[TimeToGo]

1. You are right

He bought the stupid ranch in 1999 -- but just about everyone I have told that to is surprised.

[theHandpuppet]

2. Well, as a WV resident....

I can tell you that the GOP hasn't won over WV so much as the Dems have let the state slip through their fingers. It's simply not enough for the Dem presidential candidates to suddenly "rediscover" WV every four years only to forget it exists 'til the next election. That's the way people in Appalachia are used to being treated -- as a people to be exploited then discarded or ridiculed as the situation morphs. Look how many threads right here on DU refer to "ignorant hillbillies" and display ridiculing pics of toothless hicks as rural "bush voters". It's not just the Repukes who play at class warfare, but they are at least a bit more subtle about their underlying disdain.

Make no mistake, there is a vein of intellectual arrogance within some faction of our own party, and until we call it out, recognize it as a form of real bigotry and determine to root it out from our individual selves, we will continue to shake our heads incredulously that any poor or disadvantaged person might reject our oh-so-patronizing hand up... especially when that hand is so lightning-quick to offer up a slap at rejection.

That does not mean that Dubya does these folks any better, but he offers them *the illusion*. It's precious little to hold on to, but sometimes it's all you've got left.

The Democratic Party and we as Democrats have much work to do when it comes to reaching folks like those here in WV -- and much of that work is internal. As for myself, I think it's honest to say that every time I see a post here on DU brandishing ridiculing pics of "toothless hillbillies" I simply move on, because it's just one more reminder that as a party we ourselves have a long way to go with regard to issues of class warfare and bigotry.

[Boomer]

5. Faux folksy works

George is no more a man of the people than John Kerry, but he has managed to create the illusion of being a "regular guy." And as you note, even an illusion gives him an edge in making a connection to people who feel marginalized in this culture.

This was the same reason that Bill Clinton was so popular -- he managed to combine a genuine working class background with a sharp intellect. If he had managed the Christian godly part better, HE would have been deified instead of Bush.

[rockydem]

12. insightful post

I agree - we can win these states back - but we have to take the time to articulate our message and we have to cultivate that relationship and message.

I grew up in a Red State and our party has a lot of work to do to win back some of these states. Kerry winning the presidency and successfully prosecuting the WOT would do wonders for our party.

As it is we have to fight against a lot of stereotypes and false info. sowed by the repigs.

[liberal N proud]

20. OK, so the democrats have let WV slip though their fingers...

But What the Fuck has this asshole in office now done for West Virginia? Lower the tops of some of the mountains?

It does not make sense that the people who suffer the most from a regime support the crook so strong.
I am sure it is a combination of the little white churches spread through out the mountains and the NASCAR effect. My hero Dale Waltrip is Repuke so I must be too?

Democrat and Republican are so based on their values. and if one truely evaluated their values they would only have one choice and that would be Democrat.

[theHandpuppet]

28. Or perhaps he just didn't...

... insult, denigrate, stereotype and dismiss them as thoroughly as you just did in your post. See, that's part of the problem -- scratch just beneath the "concern" and what they too often find is the real contempt. That's not supposed to be among OUR values, either.

[sendero]

24. Interesting...

.... and though I have no experience with VA, your comments resonate with me.

I've probably been as guilty as anyone of exploiting certain stereotypes, but lately I see the error of my ways. I do believe there is a strong anti-intellectual streak in America, and I take umbrage at that, not that I'm an intellectual but I respect careful deliberate thinking, and believe it has solved many more problems than it has created.

There is a definite kind of elitism that runs rampant even here. People love to slam "NASCAR dads" and "gun nuts" and various other people who they don't seem to have much of a clue about.

I have the privilege of knowing a lot of blue-collar folks and I'll say this straight up - they are for the most part NOT the dumbasses that so many here seem to think they are. There is a basis for their concerns and to write them all off as stupid is, well, stupid.

For example - here is one that some of you will get. I was at an auto wrecking yard (just think of this as recycling of cars if that helps, this is a good idea on many levels) and needed to have a part pulled from a car. I noticed the guy was taking extraordinary measures to make sure absolutely no compressor oil leaked onto the ground. I mentioned it and he said "we can be fined $10,000 if they find one drop of oil on the ground".

I'm all for clean air and clean water but that is beyond ridiculous. And when those sorts of regulations get passed, they discredit the whole environmental effort. Instead of stopping big polluters we stick it to the little businessman. And then we wonder why they don't trust us at all.

[Virginian]

36. and though I have no experience with VA, your comments resonate with me.

Virginia (VA) and West Virginia (WV) have been separate states since the Civil War.
To some outside the region, Virginia brings up the image of DAR and patricians. We aren't that any more than West Virginia is all hillbillies and moonshiners.
We are both people with a dignity that hates to be insulted and stereotyped. That goes for the South as well.
As long as shows like "The Dukes of Hazzard" are considered OK entertainment, these stereotypes will persist. There is a form of regional discrimination that exists in this country and eliminating that will do much to heal our divisiveness.

[calgaldem]

52. Whoa!

It's not anti-intellectualism that causes us a problem in Southern states!

It's intellectual bigotry, patronization and condescension. Southern people know they aren't stupid, but they aren't going to spend their time trying to prove that. They simply don't care about the opinions of the liberal elite of the northeast/west coast.

This is not going to change until we put away the ignorant stereotypes and begin to value these voters and their ideas, instead of declaring that we know what's best for them and they are worthy of our help despite their stupidity.

[newyawker99]

56. Hi caldaldem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[uhhuh]

78. Could you re-read your post

And tell me how this isn't the same sort of sterotypical bigotry in reverse?

Not everybody from the coasts or the northeast is a southern bashing elitist.

[QC]

25. Excellent post!

If I had a nickel for every time someone said to me that "Democrats don't respect people like me," I could pay off some of my debts. I hear it a lot, and that perception that Democrats no longer respect the working class, which is indeed fed by many people who consider themselves "progressives," is one of the best weapons the Republicans have to use against us.

When it comes to class issues, a lot of so-called liberals and progressives have more in common with Barbara Bush than Mother Jones.

[DemocracyInaction]

39. Handpuppet---all states are courted by the pols at election time and

disgarded as used whores the day after. The southern brigade goes to Congress and shovels all the federal money down into the deep south and everybody else starves. WV is no different than any other place. How much love have the repubs spread around down there and then stayed after their one night stand with you to hold and adore you until death do you part?????????

[theHandpuppet]

44. As I stated in another post on this thread

BOTH parties are gulity of neglect in this case. That's why so many here don't vote their party as much as their church, and this is where the GOP has played that PR game masterfully. At this point there are too many people here who -- and rightfully so -- believe that politics is little more than a game of empty promises. For that matter, where has decades of voting Democratic gotten them? Painful as it might be, as a diehard Dem I have to ask myself that question, and also as a Dem, I should demand much more from my own party than I do from a partry which makes no pretentions about subsidizing the elite.

[yardwork]

71. I grew up in Appalachian Ohio and I think you are right!

But the problem is not just that the urban and coastal dwellers make fun of the country and mountain dwellers. People in the south and in Appalachia make terrible comments about California and New York. The problem is that our country is geographically and culturally diverse, and the Republicans have used that as a wedge to drive us apart.

What kinds of comments do chimpy and his family make about southerners, Appalachians, and country-folk? Do you think that this preppy northeastern family sits around saying nice things about us? No way.

They're just better at lying about it than the Democrats.

[The Magistrate]

3. A Very Good Article, Sir

There is a human truth in it that we on the left are going to have to figure out how to deal with: a great many people with nothing but pride would rather suffer themselves to be robbed than suffer themselves to be looked down on. What many such people take away from much modern left expression is that someone has said to them "I am so much better than you, morally and spiritually, and every other way possible for a human to be." People generally want to hit with a brick someone who makes them feel that way.

"Go into the street and give one man a shilling, and one man a lecture on morality, and see which will call you his friend."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[T Town Jake]

13. What an apposite, excellent, and truthful post...

...and precisely right. We're going to have to learn how to deal with this phenomenon after our victory on Nov. 2nd; and an extended hand is going to be much better for our side than the witty, dismissive snarl these folks will be expecting to hear directed their way in the aftermath. I salute your astute analysis. :thumbsup:

[lfs5]

4. It's not just guns, abortion, and environmentalism.

It is--that and ignorance and fear and Republican mailings telling them the Democrats will ban the Bible if Kerry is elected.

It's poor whites being told, with a wink and a nod, that it's okay to look down on people of color--any color, other than white.

It's their belief that God will destroy this country because of our heathen ways, if we don't turn back to Him...and Republicans have promised them they will do that--by ending abortion, banning gay marriage, posting the Ten Commandments everywhere, and bringing prayer back to the public schools, which will, no doubt teach creationism rather than science. (After all, this administration has a clear disdain of science.)

[Eccho]

7. Bingo!

This is the bible belt. Just put out a rumor that someone is pro choice and that can be enough to turn around the votes.

I personally saw one candidate (running for a state office) corner and try to intimidate one of my co-workers into voting for Bush. She had mentioned she was voting for Kerry, and he told her that if she was a Christian, then she must be pro-life, and therefore could never vote for Kerry. He even said that she should listen to her (Repub) husband and not vote for Dems. Fortunately, she is too smart to be influenced by that.

But, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kerry win WV. He has been campaigning here (WV) so frequently, and suddenly started concentrating on other states. I think he knows he has it.

[Hubert Flottz]

27. I don't think the DNC should write off WV either!

Almost everybody I talk to here in West Virginia, is either going to vote for Kerry or against Bush! Everyone in this state has not been riding in the back of the turnip truck and sipping the kool-aid like the GOP thinks, for the past four sorry years! The GOP is still bombarding the TV with nonstop ads here and that tells me, that they are still running scared!

WV has been hit as hard, or harder, by the Chimperor's economy problems, as any other state in the union! WV has been bleeding GOOD jobs by the thousands, ever since Clinton walked out of the White House! The GOP has spent mega-bucks here on campaign ads and that takes money away from their effort in other states! I've seen lifelong Repubs changing their voter registrations to Dem., because they think Bush is an idiot! I have talked to a lot of the people from those, "Little White Churches" and they see Bush for the crook and liar, that he really is!

Bush fooled them once, but I don't think so this time! Wars are won by sapping the means to fight from the enemy in one area, so that that enemy cannot concentrate all his power on another battlefield in another area! WV has sapped some MAJOR BUCKS from the total GOP campaign, if nothing else! I think the GOPers have thrown their money away in Wes Virginia!

[Touchdown]

6. And yet, there is still hope.

West Virginia elector says he might not vote for President Bush

South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb said based on his research, an elector has "qualified discretion" when it comes to casting a vote.


"There is an implied duty to vote for your party's candidate. But I don't think it's an explicit duty or responsibility," said Robb, a moderate Republican who has a reputation of being a maverick in the state party.


Still, Robb calls it "highly unlikely" that he would cast a vote for Democrat John Kerry. He said he might cast his vote for Vice President Dick Cheney or another Republican instead as a protest against Bush, meaning the president would lose out on one electoral vote.


Robb's decision could end up having enormous national significance because the presidential election is expected to go down to the wire. That is exactly what happened in 2000, when George W. Bush won the White House with 271 electoral votes. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive 270 electoral votes.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/westvirginia/2004-10-21-elector_x.htm

It may not turn the state to Kerry, but there are cracks in their armor.

[Gloria]

8. Heard a BBC report done in Oregon which was scary, too...

People who thought Bush was down home because he got his hands dirty on his "ranch." People who didn't like most of his policies, but were going to vote for him anyway because they've always voted Republican. It went on and on. Very unnerving.

[kurt_cagle]

15. Oregon's hard to call

I was along the Columbia Gorge this weekend (both on the Washington and Oregon side) and while I was not surprised to see the Bush signs, I was surprised that 1) there were very few of them, and 2) there were more Kerry/Edwards signs in this very rural, sometimes mountainous region. Portland, on the other hand, is very clearly rooting as a whole for JK - large pro-choice billboards, many, many KE signs and stickers, and a lot of get out the vote signs everywhere, something that is usually a pretty strong indicator of a Democratic effort (Republicans seem to like to supress the vote, for some odd reason).

Oregon is the home of Lon Mabon and his merry band of religious right fundies, but their message seems to be drowned out where I was. If Oregon DOES go for Bush, it will only be because the entire rural part of the state voted and the I5 corridor cities (Portland, Salem, Eugene) didn't, something I DON'T see happening.

[sandnsea]

9. It's right here

"It would be difficult to find anywhere in the US further from the bourgeois Bohemian neighbourhoods and talking-shops of New York, Boston or San Francisco. Here the two main parties are at odds to demonstrate their attachment to Christian and protectionist values; they focus on hunting, mining, industrial policy and old-time virtues."

The pinko liberals and the working American. These people don't relate to the Democratic Party anymore and the Democratic Party doesn't relate to them. And they don't listen to us rural people very well when we try to talk to the DC Democrats and tell them how to tweak their message the teensiest bit to make it sell either.

It's not god, guns and gays; it's honor, duty, and integrity. Or hard work, family and community. They don't think the pinko liberal city folk have it or want it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shelley806]

16. I'm re-posting this as a separate thread...

I noticed that you just have 11 messages, and probably can't post independently yet, so I'm going to copy it and post it separately. Hopefully this will get more to read.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. Thanks for posting, and for your thoughtful comments --

wish I could answer your questions!

[elperromagico]

14. Republicans win when people don't think.

If some of these people would just stop and think for a moment, they'd realize that they're voting - for "religious reasons" - against their own best interests, in favor of a man who acts "genuine" on his "ranch" - a man who hasn't done a damned thing and won't do a damned thing to help them. A man who, when confronted with a problem, denies that the problem even exists and calls the person trying to fix it pessimistic for even suggesting that there's a problem that needs fixing.

I'm convinced that a modern, neocon Republican would never win another federal election again if more people would just think about the issues and consider how a Republican agenda would affect them.

It's sad, really. And they can't really be persuaded to think any other way. They've been conditioned.

[theHandpuppet]

17. Yet from another perspective...

To many folks in the rural mountain communities in WV, the impact of the church on their everyday lives is infinitely greater than that of the federal government. The church is their living community, where members depend on one another to see them through times of sickness and need. When disaster strikes, as it does all too often in the mountains, it is to the neighbor and the congregation these people turn, as one can't wait for the federal government to find you (and how much media coverage did the disastrous flooding this year in WV and eastern KY receive -- good thing it didn't happen in NY, eh, where people were touted by the media as "heroic" for enduring the horrible trial of losing power for a day!).

No, I don't think it's a matter of "not thinking" about how either party's agenda will effect them; the fact is, these are folks who have been largely abandoned by both parties, by their own federal govt. What has stood by them through thick and thin is their church, living and tangible. It is the source of their nourishment, the center of their social life, their one unshakable faith, yet it never asks more of them than they can give. These folks aren't voting Republican or Democratic, for those are mere labels for an abstract, but they are voting for their church. It's by adopting the image, rather than the substance, of the church that the Republicans have made such headway into previously Dem strongholds. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." -- the book of Matthew

To truly understand what has happened (politically speaking) in places like WV there first has to be an understanding of the role the church has had and still plays in community life and some acknowledgment that these are the folks who will be "left behind" no matter which party takes office. Progressives and social activists can best establish some common ground in places like rural WV by working with rather than competing with the church as a *community* dynamic. I'm not talking about the slick, religious leeches like the Falwells and Robertsons, but the minister who delivers sermons on Sunday and digs coal on a Monday.

As a young Loretta Lynn once said, "I may be ignorant but I ain't stupid." Ask these folks to either abandon their political party or their church and I can tell you right now which one they'll choose. It matters not a whit whether I would personally agree with that decision, but I do understand where they're coming from.

[secular_warrior]

18. These people are lost to us for now.

There is nothing in the forseeable future indicating that the Democratic Party will get these folks back.

In the past the parties were divided mostly on economic issues. We are now divided much more on worldview and lifestyle issues, i.e. "retro vs. metro."

The 2000 Presidential electoral map by county tells the whole story.

The division is one of a conservative, traditional, rural/x-urban, religous, mostly white, "retro" America vs. a more liberal, modern, urban/sub-urban, secular, multi-cultural, "metro" America.

[bklyncowgirl]

19. Good article

I think that this shows what we're up against and even if Kerry wins this time out it's going to be a long haul.

We're losing the information wars, folks. The fact that Bush is able to get away with that fake cowboy act of his is a tribute to the power of the media and it's willing complicity in its own manipulation.

Its going to take a combination of developing strong intellectual arguements for progressive positions, learning to use the media more effectively and working at the grass roots level with people who may not be sophisticated and who may not agree with the liberal position on all issues but who's lives would be changed for the better if the government were more progressive.

[markus]

21. Good Book: "What's the Matter with Kansas"

discusses the idea of how this is happening, and offers some very good insights.

The most telling is, when the DLC-wing of the Democratic Party started moving away from a class-concious definition of the working, middle class, they left a huge opening.

People who were on the down side of the middle class suddenly had no other way to identifiy themselves politically except by their Church, their stand on abortion, etc.

It created a huge opening which the militant anti-abortion movement rolled through like a swollen river through a broken dike. And the elite right wing has been riding that wave for the last 10 years.

It will continue to get worse until we dump the DLC and repay in kind the class war which the GOP has been waging on us for a generation.

[PerfectSage]

80. Link:Buzzflash interview with the author of What's the matter with Kansas

Part 1 http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/08/int04044.html

B/C No Mo’ Years :party::toast:

[tomfodw]

22. Thanks to everyone for their replies

Earlier in the summer, I read about some woman who said she'd voted for Gore in 2000 but was voting for Bush this year because she was scared of terrorism. I posted that this was the problem for Kerry and that if he could respond to it convincingly, he would win easily.

I also think that the situation described in the article I posted is the problem for the Democratic Party. Look, the Republicans have more or less written off California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and similar states. That's their problem (although I doubt they see it that way). But losing West Virginia - that should never have happened to the Democrats! We really have to think about this, not just this year, but from now on. Ceaselessly. An ongoing project, regardless of what happens Nov. 2.

[secular_warrior]

37. I don't mean to sound harsh - but who cares if we lose West Virginia ?

As long as Democrats can build and maintain a majority coalition, who cares where the votes come from ? Why try to convert the unconvertable when the votes we need are already out there to be had with only a minor tweaking of our message ?

The way we're trying to do it now - it's never going to happen. The GOP focused correctly long ago on targeting the regions most receptive to their conservative message -- which meant writing off certain areas and states. That works. Trying to "win everyone" does not - not in this day and age. No longer is there any such thing as a true national party.

What the Democratic Party needs to do is to hone and deliver a moderately liberal, secular, populist message to the areas most receptive to that message: cities and their surrounding suburbs. Democrats win most of their states by turning out huge numbers from these "metro" areas. It's how we took over Oregon and Washington, and California before it, and how we're going to one day take over Florida. The key is to hasten the process by targeting those voters with a more attractive message, the way the GOP does with rural/x-urban voters.

[theHandpuppet]

45. If that's truly the attitude here...

... then I can see I've wasted a lot of time with my posts. This is obviously more about divvying up the nation's electoral votes than caring about its citizens and bringing us together as a nation. If that's the case, precisely what do we win in the end?

And with that final note, I find I have nothing left to say to anyone who still wonders where the votes went.

[sangh0]

49. It is truly the attitude of many, but you might check your own attitude

If there weren't people who think "Who cares about..." then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You can't change anyone's mind if you're going to quit because their are people who have a different opinion. You're not going to be able to communicate the message that the divide can be bridged, if you abandon the effort as "a waste of time" at the first sign of a divide. Instead, you send the message that "some people can't listen to reason", which is the exact same sort of elitist message you're trying to counteract.

[theHandpuppet]

60. Sorry, but I've pretty much laid it all out...

... in my several posts throughout this thread. If the response to what I considered to be cogent, reasoned arguments is a dismissal such as, "who cares about WV anyway?" then that is NOT a mere difference of opinion or a rebuttal to the points I have made -- it is a slam of the door upon any discourse of the very subject. In this particular case a debate must, in good faith, engage more than just one participant. You may call that elitist, but in this case I would simply call it good, old fashioned common sense. I'm sure there are others here who could construct a better case on the subject, anyway, and perhaps sans the personal investment that might stain my objectivity. I believe any constructive contribution on my part to the question of the original poster has been made.

[sangh0]

61. I don't think you've been elitist

nor do I think the Democratic Party has been elitist. However, the result clearly indicate that many voters think we are, and I do believe the way we do things has helped foster that perception.

the response to what I considered to be cogent, reasoned arguments is a dismissal such as, "who cares about WV anyway?" then that is NOT a mere difference of opinion or a rebuttal to the points I have made -- it is a slam of the door upon any discourse of the very subject.

I think it would help you if you wre to remember that this is a public space, and not a discussion betweem you and another poster. While you may be right to say there's no chance of persuading that individual poster, you should also consider the possibility that someone who is lurking and reading the exchange will be persuaded by your arguments, even if the poster your corresponding with can not be persuaded.

And I want to be clear here. I'm not saying that you're elitist or that you're causing the problem or anything like that. I think your analysis of the problem is pretty good and I do think it's an important issue. I just think you'd be more succesful at this if you were to be a bit more persistent and less frustrated. Your frustration is 100% understandable, but frustration is not very productive.

[The Magistrate]

67. Some Small Points, Mr. Handpuppet

In discussing this matter, some distinction must be borne in mind between near-term and long-term needs. It is the first essential to cobble together an electoral victory, since it is essential to evict the enemy from the nation's executive office. Nothing can be done without success first in this endeavor. In this endeavor, the ground must be taken as it actually is at present, and there is no doubt whatever that at present, the Democratic Party must rely on its urban predominance, and the great resevoirs of voters that can be tapped from metropolitan areas, to gain an electoral victory in a national election. Thus, in terms of the present election, to say "who cares about West Virginia?" is a sensible statement: successful strategy succeeds by reinforcing success, not by redeeming failure and forlorn hopes. However, in looking beyond the present election, to the need of the future, which is to sap the strength of the enemy to a state wherein it is incaple of mounting a dangerous counter-attack, to say "who cares about West Virginia?" is the height of folly. The highest form of strategy is to balk the enemy's plans, to reduce his resources, and prevent the assembly of his armies, and for this, a great deal of concern, not just for West Virginia but for a great number of rural states and venues, is essential.

It seems to me that we on the left greatly mis-understand the motivations of those rural working people who habitually vote Republican nowadays. It may not be possible to do much about some of these misapprehensions; they may be so deeply rooted in our own temperaments and outlooks that they cannot be overcome, but certainly the effort must be made. So long as a misunderstanding about why people do what they do persists, it will be impossible to formulate a line of approach that can succeed in changing their behavior, and even worse, whatever line is adopted according to the lights of that misapprehension is likely to prove counter-productive.

The idea expressed by several persons above that these people do not realize what they do works against their own interests, and that they are either to stupid to realize it, or will alter their behavior as soon as they realize or are persuaded of it, is one of the greatest elements of this misapprehension, in my view. It seems to me these people know perfectly well what they do works against their material interests, but that it satisfies their spiritual interests, which they rate higher than the material. Though the symbols through which they do so seem crude or even reprehensible to many here, these people identify profoundly with their country, and find in its glories a real solace against many of the difficulties of their lives. The acid test of whether one loves a thing is whether one is willing to sacrifice for its good. When these people vote for what they conceive to be the interests of the country, even though the act will bring them no material benefit, and may well bring them some material harm, they are not only aware of that, but experience a thrill of virtuous self-denial as they do so, and it is that spiritual thrill that impells them to the act. This is not a thing to be looked down: it is at the basis of all collective identifications and action, and is a motive the left used to be aware its power depended on harnessing. The people, after all, have no hope of opposing wealth and bettering themselves without collective action, and this depends on identification with something greater than oneself, as what will bring about success for the whole may well prove disasterous for many individuals.

The points you urge about religion are very apt, and form another, and most difficult element, of the problem. There is no doubt that the left is, fundamentally, hostile to religion. This is unavoidable, as it is at bottom a materialist creed par excellence. Most of us on the left have been at some pains throughout our lives io break the influence of religious dogmas and traditions over us, and account it something of a victory to have largely succeeded in this. In my view this is quite proper; indeed, it is my view that the less seriously a culture and society takes its religion, the greater will be its progress, and it seems to me that a look around the world, and a brief stroll through history, provides abundant confirmation. But it renders us poorly equipped either to appreciate the hold religion has on the many who value it, often above all other things, and poorly equipped to concieve of how to move such people in the directions we want them to go.

Indeed, the left in our country in the present day has, for better or worse, set itself apart from most of the traditional group identities that still operate with great force among the rural working class, and made it child's play for the enemy to present us as the enemies of much that those people hold dearest of all. Whatever the actual grounds on which a leftist might base opposition to a particular war or its conduct, for example, this opposition is easily construed as either Anti-Patriotism, which those who glory in the nation will find despicable, or as pacifism, which a hard-scrabble people will find other-wordly at best, and cowardly at worst. As these are emotional reactions, they are not susceptible to reason; people cannot be argued out of them, any more than people can be argued out of falling in love.

An important element of this problem is that self-idenification as a leftist is today in our country a distinctly minority view. Therefore, it tends to attract disproportionately people who place a premium on being seperate from the herd, who value the status of outsider for its own sake, and who neither want to be members of a group, nor are particularly good at joining and functioning in groups. Since politics is, at bottom, an exercise in building and sustaining group identities, this is a colossal problem, and one which it is beyond me to suggest any real remedy for, beyond a ruthless study of strategy and a great deal of self-discipline in adopting and maintaining political lines that may well contain a substantial proportion of things one finds, personally, abhorent.

"Sincerity is the key: if you can fake that, you've got it made."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[sangh0]

69. Excellent Magistrate

I'd like to bring attention to your point about how the left has sought to break down group identities. This is true, but I'm afraid that some of the rhetoric we've used has made people think of us as hostile to those groups. Furthermore, since political campaigning depends on building a group-based identity (namely an identitification with the group who is running a candidate), efforts to diminish a group-based identity can be counter-prooductive.

[theHandpuppet]

74. I think you will find this article relevant to our discussion

Magistrate...

I think you will find this article of interest relevant to the ongoing discussion of why it is difficult for Kerry and Dems in Appalachian communities dominated by evangelical churches:

Link to DU thread

[secular_warrior]

57. What are you upset about ? ALL Dems will benefit.

Hey, when the GOP wins nationally with their "retro" red state majority, the rich corporatists in the blue states still benefit -- they all benefit.

When the Dems build a majority with the "metro" blue states, poor and middle class people in red states will benefit - we will all benefit.

Dems in the red states aren't goint to be left behind. The party is leaving you behind now by not building a majority coalition, by not having any power.

[kodi]

23. the Right found a narrative these folk can relate to easily

their experiences fit right in place and the Right's narrative has become their reality.

[Onlooker]

26. Let's face it, we haven't been very active since '82

After Reagan won and launched his vicious attacks against liberals and other progressives, many of us sort of gave up and waited for the tide to turn. It didn't turn until Bush provided a wake-up call, and it's only in the last year or so that we started to get really active. If we continue to be as active after the election as we were before, it's just a matter of time before red states start turning blue.

[George W. Dunce]

29. Flame on

But this is what happens when you forgo education for generations. Every seceding generation is smarter, they just haven't caught up yet. These states did not have an education system worth it's salt until after the civil war.100 year head start.

[theHandpuppet]

33. You're correct about one thing

Your post is little more than flamebait, so a rebuttal would be pointless.

[tomfodw]

30. I don't want to denigrate anybody

The fact that I don't share the concerns or live the lifestyle of the people in West Virginia is not a reflection on either of us. I don't want to feel contempt for them, or pity - I want to convince them that the Democrats would make their lives better! Because it is true that the Republicans may talk their language, but the GOP makes their lives much, much worse. That disconnect concerns me, but I don't want it to degenerate into a sneering, Marxian-style analysis of "false consciousness" or anything like that.

I'm genuinely puzzled by the whole phenomenon. I started this thread in hopes of sparking a serious discussion about what happened and how we might be able to start trying to fix it. I realize this is a Campaign 2004 board, so perhaps this thread eventually should be moved, as there's not much Kerry can do right now. But the Democratic Party as a whole has to start trying to figure this out. And it's not enough for the DLC to say we should become, basically, "Republicans Lite." As Harry Truman pointed out, if you give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every time. Maybe we have to adapt our message, but we can't simply adopt our opponents' policies. The Republicans haven't been good for West Virginia - or for Kansas, or Nebraska, or Oklahoma, or Arkansas, or even Colorado - we can't help America by aping those whose policies, no matter how nicely presented, have failed.

But what can we do?

[sangh0]

35. One thing we can do is to object when democrats make bigoted comments

about southerners, trailer park residents, high school drop-outs, the religious, and the other groups that are regularly demonized by some liberals.

[theHandpuppet]

42. That's a very good suggestion

Such comments only serve to inflame class warfare. It's not the poor or uneducated who hold the reins in this country -- it's quite the opposite. Every time we blame a victim rather than the perpetrator of a crime then we play right into the hands of those who would manipulate the class war to their advantage.

[tomfodw]

48. Nobody on the right objects

When some conservatives demonize us.

But you're correct (not right! ;:) - we need to be far more tolerant of the entire country, not just the coasts and Illinois.

[theHandpuppet]

41. Some simple things first, then some more complex

First of all, its amazing to me just how quickly how so many of those who would describe themselves as "progressives" turn to angry insults and stereotyping when discussing the Appalachian vote. (Not directing that remark at you, BTW.) We as Dems have to kick this kind of blind bigotry right out of our thinking and our vocabulary (and that includes pics of "toothless hillbillies" which accompany so many posts. We're not going to reach ANYONE with such a display of disrespect).

Secondly, you don't have to share the concerns or the "live the lifestyle" (whatever that means) of people in WV to truly understand and address their concerns. I waited through three debates to hear one or both of the candidates address some particular concern that would resonate particularly with West Virginians. Guess who did? Yes, believe it or not it was GEORGE BUSH, with his stated committment to the development of "clean coal technologies". Doesn't matter whether or not the committment was real -- the fact that he even verbalized it put him front and center in the very living rooms of the people of WV in recognizing their concerns in front of a national audience! I couldn't BELIEVE Kerry let him grab that issue and then failed to follow up.

Further, I would fervently hope that President Kerry -- like Robert Kennedy did long ago -- will take up the banner of the poor and disenfranchised in rural America, so we may begin to heal the wounds in this country. Develop programs that will encourage more physicians to practice in rural America, as well as draw our best teachers. Initiate programs that offer Appalachian kids the opportunity to go to college without having to fight on the front lines to earn a dollar (WV disproportionately supplies the US with military recruits). Stop the flight of young people from Appalachia by creating a NEW industry to supplement the old -- companies that are the forefront of alternative energy technologies -- and let the people of West Virginia and Kentucky share in the jobs that can be created by the development of clean coal technologies. Revitalize the railroad industry in this nation, an industry that once provided many a family in Appalachia with their best hope of a well-paying job with benefits. That's just for starters.

Finally, about the crafty way the Repukes have won the media war with so many of these folks.... we know they're all sound byte, which brings up that old saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words". President Kerry should, as one of his first plans of office, schedule a nice, long train trip through Appalachia for his Secretaries of Education, of HHS, Labor, Commerce, of the Interior and the Vice President himself. We're not talking the Orient Express here, but the same kind of grimy train I often took with my father through the back mountains down to places like Beckley and Bluefield. Each of our esteemed Secretaries will be provided with a lunch of white bread and government surplus cheese, as well as one yellow legal pad and a #2 pencil for taking notes. Then they can take a GOOD, LONG HARD LOOK at what it's truly like to be poor and despised and forgotten in America. They will stop the train at places that have no station and talk to REAL people. Sit at their tables, break bread with them. If President Kerry's "Train of Healing" is scheduled for summer, make sure the train has no AC or, if wintertime, that it has no heat. Let it sit on the tracks for a few days with no way out and nowhere to go. Cut off their cell phones to boot, and let them get a real feel for what it's like to suffocate under the weight of isolation. At every stop each of the esteemed Secretaries shall be required to invite one Appalachian family to spend a week with them, in their own tasteful homes, in Washington DC -- all expenses paid. Let these people tell their own stories in front of an apathetic nation.

For upon their return, President Kerry will require the reports of his Secretaries be submitted to an independent commission to be immediately convened upon completion of the "Healing Train Tour". For his part, the President should agree to implement changes to existing programs and/or creation of new programs that will provide the kind of jobs, education and basic health care that will allow these very proud folks the chance to lift themselves up and take part once again in this society. Make the American dream real for them again -- and make it now.

Anyway, that's all I would have to say to our future President (as well as my fellow Dems) on that subject, for what it's worth. Unlike too many others here in WV, I'm either a hopeless optimist or perhaps hopelessly naive to still believe these words will not fall on deaf ears.

[calgaldem]

68. Bravo.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read. With your permission, I'd like to save this post and forward it to President Kerry.

I'd also like your permission to forward this to Bush if the worst should happen and he is re-elected. In the latter case, it probably IS hopeless optimism to think it would even be read in its entirety.

BUT if something like this really could happen, no matter who is president, I honestly believe even the heaviest eyes could be opened, and the hardest hearts could be softened.

[theHandpuppet]

73. Thank you very much

Please be my guest, if you think it would at all help in some small way.

I hope to later address a fine post by the Magistrate, who has made some excellent points that deserve more time for thought. Right now I have errands to run but perhaps some others here have thoughts/opinions to share about some of his insights.

[randr]

31. For what its worth

I drove through WV several years ago and the impression I had was as if I was driving through Mordor. Industrial waste filled most side streams and huge tailing piles everywhere. I could see that there was once a beautiful land beneath the destuction.

[sangh0]

32. A lot of it has to do with religion IMO

and the hostility many liberals feel towards the religious. It failitates the repukes efforts to portray themselves as the party of God and the Democrats as a party of elitist heathens who look down on the religious because they they're primitive and ignorant.

[tomfodw]

34. Sorry, IMO that's a straw man argument

There are plenty of religious liberals. Maybe not in the same way (probably not too many observant Jews in West Virginia, for example), but religion is not the sole province of the right, Christ is not a Republican, and faith can lead you to progress as well as to reaction.

Sure, the Republicans use the language of evangelical Christianity to their advantage, but the people in West Virginia are not stupid (perhaps misinformed, considering the quote in the article I posted about the guy who seemed to think Bush was a genuine cowboy). Again, I do not want this thread to degenerate into sneering at those who don't vote our way. I want to truly understand how the Democrats lost what should be a true-blue state, and what we can do to win it back.

Please, folks, stay on message. Thanks.

[sangh0]

38. That's not a straw man

A straw man is when someone refutes an argument that hasn't been made. Though I was raising an issue that hadn't been brought up in the thread, I wasn't trying to refute anything. I was simply raising a new point, not a straw man.

Your post, on the other hand, does try to refute what I said by raising issues I never made, and so it's your arguments that contain the strawmen. I never said that are no religious liberals or that religion is the sole province of the right. I merely stated my opinion that there is a significant amount of hostility towards the religious coming from the left. (and I have links to prove it)

Also, I never said that West Virginians are stupid. However, I do feel that there are probably some religious WVers that might vote Dem but are turned away by this hostility that comes from the left. I also do not appreciate your implying that I have "sneered" at West Virginians when there is not one derogatory word in my previous post.

If you want this remain a flame-free discussion, I suggest you make an effort at not implying bad motives on the part of anyone who raises a point you disagree with. Reasonable discussion requires a minimum of mutual respect.

[secular_warrior]

40. Nobody on the left is hostile towards religion.

Most Democrats and liberals belong to a religion and many are deeply religous. It has nothing to do with hostility towards religion, but hostility towards those who wish to turn this country into a theocracy.

Much of this blue state/red state struggle is about people who believe in secularist democracy (what our country was founded on) versus people who believe in fundamentalist theocracy.

[sangh0]

47. You are very wrong about that

I have links to posts on DU which state things like "A belief in god is a sign of mental illness" and that it's "Good" if Christians are being oppressed, because "they got it coming"

I am quite "impressed" with the level of denial many secularists on DU show. While the number of people who express outright hostility towards the religious is relatively small, I've found it remarkable that those posts receive little criticism from the majority who should, and do, know better. Just the other day, I posted quotes from some of those posts, and the response was to ignore them and to continue to say things similar to your "nobody on the left is hostile towards religion"

We have long-time, 1000+ post, posters saying that ANYONE who believes in God is a mentally ill, and you think there's NO ONE here who is hostile to religion? Do you think there's NO ONE here who is hostile to southerners or residents of trailer parks?

[secular_warrior]

59. Well, I disagree with people who are hostile to religion

Secularists respect the right of religous freedom while also respecting the wall between church and state. Secularism is not about atheism or about banning religion. Even atheism is a religous belief. Secularism is about keeping religion and government separate, and respecting both.

[sangh0]

62. I agree with you there, but there ARE people on left with bigoted opinions

Some of them are here on DU.

[kcwayne]

53. Well, that's wrong, I am on the left, and I am hostile toward religion

I don't take actions against the religious, other than to tune them out. I don't respect the religious explanation on world events, philosophy, or religion, and don't want to waste time debating it or giving it due consideration in anything that I spend time on intellectually. I have done that, and discounted it, and choose to spend my energies elsewhere.

Religious people find me to be dismissive of their opinions and realities. They tend to consider this hostile. If they would mind their own business and not try to insert their religion into my life, they would not feel this way because they would simply not know my positions on faith. This is because I don't go door to door trying to sell my ideas for how they should live, and I have never suggested to anyone that atheism would make their lives better.

The reverse is not true, and while those of faith think they are doing me a big favor by sharing Jesus with me, I take it as a hostile act that disrespects my privacy, my studies, and my intelligence. And then the hostility shows in my face.

[tomfodw]

54. Not all religious people want to shove it in others' faces

I'm a devout Jew, and while I don't mind discussing my faith with anyone, I would never want to force anyone else to listen to me talk about it. I know that's not everyone, and I've been on the other end of Christians who feel it's their duty to bring everyone to Jesus. But for me, faith is as faith does, not as it talks. And there are a lot of religious people who feel and live and act as I do.

[kcwayne]

55. there are a lot of religious people who feel and live and act as I do

I realize that. I didn't say all religious people are evangelists, but that the ones that are find me to be hostile to their views.

We share the same philosphy on how we interact with people on religious matters, we are just have opposite views. I think most reasonable people respect that.

[sangh0]

63. I think you dug yourself into a deeper hole

You now say that you KNOW that the proselytizing is NOT something ALL religious people do, but earlier you expressed a hostility towards ALL religion, and not just the proselytizers.

When you come to conclusions about the characteristics of EVERY member of the group based on the characteristics of a FEW of the members, it's called "stereotyping" and it's considered a very intolerant way of looking at things and is highly correlated with discrimination and prejudice.

What you're complaining about is the lack of respect, and the invasion of your privacy by some people who are religious. You should direct your hostility to those who disrespect your views and invade your privacy. You shouldn't demonstrate hostility towards people who haven't dissed you or invaded your privacy, and most religious people haven't done that.

[kcwayne]

65. You are not clearly reading what I said

"You should direct your hostility to those who disrespect your views and invade your privacy."

As I said in my original post:

If they would mind their own business and not try to insert their religion into my life, they would not feel this way because they would simply not know my positions on faith.

Having hostility toward ALL religion is not the same thing as attacking those with religious views. If one perceives that being tuned out, or holding a disdainful opinion of religion is of itself a hostile act, then we should start talking about how incredibly prescient Orwell's proposition of thought police was.

[sangh0]

66. I read what you wrote. I'm clear. You weren't

You quote ONE LINE from your previous posts. You didn't quote the part where you said that you are hostile to religion. You also didn't quote the part where you claimed that the religious think you're hostile because you have discounted their beliefs.

I'm religious and I don't think you're hostile to religion because you've discounted my beliefs. You don't even know my beliefs.

I think you're hostile to religion for one simple reason - YOU SAID YOU WERE HOSTILE TO RELIGION.

You've engaged stereotypes of the religious to describe ALL of religion, and then turn around and try to depict yourself as clearly talking about A PORTION of the religious, using one small quote, when your words made it clear that you are hostile to religion due to a stereotypical reaction of a small portion of the religious population.

And here you do it again

Having hostility toward ALL religion is not the same thing as attacking those with religious views. If one perceives that being tuned out, or holding a disdainful opinion of religion is of itself a hostile act, then we should start talking about how incredibly prescient Orwell's proposition of thought police was.

Because you have encountered A FEW religious people who think your disdain is a hostile act, you speak as if ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE think your disdain is a hostile act.

That's stereotyping and prejudice. You are judging individuals based on how other individuals behave, simply because they are members of the same group.

[kcwayne]

70. You are still not clearly reading what I have stated

But this argument is non-productive and will do nothing but raise animosity.

I have not sterotyped, and have not spoken in terms of ALL anything. You are casting aspersions on me for things that you are interpreting from my statements that a closer inspection and reflection of what is actually stated does not warrent.

The one statement I made in the original post that "Religious people find me..." could be rocketed into the case you are trying to make. I should have stated "When I get in discussions with religious people they tend to..." which is more restrictive because it would clearly reflect on my direct experiences. But this is a free for all forum, I am busy doing other things and not reading my post for absolute rock solid clarity from all points of view.

I don't want to spend any more time doing point counter-point. Lets declare peace and move on.

[sangh0]

72. Then all I'll say is you should re-read your #53

and see if you can see how your post would be perceived by a religious person. Please note the complete absence of any words that distinguish between those that proselytize, and those that don't.

I can't read your mind, so I don't know what you really meant. All I have is the words you wrote. While your intent and reasoning may have been good and sound, your words in that post were, at the very least, careless. Your depictions of the religious in post #53 seem to apply to all religious people.

[patcox2]

43. Anti-intellectual, implied racism, anti-government plays in rural USA

I beleive its the generalized "get big gummint out of your hair," government can't do anything right, combined with a "liberals are giving your money to the lazy (blacks) that appeals to the rural poor.

And there is still a huge strain of anti-intellectualism endemic in america since its inception and still strongly present in rural areas, the republicans play this very well, too.

But its all tied together, "the pointy head atheist ivory tower liberals with their ridiculous gummint programs are going to take your money and give it to the lazy blacks who are gonna use it to buy crack and rape your daughters" is the fundamental republican message that works.

I think its not a positive attraction to the republican party that is working, as much as a reaction against some real and some false perceptions of "the liberal agenda." The excesses of some members of the liberal coalition provide the republicans with anecdotal evidence that plays very well. The snail darter, the spotted owl and the "all sex is rape" brand of (what is perceived to be ball-busting) feminism have become the face of the democratic party, to the folks out in the hinterlands.

[goodboy]

46. Choosing the pResident by the size of his belt-buckle must be a WV thing

These are the people who use the "who'd you rather have a beer with" to choose. Nevermind they're being destroyed financially by bush...nevermind their jobs are gone.

[GOPBasher]

50. The Christian Right -- They vote on a very narrow agenda.

[tomfodw]

51. That can't be the entire state of West Virginia

This used to be a very blue state. Is it more Christian now than it was when John L. Lewis was practically a walking god amongst the coal miners? I just don't buy that as the only reason why they have turned to the Republicans.

[GOPBasher]

58. Abortion and gay rights are NOW the only issues they care about.

The evangelical Christian Right is incredibly powerful now. And they tell their people to vote only on those two issues. That's it. Those people don't seem to care about true Christian values when it comes to war and peace, minimum wage, education, health care, social safety nets, environmental protection, etc. They only care about abortion and gay rights, nothing else. It pisses me off. The Christian Right is our biggest problem in the country right now. That's why KKKarl Rove plays to them all the time. If only they'd vote ALL their values.

[sangh0]

64. If that were really true

the Dems wouldn't get ANY votes in WV. Obviously, they care about other things too, and not just abortion and gay rights.

[JohnKleeb]

75. right

I dont know why they've voted republican in national elections, but I agree with the West Virginian's post that there is a lot of intolerance towards West Virginians, I personally think they're good people, WVA was big United Miners of America country and my family lived in West Pa, and were in the UMA too, plus I admire the fact they seperated from Virginia for a great reason, they didn't feel it was right to own slaves. West Virginia despite its white trash myth I've heard is quite ethnic too.

[Cha]

76. Speaking of West Virginia..

I was watching a bit of Washington Journal this morning and a caller from West Virginia(* supporter) said he had been out of work for two years now and had a lot of time to think and he's come to the conclusion that "republicans think with their brains, Indpendents put their finger out to see which way the wind blows and Democrats don't have any brains."

I shit you not! Guess he figures it's Clinton's fault he's been out of work for two years!

[The Great Escape]

77. There Is A School Of Thought In WVA Currently...

that the Dems (with their pro-union stance) have been the ones that have created a poor business climate in WVA. The Repukes in WVA play this all of the time, since on the state and local level the Dems are the dominant party. Of course, I don't agree with this. The primary problem with the economy in West Virginia is, and always has been the "absentee" ownership of the vast majority of West Virginia's wealth by large corporations. Blaming the unions and Democrats is much easier for alot of lazy folks to digest, than actually looking at the real reasons for the economic climate in West Virginia.

[tomfodw]

79. Other Southern states are beginning to question that surrender philosophy

The South for more than a generation has believed they had no choice but to kowtow to big business, to lower their environmental standards and make union organizing difficult if not impossible or else not get any companies in to build factories and create jobs. Now that a lot of those factories have relocated to Mexico or elsewhere, these states are beginning to realize they may have made a devil's bargain. They have no jobs, no education, no environment. The wealth they build went to others, not themselves. If poor states would realize that their salvation lay in joining the progressive coalition to make corporations act responsibly and share the wealth, they would have done much much better.

Of course, the Democrats, environmentalists, labor organizers, etc., have not done the best job in making this case. (Of course of course, when the corporate consolidators control the media, it's hard to make this case. It has to be done at the local and state level, and it takes time. If Ralph Nader were really about anything other than promoting Ralph Nader, he'd have been spending the past decade trying to build this kind of local effort.)

You can't race to the bottom; all that does is mire everyone at the bottom. You have to race to the top.