Where is the outrage?

[frank m]

Chaney cast the deciding vote in the Senate yesterday cutting funds for medicaid and medicaire. One more Republican opportunity to stick it to the poor and the elderly.

Does anybody in the red states have a parent who needs medical aid? How have Bush and company done all these things? I'm baffled.

Originally Posted by frank m

Does anybody in the red states have a parent who needs medical aid? How have Bush and company done all these things? I'm baffled.

If you have not, read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas?, and you'll get a pretty interesting analysis of how the GOP has won over people they care nothing about.

[Paul B]

Indeed, that is one of the great paradoxes in this country: people suppoting Bush for whatever reason ("family values," militarism, whatever) while his administration is slowly but surely dismantling their lives. Incredible, really.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Indeed, that is one of the great paradoxes in this country: people suppoting Bush for whatever reason ("family values," militarism, whatever) while his administration is slowly but surely dismantling their lives. Incredible, really.

And don't forget his party's union bashing.

[Brian Olewnick]

I haven't read the Franks book, but isn't one of his "discoveries" that a large percentage of red state voters place moral values (by their standards) over economic ones? ie, if they believe they're going to have a better eternity awaiting them in Heaven, they can well afford to eke by here on Earth.

Insane, imho, but logical enough within their own belief system.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I haven't read the Franks book, but isn't one of his "discoveries" that a large percentage of red state voters place moral values (by their standards) over economic ones? ie, if they believe they're going to have a better eternity awaiting them in Heaven, they can well afford to eke by here on Earth.

Insane, imho, but logical enough within their own belief system.

It's not as simple as you put it, Brian, though you only gave one example. A straw example. It is more than logical to vote against politicians who you think have bad ideas for society, even if those politicans insist that they will make your lot better. Indeed, rich liberals are always saying "I don't need GOP tax breaks, I want a decent society," and thus do exactly what I understand the Franks book claims red staters are doing. These liberlas are quite often described as "selfless." Not quite the same description handed down to the red staters.

Having said that, I think its quite open to question whether Democrat policies would make any class of voters better off, while their "moral" stances are often flagrantly insulting to the voters they want to court. Explaining to these same voters that they are too stupid to know what is good for them hardly ameliorates the insult.

As for the cuts on the Medi- programs, I think we are seeing a reduction of spending increases, not an absolute cut. Get used to that. This bill is a band-aid reaction to Katrina spending, but with Medicare and Medicaid making up the bulk of America's unfunded liabilities (with Social Security), these are the programs which threaten us with a demographic crisis. With the Boomer bulge retiring, we got problems.

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I haven't read the Franks book, but isn't one of his "discoveries" that a large percentage of red state voters place moral values (by their standards) over economic ones? ie, if they believe they're going to have a better eternity awaiting them in Heaven, they can well afford to eke by here on Earth.

Insane, imho, but logical enough within their own belief system.

It's a little more complex, and I do think some Frank's generalizations miss the mark (which is innevitable but also the result of a certain amount of contempt he has for the hard right).

But clearly the GOP has done a masterful job of offering a unified message filled with manipulative appeals that ask people to see things in black and white. So it's not really about eternal judgment so much as dividing people over controversial social issues (Gay marriage, abortion rights, immigration, affirmative action), appealing to nationalism, inciting xenophobia, and demonizing both the Democrats and anyone who disagrees with the US.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Having said that, I think its quite open to question whether Democrat policies would make any class of voters better off, while their "moral" stances are often flagrantly insulting to the voters they want to court. Explaining to these same voters that they are too stupid to know what is good for them hardly ameliorates the insult.

I agree with your first assertion, and your second assertion is a nice defense of bigotry. That must be how you reconcile yourself to a party that has done everything it can over the past 25 years to encourage and increase discrimination against people of color, women, homosexuals, and the poor.

[Brian Olewnick]

I know, I was joshing a bit, though I do think there's an underlying strain of that expectation. I mean, there has to be if you believe that stuff, yes?

[Monte Smith]

Achilles, just as you believe that the GOP paints a black and white picture of the Dems to demonize them, so do I think your description of the GOP as "a party that has done everything it can over the past 25 years to encourage and increase discrimination against people of color, women, homosexuals, and the poor" is the same, dumb demonization.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Achilles, just as you believe that the GOP paints a black and white picture of the Dems to demonize them, so do I think your description of the GOP as "a party that has done everything it can over the past 25 years to encourage and increase discrimination against people of color, women, homosexuals, and the poor" is the same kind of demonization.

Which party, in the last election, used homophobia?
Which party has done everything it can to disenfranchise Black voters and roll back affirmative action programs?
Which party has demonized undocumented workers in California, Texas, and Arizona and done everything it can to keep them and their families out of schools and hospitals?
Which party is aligned with the hateful entertainment of Rush, Bill, Sean, and all those good white fellas?

Hey, point to all the good things the GOP has done to unite people.
And all the things they've done to improve the lives of those who've been historically discriminated against.

I'm not saying the Dems have done that much to get people to believe in them, and yes, I think they've gotten wimpier and wimpier, but at least they haven't resorted to picking on the most vulnerable in our society as a means to win elections.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I think your description of the GOP as "a party that has done everything it can over the past 25 years to encourage and increase discrimination against people of color, women, homosexuals, and the poor" is the same, dumb demonization.

Assaults on women's reproductive rights and gays' civil rights (for example) have issued not from some fringe contingent but from the highest level of the GOP. How do you explain them away?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I think the problem is you have to be farsighted to understand how public policies affect you.

Using myself as an example, when I was younger I never gave much thought to things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, pensions, etc. It was when my parents became elderly and ill when everything sunk in. My father was diagnosed with prostate cancer in his 70s and my mother developed dementia. They weren't poor, I guess you'd say they were lower middle class. Basically neither they nor I had the financial resources to take care of all their needs.

I've said this before, but America's a tough place to grow old.

But thanks to the programs that grew out of the New Deal Era they were able to make it through their 80s until their deaths without being drown out on the street or in desperate poverty (and as an aside, not impoverishing me).

I don't think people understand how important our safety net is to them (except for the ones already using it). So tax cuts sound good (even if the majority of it goes to an economic class way above your's).

That's why "distractions" like gay marraige or abortion rights dominates political discourse instead of true wages not keeping up with inflation or spiraling health costs. or what happens when Mom or Dad get too frail to take care of themselves. Or how are you going to pay that 7,000 dollar a month nursing home fee.

Or how about what happens when you get old and frail? Or don't make enough money to take your kid to the doctor or the dentist?


The outrage will come later. Or too late.

Originally Posted by bluenoter

How do you explain them away?

Monte doesn't explain them away. He ignores them.
Like most Republicans who consider themselves socially moderate,
Monte is more concerned with national security and tax policies than
he is with social issues. That seems perfectly legit. Except that means
he has to turn a blind eye to the divisive hate of his chosen party.
I'm guessing he does so the way most Americans do so (save for those
who like being haters): he turns inward, caring only about himself and
his immediate family. (hence, his passion for the estate tax).

This is why there is no outrage and never will be. We are a culture narcotized by self-interest.

[Paul B]

Except that means he has to turn a blind eye to the divisive hate of his chosen party. I'm guessing he does so the way most Americans do so (save for those who like being haters): he turns inward, caring only about himself and
his immediate family. (hence, his passion for the estate tax).

I think this is a pretty common trait amongst moderate, middle and upper-middle class Republicans. I know several people like this myself; you've described them perfectly. They basically rant about taxes and gas prices, while giving the war a pass.

Bye-ya

[Monte Smith]

Come on, you guys act like the most outraged descriptions of these issues are impartial descriptions of these issues. But there are other opinions, which your outrage fails to consider. A defense of traditional norms is not necessarily a homophobic assault against civil rights by the GOP. Esp. when the issue was brought to the fore by liberal courts in liberal states. Republicans who "assault women's reproductive rights" might actually be interested in sticking up for the right of another interested party, the right of the unborn to be born, something the NOW-minded Democrats won't even confess exists. For all these issues, there are defensible positions on both sides. Where's the outrage, indeed. It's all over the place, making your politics the outraged, blamestorming politics that it is. Enjoy yourself with it, I'm not going stand around to duck the slippers the outraged throw.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Come on, you guys act like the most outraged descriptions of these issues are impartial descriptions of these issues. But there are other opinions, which your outrage fails to consider. A defense of traditional norms is not necessarily a homophobic assault against civil rights by the GOP. Esp. when the issue was brought to the fore by liberal courts in liberal states. Republicans who "assault women's reproductive rights" might actually be interested in sticking up for the right of another interested party, the right of the unborn to be born, something the NOW-minded Democrats won't even confess exists. For all these issues, there are defensible positions on both sides. Where's the outrage, indeed. It's all over the place, making your politics the outraged, blamestorming politics that it is. Enjoy yourself with it, I'm not going stand around to duck the slippers the outraged throw.

Why is it that those few Republicans who try to sound "rational" (as opposed to ranting and raving about "bleeding hearts" and "tax-and-spend liberlas") end up sounding like canon lawyers during the Inquisition?

At least the ranters seem sincere.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

... That's why "distractions" like gay marraige or abortion rights dominates political discourse instead of true wages not keeping up with inflation or spiraling health costs. or what happens when Mom or Dad get too frail to take care of themselves. Or how are you going to pay that 7,000 dollar a month nursing home fee.

Or how about what happens when you get old and frail? Or don't make enough money to take your kid to the doctor or the dentist?


The outrage will come later. Or too late.

Well said. Thank you.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Why is it that those few Republicans who try to sound "rational" (as opposed to ranting and raving about "bleeding hearts" and "tax-and-spend liberlas") end up sounding like canon lawyers during the Inquisition?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!



Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and a ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Come on, you guys act like the most outraged descriptions of these issues are impartial descriptions of these issues. But there are other opinions, which your outrage fails to consider. A defense of traditional norms is not necessarily a homophobic assault against civil rights by the GOP. Esp. when the issue was brought to the fore by liberal courts in liberal states. Republicans who "assault women's reproductive rights" might actually be interested in sticking up for the right of another interested party, the right of the unborn to be born, something the NOW-minded Democrats won't even confess exists. For all these issues, there are defensible positions on both sides. Where's the outrage, indeed. It's all over the place, making your politics the outraged, blamestorming politics that it is. Enjoy yourself with it, I'm not going stand around to duck the slippers the outraged throw.

I didn't focus on abortion because I know there is another side to this issue that is worthy of respect.

As to homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, and racism, there are no defensible positions, and if you think it's intolerant to NOT tolerate the small minded divisiveness and odious opinions you like to lump together as "traditonal norms" than you're are either fooling yourself or trying and failing to fool those who won't be fooled.

[Al in NYC]

What I find fascinating is that the Republicans continue to openly screw over middle and working class people even after gaining office through their votes. It seems to me that someday there's going to be a hell of a payback for all of this -- if we can manage to hold on to any reasonable semblance of democracy, that is.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by achilles

As to homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, and racism...no defensible positions...small minded divisiveness and odious opinions...fooling yourself or trying...&c.

Of course, Achilles, if that's how you really view your opponents' positions after careful and sympathetic review, then you must work to your utmost to destroy them utterly. Good luck and happy hunting. Be sure to bring a wooden stake and a necklace of garlic.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Of course, Achilles, if that's how you really view your opponents' positions after careful and sympathetic review, then you must work to your utmost to destroy them utterly. Good luck and happy hunting. Be sure to bring a wooden stake and a necklace of garlic.

Poor, Monte. All you got is amoral glibness.
I feel for you, man, I do. Someone has got to feel for you.

[tippy]

>>Be sure to bring a wooden stake and a necklace of garlic.<<

Sorry, Monte, your reverse psychology isn't going to work *this* time.

After him, gang, he went thataway.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by tippy

After him, gang, he went thataway.

You'll never take me alive, you dastards!

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by achilles

All you got is amoral glibness.

That's neat, Achilles. You face down sanctimony wherever it arises, but I exhibit amoral glibness. You have one view for yourself and your highly laudable opinions, and then a different view for others.

[Monte Smith]

Haha.

[bluenoter]

Half of a garlic necklace--the left half.