The Dems need to embrace economic populism, downplay cultural liberalism

[rjung]

I just find it amusing how Sam Stone and Shodan are denouncing EC’s generalizations with generalizations of their own.

[BrainGlutton]

@spoke-

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the saying goes.

True. Of course, you catch even more with bullshit!

[Metacom]

@Shodan

When it comes to liberalism, kindly Big Massa tells everybody what to do and how to live and how to think and what to say. And the job of the rest of us is to scratch our heads and grin and say, “Thank yuh kindly! Thank yuh!”

You know, that has got to be one of the most offensive things in this thread since Evil Captor’s screed.

[BrainGlutton]

@spoke-

Otherwise, we will continue to have not “red states” and “blue states,” but rather shrinking blue islands in a red sea.

Which wouldn’t be so bad for the Dems. Look closely at that map (which breaks down the “red-blue” divide by county): All those “shrinking blue islands” are cities. The metropolitan areas where most Americans live. Remember, an election depends on votes, not territory. And, leaving out anomalies like the Electoral College, votes are cast by individuals, not states or counties. No cite, but I daresay these “blue islands” must have a larger aggregate population than the vast “red sea.” (Which does not necessarily mean Dem voters outnumber Pub voters, of course it’s more complicated than that.) In The Emerging Democratic Majority (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743226917/002-9028475-5377666?v=glance), John Judis and Ruy Teixeira foresee post-industrial metropolitan “ideopolises” as providing the main source of Dem electoral support in the future.

[BrainGlutton]

@Metacom

BrainGlutton’s argument is that large numbers of middle and lower class people vote Republican because they’re socially conservative, and their moral values are more important to them then their economic status. His argument implies that they’re politically aware enough to make the decision.

Yes, that is what I meant. To win, the Dems have to make themselves less offensive to those voters’ consciences and appeal more explicitly and vigorously to their economic interests.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Let me put it htis way: both guys are assuming that the poor are largely blinded to the economic policies of the Republicans by their social values. Neither accepts that many people vote on principle and not on what will benefit themselves personally-- ie, that there can be lower class people who are unwilling to “soak the rich” on philosophical grounds.

No, John. I ascribe certain moral values to the “red state” voters, but those values do not include economic libertarianism, which I think is a key value only for a small minority of them.

[Shodan]

@tomndebb

Sort of like the way that the “Conservatives” only want to let everyone live their own livs in peace, unless they are the “wrong” sex to marry (or wish to engage in sex with the “wrong” sex and still get a job or housing), or they wish to use any mind-altering drugs other than alcohol or if they wish to conduct business on a Christian feast or if they would prefer to not have their children indoctrinated in religions in which they do not believe.

I didn’t know blue laws were a prominent part of the mainstream American conservative movement.

And you will notice that, in many of your other examples, liberals are trying to get government to impose liberal values on the rest of us by fiat. Gay marriage loses a bunch of referenda - so liberals want to get the Supreme Court to impose it on the majority. Liberals don’t like the “under God” clause, but it isn’t enough to allow children to refrain from saying it if they like - the clause has to be taken out altogether so no one else can either. Free speech on campus is fine - as long as you don’t say something offensive to a Democratic minority.

Both sides do it, you’re right. Liberals just do it more.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@Shodan

And you will notice that, in many of your other examples, liberals are trying to get government to impose liberal values on the rest of us by fiat. Gay marriage loses a bunch of referenda - so liberals want to get the Supreme Court to impose it on the majority. Liberals don’t like the “under God” clause, but it isn’t enough to allow children to refrain from saying it if they like - the clause has to be taken out altogether so no one else can either. Free speech on campus is fine - as long as you don’t say something offensive to a Democratic minority.

Both sides do it, you’re right. Liberals just do it more.

You’re right, both sides do it, but “liberals just do it more” is simply not a provable assertion. You may think it’s true, but probably just because you are more likely to notice it when it happens.

BrainGlutton: I still think you’re wrong that economic libertarianism is any more rare than economic progressivism (as you define it) in the “red states”, but if you say you aren’t being condescending, I’ll take you at your word.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

BrainGlutton: I still think you’re wrong that economic libertarianism is any more rare than economic progressivism (as you define it) in the “red states”, but if you say you aren’t being condescending, I’ll take you at your word.

No, I don’t think economic progressivism is a common attitude among the broad masses of red-state voters either. I think, rather, that most of them have a very well-defined political consciousness WRT moral/religious/cultural issues (and, not incidentally, national-security issues), and a much less developed consciousness WRT economic/social/class issues (and, not incidentally, international relations issues other than those directly connected to defense). But if you can erase the moral taint that currently attaches to the Dem label, and if you can show them how voting Dem = voting their own pocketbooks (and if you can also show them that Dem != anti-American terrorist-loving surrender monkey), they’ll vote Dem. That’s my theory, anyway.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

I didn’t know blue laws were a prominent part of the mainstream American conservative movement.

:rolleyes: Then you haven’t been paying attention. Anti-gay-marriage amendments, parental-notification statutes, and stricter enforcement of FCC anti-obscenity rules are this decade’s equivalent of blue laws.

[Brutus]

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes: Then you haven’t been paying attention. Anti-gay-marriage amendments, parental-notification statutes, and stricter enforcement of FCC anti-obscenity rules are this decade’s equivalent of blue laws.

Ya. Keeping kids from having abortions without their parents knowledge and trying to keep a few activists from redefining marriage is just about the same as regulating alchohol sales and business hours on Sundays. :rolleyes:

[Shodan]

Thanks, Brutus - you beat me to it.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

If you would be so kind as to point out to me which group of atheistic secular activist liberals demand that businesses close on Christian religious observance days?

[ElvisL1ves]

@spoke-

What you (and EC) are not seeing is the difference between demonizing your opponent and demonizing your audience.

Fair enough, although there’s quite a bit of overlap. Demonizing an opponent that your audience has customarily supported necessarily entails making them feel they’ve been fooled for having done so. If that isn’t demonization, it’s part of the way there.

What you and many others are not seeing, by corollary, is that **EC ** was not demonizing the poor or any other class but the willfully ignorant. He’s explained that too. What’s the problem?

[LonesomePolecat]

@ElvisL1ves

What you and many others are not seeing, by corollary, is that **EC ** was not demonizing the poor or any other class but the willfully ignorant. He’s explained that too. What’s the problem?

This is a lie. I and other people on this thread have pointed out to you the phrases which refer explicitly to economic status and/or social class. You are trying to deny the undeniable.

[BrainGlutton]

My theory in the OP is reinforced by the following article, pointing out that a lot of American voters don’t even know the numbers involved in some economic policy issues – from In These Times, 5/9/05, http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2076/:

Public opinion polls consistently show that people hugely overestimate the portion of public spending that goes to programs like welfare or foreign aid. For example, a Kaiser poll from the mid-’90s found that 40 percent of respondents ranked welfare as one of the two largest items in the federal budget, and 40 percent put foreign aid in this category. At the time, the two largest items in the federal budget were Social Security at 22 percent and military spending at 18 percent. The share of the budget going to Aid for Families with Dependent Children, the core welfare program, was less than 1 percent. Adding in food stamps, housing subsidies and other low-income programs could push this figure close to 4 percent. Less than 0.5 percent of the budget went for anything remotely resembling foreign aid.

The extent of this misinformation is important. If a person believes that 25 percent of the budget is already going to welfare, then she is likely to have a very different attitude toward further spending than if she knew the real numbers. She would believe that welfare spending is already imposing a substantial tax burden—one that must have a real effect on the living standards of many middle income families.

Furthermore, any reasonable person who believes that such a large portion of the federal budget is already going to welfare might also wonder how incremental increases in this spending would have any real effect. In other words, if the United States has made so little progress in alleviating poverty after spending so much, why would another $2 billion for child care or $800 million for housing subsidies make a difference? Alternatively, if massive spending has little impact, how much harm could be caused by modest cutbacks, or a “slower rate of growth,” as the Bush administration would frame the issue.

Given the fundamental ignorance about the scale of these social programs, it is remarkable that they enjoy as much support as they do.

And ignorance is something education (or even good journalism) can correct.

[ElvisL1ves]

@LonesomePolecat

This is a lie. I and other people on this thread have pointed out to you the phrases which refer explicitly to economic status and/or social class. You are trying to deny the undeniable.

You, and other people, have tried to dismiss a denunciation of willful ignorance as no more than simple class-baiting. It would be more useful for you to address the subject raised than to sidetrack it into simple invective. It’s no wonder that he’s apparently given up the effort as hopeless, given the response to it.

[Spoke]

I was watching Maher’s show last night, and he and Martin Short provided yet another illustration of the point I made earlier. They were discussing politics (of course) and Short began to tell a story about a documentary he’d seen about snake handling Christians (“this is in the South,” he said, arching his eyebrows knowingly in the direction of the other panelists), and the conclusion of Short’s story was that these are the types of people who vote for Bush. And Maher jumped right in to agree with him.

This is the kind of frank bigotry that is killing the Democrats. I think Short and Maher (and maybe some posters on this board) really believe that snake handlers are representative of protestant Christianity in the South and form Bush’s core constituency.

You cannot win voters over by insulting them. It’s as simple as that.