T’other day, Your Humble Blogger was listening to the local NPR call-in show, and they were, of course, talking about how the Democrats failed to win the election, and what they could do to improve next time. And a fellow called in and was very particular about the fact that he didn’t vote “the party line”, but voted for “the man”. Right, right. He declared that he disagreed with Our Only President on some issues, particularly environmental issues, but that at least he knew where he stood, while John Kerry was “on top of the fence” with a lot of issues. Asked for examples, he said that Senator Kerry claimed to be against gay marriage, but was against amending the constitution; claimed to be a hunter, but had voted to ban the gun that he was photographed holding; and claimed to be a churchgoer but was OK with partial-birth abortion. He was particularly vehement about this last one, emphasizing that there was no way anyone who believed in Gd could accept partial-birth abortion.
Now, I don’t doubt that the man was sincere when he said he didn’t vote the party line. I am not, for instance, suggesting that he was a GOP operative trying to sow confusion amongst the Democrats. But his complaint about John Kerry was not that the Senator was on the fence. If the candidate had come out clearly and unequivocally against hunting, for gay marriage, and against churchgoing, this fellow would not have said “now, I can vote for him.” No, not only was this guy never going to vote for John Kerry, he was never going to vote for any Democrat. Unless, that is, the Democrat was against gun control, reproductive choice, and gay rights, and even then I get the feeling he would have found some reason to prefer the Republican—the man, not the party. Perhaps affirmative action. Maybe federal support of the arts. Could be the Pledge of Allegiance.
The frustrating thing was that the host took from the call the point that John Kerry was on the fence. She took the comment at face value, when face value was clearly the least valuable way to take it. Well, that was my momentary frustration. I was also frustrated with the caller, of course, who I wish would join the Republican Party and voice his environmental concerns within it, rather than sniping from the edge of town. And I’m frustrated, on the whole, with the sense that this fellow is never going to be convinced that gay rights, gun control and reproductive choice are simply not all that important in presidential terms.
But then, if they aren’t all that important (in presidential terms, I mean), then could I support a Democratic candidate who was against gun control, reproductive choice and gay rights, but in favor of progressive taxation, collective bargaining rights, and a long-sighted foreign policy? Well, yes, I could. Do I think such a candidate could win election? I just don’t know. I don’t think it’s worth trying, but honestly I don’t know. Are we letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or at least the good be the enemy of improvement?
Or they really the important issues after all? A very wise and interesting woman once told me that she left the left, politically, to work entirely on women’s issues, as there was no chance for a just world that didn’t accept women’s leadership (along with rather than replacing men’s, she was no man-hater). I was skeptical; I was twenty-three. Since then I’ve grown to believe that the basic stories of people’s lives, the way they match patterns and view the universe, affect all their policy views and all their social views. A society that allowed husbands to beat their wives with impunity was not going to be tolerant generally, nor was it likely to be progressive economically. Yes, of course, people can be in favor of gay marriage and against collective bargaining, or vice versa, but in general, progressivism like conservatism is a mindset, a bias, a way of thinking. A mood, almost. And from that mood comes all the rest. And I can easily discuss policy difference with those whose mindset I share, but it is much harder to persuade somebody do alter their biases.
Perhaps, then, for America to move towards my vision of its future, what we really require is lots more mood-altering substances.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, tea.
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.
Along the lines of this caller:
http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html
and a response (not to mention the 280+ on the first page): http://www.livejournal.com/users/raven_albion/9595.html
On WAMC’s call-in, a man said he wasn’t sure whom to vote for until he heard so many callers “whining about Bush” (that was his term, whining). So he decided to vote for Bush. Seems a bit odd to decide based on not liking other people’s tones of response and worry.
It’s important to recognize the caller’s rhetoric as tactical, not thoughtful. While it is in part designed to convince middle America that a neutral and reasoned analysis would (or at least could) favor Bush, it is primarily designed to convince right-wing America that their reflexive vote for Bush is the result of a neutral and reasoned analysis. This excuses mental laziness on the part of those who like the idea of thinking but don’t know how to think, those who like the veneer of logic but not the rigors of argumentation, those who want to have informed opinions but not the information to form their own.
This particular bit of rhetoric has been well-practiced on right-wing radio, and the caller to NPR was simply repeating what sounded reasonable to him.
The claim that your support for a candidate is based on the tone or tactics of the other side’s supporters is similarly tactical. I see it a lot on mailing lists. It’s obviously avoids substantive discussion, but the larger hope is that it will cause the other side’s supporters to not voice their support as loudly or as strongly. On the mailing lists I’m on where that exact tactic is employed regularly, it never appears to convince anyone and it never comes from someone who previously appeared neutral on an issue.
Remember all the advance discussion about how the Democrats had to avoid alienating anyone by having an “optimistic” convention where nobody criticized the Republicans very strongly? That idea was pushed by the Republicans, who made little pretense to maintaining civility at their convention a month later. The Democrats, ever fearful of offending anyone, bought into it.
Saying the other side needs to be polite and quiet is the same tactic that is still used to suppress women in public life and in the workforce. Men are assertive, women are bitchy. Republicans are forceful, Democrats are whiny. These stereotypes are promoted by NBC primetime for gender roles and by Fox News for political roles in very similar ways.
there’s a legit concern about the disconnect between washington democratic critiques of the president (very weak) and democratic/progressive activist critiques (pretty forceful, if naive).
a coordinated effort would make sense. like the bushies are doing it, like activists have done it throughout time immemorial, push hard with your crew and soft with your leadership. at the moment the leadership is rejecting the crew’s input, their politics, and their philosophies, leaving the crew to hang or try to make something out of nader.
we’re in a period i think when the enlightened self-interest idea of american policy has to be re-sold to the public. tribalism has retaken the population? i’ve been thinking about this, and listening to the “you may be right but i can tell you don’t respect me” arguments all over the place, not just coming from right wingers, it seems like people may not believe that things can get better. they may have soured on public affairs to the point that they don’t believe that anything can be meaningfully changed for the positive through the public sector.
even if they say they believe, they may only think that fighting for the public sector is to prevent the loss of current benefits, on which they depend in a tough time. righties are definitely trying to kill the welfare state, but lefties may be at fault for part of this for having pushed the “social disaster” idea to the point that people believe there is nothing but bad things in either direction.
my thing lately has been public health programs. people don’t realize how much their lives improve with a good, coordinated, well-funded public health plan in their area. we may all need to be taught again how such things benefit people.
…they don’t believe that anything can be meaningfully changed for the positive through the public sector.
I agree, and I am far more worried about this than about losing an election or three. I also worry about the confluence of this with (1) the feeling that, through campaign finance imbalances, vote-counting shenanigans, and low turn-out, that the elections don’t actually represent the will of the majority and (B) the trend away from pluralism and from the idea that a parliament of our best and brightest, deliberating over the issues of the day, is likely to come to agreement over a set of solutions to try.
Public health is worth a shot as an example. I’m kind of sick of trying to use bridges and libraries.
Thanks,
-V.
architecture – yeah – it’s not a good example. americans don’t care about architecture, and there could be a good polemical narrative in there somewhere about how democracy fares just as badly as land development when it is done with regard only for money.
public health and education are ongoing, warmer ideas. the buildings and bridges from the period before the war are cold – there’s no need to build new libraries for future generations, so the old structures tend to sit on modern society as an unpayable debt instead of inspiring pride. plus they are the accomplishments of a mindset – an intense enthusiasm, a new power, a new understanding, a new competitive spirit, working to demonstrate our stature by out-wow-ing the great works of past autocracies.
yeah – i’m just reading an article that quotes that “it is the veteran…” poem again, and talks about it – and i’m thinking, yes, that’s really appealing. everything good comes from heroic acts of bravery in battle. it’s not appealing to think of heroism in terms of doing difficult, thankless work, or bravery as holding your friends responsible for harm they’ve done.
for this public health is a really good example. people understand that in staying healthy, one’s own behavior will only go so far. there need to be people, very good people, to keep up with current health information, and to spread that information, and to act with authority on that information when it describes a threat to the community. these experts must be as completely free of conflicts of interest as possible, serving no particular clientele before another.
plans. people set goals, make plans, hire some of their own to carry out the plans; and that’s how things work. republicans have been saying “we don’t need no stinking plans,” democrats have been responding with “but the plans are what makes america great” – a losing battle, because things like social security and the EPA are hardly unique to us.