Fumble and recovery (Signifying Nothing: how does saying nothing at all become so loud?)

Wednesday, 3 November 2004

Fumble and recovery

Russell Fox has a lengthy post on the meaning of the election for Democrats and their uneasy relationship with religion, which starts off rather poorly—anyone who writes ”[t]he great egalitarian accomplishments of the last fifty years… are all on the chopping block” is at the very least engaging in hyperbole—but makes some important points about “red state” voters (regardless of how I hate that term and the false dichotomy underlying it) that Democrats have lost their ability to reach out to.

I think, for what it’s worth, that John Edwards (or possibly Dick Gephardt) could have reached out to a lot of poor and middle-class white southern voters, but the one-two elitist punch of John and Teresa Heinz Kerry undermined any realistic chance of that happening. More to the point, one has to wonder about a national Democratic Party that can’t even secure the paltry share of the white vote in a state like Mississippi it would need to be competitive, but it’s unlikely to see an improvement until the party gets over its Dean-esque arrogance that Southerners need to stop voting on “guns, God, and gays” and come to the conclusion that they need to respect (even if it’s only to the point of respectful disagreement) those Americans who care deeply about those things.

8 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

1. Russell Arben Fox wrote @ Thu, 4 Nov 2004, 7:47 am CST:

Thanks for the link, Chris. Yes, there’s hyperbole in that post, and a lot else; I kind of threw in everything but the kitchen sink. Glad to see though that, despite our clearly huge differences (both political and philosophical), we can both scratch our heads over the fact that those Southern whites willing to vote Democratic—which Clinton proved exist—are so disdainfully ignored by the national party, especially considering the huge African-American majorities which they could combine that small number of whites with and turn into something which could when some, if not all, Southern states.

2. flaime wrote @ Thu, 4 Nov 2004, 2:35 pm CST:

Why is everyone on the Right so pleased that hatred is the watch word for the day? Fox News is thrilled that 11 states have said that gays have no rights to stuff that even unmarried people can do. The Right can’t be more thrilled that there are now people in the Senate who want to pass a federal death penalty for homosexuality. Don’t they understand that this will lead to blood in the streets? Think the Civil War was bad? Just wait until the religious war gets underway.

3. Robert Prather wrote @ Thu, 4 Nov 2004, 4:15 pm CST:

flaime,

I’m not a social conservative, but I get along fine with them and think you are losing your mind based on the comment above.

We live in a country where the ACLU is challenging the seal of the county of Los Angeles (city of the angels) because it is too religious, though that seal proceeds quite nicely from their history.

Other countries systematically kill homosexuals and we are arguing over whether they should be allowed to marry in a way that is recognized by the state. If you can’t see a difference here, you’re delusional.

4. Jason Kuznicki wrote @ Fri, 5 Nov 2004, 9:22 am CST:

How on earth is it that John Kerry is an “elitist,” and Bush is not? There’s image, which Bush has mastered completely, and then there’s reality—where he remains an elitist.

In any event, I’m curious, flaime, which member of the U.S. Senate has called for the death penalty for homosexuals. Can you cite a source? The only elected official I can recall saying this was a state representative (I think) from Hawaii.

5. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Fri, 5 Nov 2004, 10:06 am CST:

Jason: Being part of the elite, and being an elitist, are two different things, at least in my mind. Care to elaborate?

6. flaime wrote @ Fri, 5 Nov 2004, 11:10 am CST:

Sullivan had a link to a story that had Tom Coburn saying that he wanted to have the death penalty for gays.

7. Jason Kuznicki wrote @ Sat, 6 Nov 2004, 8:46 am CST:

Chris,

Don’t mind if I do. Bush is an elitist because his twisted idea of capitalism is to hand out government favors to corporations. His administration has a poor record on free trade, a habit of dispensing no-bid contracts to friendly corporations, and a foreign policy that seems designed by the oil-services industry.

Historians have a word for this approach. We call it mercantilism, not capitalism. A truly capitalist government would be neutral toward corporations—not a welfare state for the richest among them. Favoring the rich over others is elitism, and that’s exactly what the Bush administration has been doing.

8. Jason Kuznicki wrote @ Sat, 6 Nov 2004, 8:50 am CST:

flaime,

Coburn seems to favor the death penalty for abortionists, but I can’t find anywhere that he claimed to want the same for gays. Can you find the source?

Comments are now closed on this post.