The unteachable ignorance of the red states.

tsherry

Inactive
This from Slate.com.

Submitted for your consideration. Feel free to laugh hysterically or become very, very angry.

-------
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
By Jane Smiley
Updated Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, at 3:24 PM PT


The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to read previous entries.


I say forget introspection. It's time to be honest about our antagonists. My predecessors in this conversation are thoughtful men, and I honor their ideas, but let's try something else. I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)

Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states. There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand fight on the frontier called a "knock-down-drag-out," where any kind of gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair. The ancestors of today's red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on these fights. When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862—Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind.

Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen. This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor. But by this time you don't need much encouragement—you've put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and really, some kind of miraculous fruition (preferably accompanied by the torment of your enemies, and the ignorant always have plenty of enemies) is your only hope. If you are sufficiently ignorant, you won't even know how dangerous your policies are until they have destroyed you, and then you can always blame others.

The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?

Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can't understand it and don't respond. They cannot be allowed to keep any secrets. Tens of millions of people didn't vote—they are watching, too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and that the battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse. Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Um... yeah... :rolleyes:

<b>The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. </b>

So lemmee get this straight - only liberals are intelligent, enlightened individuals. Conservatives are ignorant, knuckle-dragging neanderthals?

<b>I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)</b>

So - Republicans are all greedy and harbor feelings of superiority?

Puhleeeaaaase. Just another sour-grapes hack-job, touchy-feely, "it all THEIR fault" line of bullshit.

EDIT: Please read the thread below for the REAL reason the libbies lost (again).

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=126689
 

rb.

Membership Revoked
Yup, laughing hysterically here. :D

The way I see it, as an outsider, is this. The Republicans and Bush represent the family. Hilary and the Dems think it takes a village to raise a child. I think smart Americans want to raise their own children, and don't want Hilary and the Dems anywhere near them. Republicans support the family, Dems want it to disintegrate to fit their programs. Would be an easy decision to me.

Sure, I know there are lots of other factors involved, but I think analysis of the family unit, and how it's treated, is as basic as one can get.
 

A.T.Hagan

Inactive
In spite of all the yadda yadda yadda coming from the Left and from the Right the election hinged on <STRONG>TWO PERCENT</STRONG>.

This is all a lot of horse shit no matter which side of the aisle it comes from.

......Alan.
 

fruit loop

Inactive
Read some history on Quantrill, too

The raid on Lawrence, Kansas, was in revenge for atrocities perpetrated on helpless women and children while the men were away fighting.

In an attempt to punish Quantrill's men, their women relatives were arrested and held in a dilapidated building under deplorable conditions. The building collapsed and several women were killed.

A Union colonel (can't remember the name and I'm not where I can look it up) was allowed, in fact encouraged, to perpetrate these outrages on innocent Missouri families in order to punish their husbands and brothers who had enlisted in the Confederate Army.

Quantrill said on his deathbed that if he'd been able to catch this man, he'd have burned him at the stake.

The bastard richly deserved it.
 

INVAR

Sword At-The-Ready
Jane Smiley and the rest of her wretched ideologues who share those sentiments would I am sure, feel much more at home in France - where I submit - THEY BELONG.

Hell, I'll even help them pack.
 
Swampthing - sadly, that is precisely what the Left continues to preach. Set the classes against each other - divide and conquer. The Left have an unshakeable agenda.

The standard dictionary definition of Socialism is: the middle stage of a progression from Capitalism to Communism!
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Oh, and one more thing:

Us poor, ignorant conservatives just HAVE to submit ourselves to being "taught" :kk1: by the ever-benevolent, enlightened elitist Liberals..... Right...?

So which group really IS the arrogant one...?

:kk1: :kk1: :kk1: :kk1: :kk1: :kk1: :kk1: :kk1:
 

bw

Fringe Ranger
Swampthing - yup. Who gets elected, and what problem you think that might or might not cause, is less scary than the fact that most Americans now think that those who disagree with them are evil. We have sunk an amazingly long way in civility and good intentions.

bw
 

A.T.Hagan

Inactive
Seems to me both the Left and Right extremists share a good number of similarities.

Namely, both desperately want to get control and then use that control to force others to live the way they believe they should.

I'm getting to the point that I don't see much difference between the two. Both want to tell me what to think and how to live my life.

Red + Blue = Purple.

Fifty purple states.

.....Alan.
 

Tweakette

Irrelevant
Swampthing, bw, and Alan:

Exactly. It's frightening.

There are far fewer taking the high road and discussing things civilly even when the sides don't agree. Instead in our Jerry Springer, reality based, conflict sells culture the Low Road is the preferred route.

It makes me sick :kk2:

I have a much bigger rant welling up in me, will probably post it this weekend.

Tweak
 

atlantajack

Inactive
Lots of knee-jerk reactions to an opinion piece with a fair amount of truth to it!
What is basically said is that the party of the rich has co-opted a religious message in order to get elected repeatedly. A lot of less-well-off folks have voted for the GOP for their supposed moral values and all they get for their efforts are a few bones tossed their way (partial-birth abortion ban, Thomas and Scalia on the SCOTUS, etc.) as they slowly watch their incomes continue to go down and their way of life dissapear!
Hope you folks enjoy the next 4 years!
Jack :rolleyes:
 

housemouse

Membership Revoked
What is wrong with the left?

They rail so much against stereotyping, but they do it all the time.

I am really thinking about this today. Because our family voted for Bush, we are supposed to be bible-toting, unsophisticated, poorly educated, and ill-informed sheep, who know nothing about tolerance and the importance of diversity.

But, all of us live in states that vote "blue". My husband and children all have college degrees, and there are three post graduate degrees among the five of us. One is presently working on her doctorate. I am the only one who didn't complete college, but because I have have had the luxury of remaining home to raise the children, am able to spend more time researching and reading up on all the issues, and have become the "in-house" researcher for the rest of them when some arcane subject needing analysis comes along.

None of us ever attended church regularly. We are not intolerant of homosexuals, and do not want to interfere in the rights of others to make private decisions regarding regarding morality and matters of faith.

So, why did we all vote for Bush? I think it is because we hope for Social Security reform, health savings accounts, a fairer tax policy, are opposed to appeasing terrorists, want to see a restructured and properly funded military, and a less confusing message abroad from our State department. None of us feel particularly threatened by the Patriot act or by the evangelical religious right.

Particularly because we have benefited from more educational advantages, all worked for the hard way (all three of our children worked, borrowed, and struggled to pay for their own undergraduate and post graduate degrees), we deeply resent the attempts made by the mainstream media to tell us what and how to think about issues, not to mention efforts to manipulate our emotions with one-sided reporting on important subjects affecting our voting decisions.

But, to listen to the liberals in the same media, we do not exist. If they were to look for people like us, and find that there are many, they would have to forgo the stereotypical, smug, arrogant, dismissive views that they express toward those of us who found fault with Kerry's inabilty to present any coherent alternative to the present problems we face.

All we heard was that he had "plans". We never heard any details of these plans, just that there were some. To be asked to vote for unexplained plans insults the common sense and basic intelligence we are not supposed to have.


(Thread content copied here - Dennis)
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Jack -

1) I suggest you actually READ the thread whose link I posted above

2) Much of the conservative agenda was thwarted by Dash-hole, who got handed his hat on Tuesday. Think there's a reason for that....?
 

LC

Veteran Member
Housemouse's thread isn't working for me. Says to notify the web master. Thanks, LC
 

Gadsden

Contributing Member
Articles like this make me smile.

The author is full of the same unbearable haughtiness that is the very reason for liberalism's decline. The more political ground they lose, the more self-righteous they become, and the more self-righteous they become, the more politcal ground they lose. It is a truly beautiful cycle!!!



:eleph:
 

housemouse

Membership Revoked
Thanks, Dennis, for posting my comments here. No point in having too many threads regarding the same subject.
 

Green

Paranoid in Los Angeles
I've got to agree with Smiley. But then again, I live in a "Blue" state where normal thinking is normal. And for my region (SoCal), Smiley presents some down right normal thinking.

The pendulum can only swing so far to the right before it corrects itself and heads back to the middle. Until then, I've got my seat belt on.
 

Donner9x

Thread Killer :-)
A.T.Hagan said:
In spite of all the yadda yadda yadda coming from the Left and from the Right the election hinged on TWO PERCENT.
......Alan.
:rolleyes: One more time...That's THREE PERCENT.

<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" height="506" width="666"> <tbody><tr><th width="25%">Presidential Candidate</th> <th width="10%">Electoral Vote (EV)</th> <th width="15%">Popular Vote (PV)</th> <th width="5%">% of PV</th> <th width="5%">
</th> <th width="15%">
</th><th width="30%">
</th> </tr> <tr> <td>George W. Bush of Texas(W)</td> <td align="right">286</td> <td align="right">59,424,706</td> <td align="right">51.0</td> <td align="right">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>John Kerry of Massachusetts</td> <td align="right">252</td> <td align="right">55,905,023</td> <td align="right">48.0</td> <td align="right">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ralph Nader of
Connecticutt
</td> <td align="right">0</td> <td align="right">399,778</td> <td align="right">0.34</td> <td align="right">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Michael Badnarik of Texas</td> <td align="right">0</td> <td align="right">381,270</td> <td align="right">0.33</td> <td align="right">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Michael Peroutka of Maryland
</td> <td align="right">0</td> <td align="right">130,986</td> <td align="right">0.11</td> <td align="right">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>David Cobb of California</td> <td align="right">0</td> <td align="right">106,264</td> <td align="right">0.09</td> <td align="right">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Other</td> <td align="right">0</td> <td align="right">34,627</td> <td align="right">0.0</td> <td align="right">
</td> <td colspan="2">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total</td> <td align="right">538</td> <td align="right">120,000,000+</td> <td align="right">100.00</td> <td align="right">
</td> <td colspan="2">
</td></tr></tbody> </table>
Wikipedia


Also:

<table class="liveresultsmain" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr><th class="leftcol">Candidate</th> <th> Electoral</th> <th> States Won</th> <th> Vote %</th> <th>Votes</th> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td class="leftcol"> Bush
ico_winner.gif
</td> <td> 286</td> <td> 31</td> <td> 51%</td> <td> 59,469,925</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td class="leftcol"> Kerry </td> <td> 252</td> <td> 20</td> <td> 48%</td> <td> 55,966,193</td></tr></tbody> </table>
Yahoo


Just for the record, that would be a difference of 3 percent between the two main opponents, with the remaining basically 1 percent divided between the rest.


<hr size="1">
"Middle Eastern males are protected, not by our Constitution, but from our current popular policy of political correctness and a desire to offend no one at any cost, regardless of how many airplanes and bodies litter the landscape."

:rdr: Donner9x: Official member of His Majesty Bush's imperialistic, super-duper secret, right-wing extremist, neo-con, Proud, crusading-Xtian, oil-grabbing, prisoner-"torturing" cabal... ( For the dense: /sarcasm off ) :rolleyes:

:usfl:
 

Slydersan

Veteran Member
The difference between liberalism and conservatism (not Dems vs. Repubs) is that conservatives could care less how you live - you don't bother me and I won't bother you - type of attitude. Let me live as I wish and as long as I don't hurt anyone or interfere with their rights (actual God-given, not dictated by some judge), I'll let you do the same [edited because i forgot to finish my sentence]

Whereas, the liberals feel that you They KNOW better and have to force you to believe as they do - you MUST be tolerant, You Have to make this person feel comfortable.....

This comes into play because unfortunately the Liberals have taken over the Democratic party. There are plenty of conservative Demos out there - but they have been alienated by their liberal leaders and now vote Republican.
 

Slydersan

Veteran Member
Green said:
I've got to agree with Smiley. But then again, I live in a "Blue" state where normal thinking is normal. And for my region (SoCal), Smiley presents some down right normal thinking.

The pendulum can only swing so far to the right before it corrects itself and heads back to the middle. Until then, I've got my seat belt on.


THe problem with your pendulum analogy is that it is still on the left hand side of things and only Just Now starting to swing towards the center.....you've got a LONG wait before it goes all the way over to the right and back left again - I'd say about 20-30 years. You ain't seen conservatism yet....
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
<b>I live in a "Blue" state where normal thinking is normal.</b>

So conservative thinking is "abnormal"? That kind of elitist, "I know more than you, and my opinion is more valid than yours" is why you liberals will KEEP LOSING. Until you manage to get past your infantile mindset, your people will have an ever-shrinking say in government....
 

Walrus Whisperer

Hope in chains...
According to them, we are evolution gone awry.
Well, I say they have never grown up and never will. Maybe I'll go scratch my crotch in public or something.
:mn:
 

PentelPen

Membership Revoked
Slydersan said:
The difference between liberalism and conservatism (not Dems vs. Repubs) is that conservatives could care less how you live - you don't bother me and I won't bother you - type of attitude.
Exactly, just as long as you're not gay. Or have weird sex in your bedroom. Or burn a flag. Or protest the war. Live and let live, but support the President or else you're a traitor to your country and should go live in France.
 

fruit loop

Inactive
Exactly

Conservatives want everybody to look alike, think alike and never disagree. Seig Heil.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN.

We Libs believe that govt is to run the business of the country - BUSINESS being the key word. Fund the highways, keep the water dept pumping, defend the country - but private lives are THAT. PRIVATE.

I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom (and I stress the words consenting and adult). That's between them and God.

I don't care what decisions a woman and her doctor make her about her body. I may not like it or agree, but that's her business

Schools should teach kids to read and write and quit trying to socially engineer them into little drones.

Church stays in church and private homes, although I fail to see how a public nativity display "hurts" anyone

The Dems and Reps are both full of crap and neither party really represents its people
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
And if the Libertarians would drop that one NWO/anti-sovreignity plank in their platform, they could probably field some national contenders....
 

Synap

Deceased
6.5 million Democrats voted for George

Well according to CNN's exit polls, 11% of Democrats polled voted for George. If that holds true across the acknowledged Democrat spectrum, and if I've crunched the numbers right, that's 6,540,574 Democrats. So I guess you could say those Democrat votes reelected George as much as any others.
 
Dennis Olson said:
And if the Libertarians would drop that one NWO/anti-sovreignity plank in their platform, they could probably field some national contenders....

Dennis, you've posted this comment a few times. Would you please post a reference to such plank? I'd like to read it and see just WTF you mean. Thanks.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
It's in a thread in the ELECTION forum, talking about the "differences between Libertarians and Conservatives". Big discussion on that thread.

Basically, the Libertarians believe in absolutely unrestricted flow of people across our borders. They believe that their should BE NO BORDERS (in effect). In my mind, any party that cannot or WILL not enforce our national sovreignity is treasonous.

JMHO
 

Green

Paranoid in Los Angeles
"So conservative thinking is "abnormal"?"

Yes, Dennis, in our little ole "Blue" neck of the woods, the kind of thinking exemplified by Bush and Company is clearly viewed as abnormal to the point where we just can't figure out when or where the Bush supporters took the Kool-Aid. Bush and his supporters might as well have been beamed in from Mars for all we would know locally, cause they just ain’t our kind.

It may be different where you live, but in Los Angeles County, 63% of the electorate went for Kerry. This, from our local perspective, is "normal" thinking, at least based upon OUR norm.

And by the way, you don't REALLY believe Bush and Company are conservatives, do you?
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Well, here's what's called "a clue". I was a lifelong Oregonian until 1994. I was very liberal in my younger years, until the objective reality started getting through to me. At that point, it became increasingly difficult to stay liberal. In fact, it became impossible. So I know a little bit about the "left coast" and its associated liberal nature. That being said, I agree to what you said about Bush & Company's thinking. OTOH, Bush is NOT a conservative. So in that regard, his thought processes (or lack thereof) can certainly be considered abnormal.

However, tarring "real" conservatives with the brush of "abnormal thought" is arrogant and elitist. It's also very "intolerant", which is a Sin with liberals, as far as I can tell. So - is it OKAY for liberals to be intolerant of conservatives, as long as they're tolerant of everyone else...? You know Green, your position is racist.....
 

bigwavedave

Deceased
Dennis Olson said:
<b>I live in a "Blue" state where normal thinking is normal.</b>

So conservative thinking is "abnormal"? That kind of elitist, "I know more than you, and my opinion is more valid than yours" is why you liberals will KEEP LOSING. Until you manage to get past your infantile mindset, your people will have an ever-shrinking say in government....

the so-called conservative party continues to win more elections and the country creeps closer to the abyss? that's what i read on this forum - a long downhill collapse.

maybe they should listen to their betters? how have conservatives improved our lot about which we complain ALL THE TIME?
 

Tweakette

Irrelevant
Donner9x:

The difference between Bush (51%) and not-Bush (49%) is 2%. If you want to split hairs, yes, it's 3% between the 2 main contenders *only*.

But 49% of the voters voted against Bush, whoever they voted for.

Tweak
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
The only reason the repubs keep winning more seats is because the dems CAN'T FIELD NON-EXTREMIST CANDIDATES.

Get it??!
 
Top