People Who Are Different Suck

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 19:24


The title of this post is the crystallized distillation of the Republican message: people who are different suck. And, whether we like to admit it or not, this has actually been the primary dynamic of American politics for several decades. For example, check out McCain's latest press release, which emphasizes how much Barack Obama sucks because he likes different stuff:

Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand "MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew -- Black Forest Berry Honest Tea" and worry about the price of arugula

People who are different suck. Because Obama likes different stuff, you shouldn't like him. Even though I am a straight white dude from the suburbs who grew up Catholic in the predominantly Catholic northeast, I've been dealing with this shit since about the fifth grade. Even if you are demographically identical to the local plurality or majority, if you don't like the same stuff as everyone else, then you still suck. And while it is certainly not to the same level as what people face for demographic differences, it still goes for your interests in music, food, clothes, television and pretty much any cultural or consumer object you can name. Being different means you are bad, and should be scorned.

This attitude of scorning those who are different has been the primary dividing line in American politics for a long time. It is the basic conservative mantra, and it can be seen quite clearly in voting patterns (more in the extended entry):

Chris Bowers :: People Who Are Different Suck
Here are just three examples:

  • A majority of whites for Republicans, even in landslide elections for Democrats. By contrast, non-whites for Democrats by a 3-1 margin.
  • A majority of Christians vote for Republicans, even in landslide elections for Democrats. By contrast, non-Christians vote for Democrats by 3-1 margins.
  • The LGBT community votes for Democrats by about 3-1 margins, while the straight population is roughly split.

Even though exit polls never do crosstabs for nerds, geeks, and weirdos, I'd wager that they vote for Democrats by about 3-1 margins, too. It is pretty much across the board: the majority identity, no matter what it is, votes for Republicans, while the minority identity, whatever it is, votes overwhelmingly for Democrats.

This pattern isn't surprising in the least. Given that the conservative message is constantly "different people suck," it was pretty much inevitable that all of the different people, even if they are all different from each other, would eventually band together and turn against that message. Functionally, it turns our political discourse into a never-ending replay of what most people experienced since they first entered adolescence: the freaks versus the norms.

Growing up a nerd is, I have no doubt, one of the two or three major reasons I am a Democrat and a progressive. Beyond that, I also have no doubt that it is also why I ended up living in a big city, why I wanted to be in academic for so long, or even why I inevitably always cheer for the underdog whenever I'm watching sports but one of my favorite teams aren't playing. It all comes down to who you identify with. If you grew up a nerd, or a minority, or as some other form of "different," after dealing with it for an entire lifetime, eventually it decisively pushes you into a particular political camp and a different cultural camp. You just get sick of people telling you how people who are different, aka you, suck. And so you start doing things to get away from those people, and even to get back at them.

While this dividing line doesn't seem to be changing at all, the bright spot of all this is that the nerds and the minorities are actually, when taken as a whole, just now entering majority status nationwide. The rapid rise of geek culture and gay culture, the rapid rise of Latinos and Asians, and the rapid rise of non-Christians are collectively turning the tide in favor of the outcasts. Good. After a lifetime of seeing people seize political power by arguing that people who are different suck, I've had quite enough. It may sounds like a campaign cliché, but it really is about time that these divisive politics stopped working. It is even better that these attacks against minorities and people who are different have actually turned a huge amount of the electorate against Republicans for years, possibly even decades, to come. If you consistently scapegoat and foment backlash against a series of rising minorities, your defeat at the hands of those minorities is your just deserts.  


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Being the same sucks! (4.00 / 9)


[ Parent ]
All My Life I've Been Told That! (4.00 / 2)
My politics suck because I'm not a conservative.
My religion sucks, because I embraced Buddhism, rather than Christianity.
My personal life sucks because I never got married and preferred to remain single.

It's endless. The American motto is: "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" As if everything important in life could be reduced to "how much money do you have?"

If you're really rich and white and well connected, you can go as wild as a boar in heat will never face any consequences. Even the occasional indictment only illustrates the vast iceberg of corruption under the calm surface of the sea. Most of the time it's all perfectly legal.

The lower down the totem-poll you are, the MORE you have to conform. At the bottom, everybody is supposed to line up and march in step or they'll drag you out behind the gym after school and beat you senseless.

I'm as tired of this crap as you are and very ready for a change.


[ Parent ]
I was all ready to vote for Obama... (4.00 / 5)
...until I learned that he heats chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars.

The horror!

Truly McCain has found Obama's Achilles Heel.


I'm voting for the guy who prefers (0.00 / 0)
sprinkle-covered donuts.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
The McCain people will be surprised to find... (4.00 / 1)
...a lot more people eat organic and shop at whole foods than they realize... in fact, I'd gather that most of the people that shop at my whole foods are probably republicans.

Avoiding poisons in your food is bipartisan...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


i've been doing voter reg. in NC (0.00 / 0)
and you'd be surprised by the number of Republicans we've registered at Whole Foods and Trader Joe's.

[ Parent ]
Of course! (4.00 / 2)
How else are you going to feel rich! All the other grocery stores like Kroger and Harris Teeter have prices that are way too in reach of average folk.

There's definitely a status thing in shopping at these places.


[ Parent ]
It's more than status.... (0.00 / 0)
...The food offerings simply taste better, and are healthier for you... There's stuff there you can't find anywhere else, like fresh hot chili peppers... and the organic eggs are the cheapest anywhere around.

Do I do all my shopping at whole foods?  Absolutely not!  It's waaaay too expensive for that... but, there are specialty items there that you can't find anywhere else that are really darn good!  And not everything is overpriced!  Eggs, milk, bottled lemonade... all are cheaper at whole foods than a regular grocery store.

So, for me, it's not elitism in any sense... it's the ability to get specialty items that I like, and it's also convenient for me being so close by...  Would I travel 40 miles to go to whole foods?  Doubtful... but, since it's right here, why not?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Oh I agree (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't saying that every one who shops there is an elitist snobby republican. I was just saying that that's why many elitist snobby republicans shop there.

[ Parent ]
Don't forget .. (4.00 / 1)
Piggly Wiggly!!!!!!!      ;-)

[ Parent ]
I'm stickin' with the pig! (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
I dig the pig (0.00 / 0)
My piggly wiggly actually sells tee shirts that say that.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Whole Paycheck (0.00 / 0)
That's what my friends in the arts community call it.

Trader Joe's, on the other hand, can be downright cheap.  Don't lump it in!


[ Parent ]
welcome to the human experience (4.00 / 3)
this is not unique to america, by far.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Disagree about nerds... (0.00 / 0)
...the ones I know are all self-satisfied, Al Gore-hatin' psuedo-libertarians.

Depends how they've done (4.00 / 2)
Among the class of nerds I knew who went into computers and did well for themselves, that was often the case, though not always. Young(ish) guys who'd never been sick, don't want their money going to "lazy" people, approve of legalizing hookers and blow pronto. Otoh, they do often genuinely believe that the world is run as a meritocracy because their industry very nearly functions as one. They channel their frustration with maltreatment into insisting that everyone rtfm from cover to cover.

Other types of nerd, not usually so much with the libertarianishness.


[ Parent ]
computer libertarians (4.00 / 1)
Wide-spread "computer libertarianism" lasted just about as long as it took the industry to discover outsourcing to India. About ten minutes after the coding jobs started flowing out there, the slashdot crowd decided that for the good of the nation it should be forbidden by law.

I jest not!


[ Parent ]
Cyberselfish (0.00 / 0)
Hopefully, you've read Paulina Boorsook's classic, Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech.

My review is here.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Not a criticism that will work (0.00 / 0)
Republicans like to make fun of latte sipping, New york liberals.  

Criticizing someone for enjoying the fruits of their wealth by trying to be healthy is not exactly a message that resonates with most conservatives.  Only the nascar crowd might respond to that.

Its remarkable how badly McCain is doing.  I think Obama's refusal to engage with the negative campaigning seems to irritate his opponents to no end.


The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


Eh, I gotta give credit to his strategists for taking a losing hand, (0.00 / 0)
i.e. the far less charismatic candidate, and doing their best to spin into gold. This "celebrity" crap is a damned savvy effort to reframe Obama's charisma as a negative, and the world would be a different place if Bob Shrum had had a fraction of this savvy.

     Of course, it's not going to make up for the fact that McCain's own political skills aren't in the same league as Obama's. But it's remarkably strategic for the hand they've been dealt.

         The press adored its wine track v. beer track argument in the primaries, and it never quite mentioned it once its notion that the wine track candidate always loses didn't pan out. This is a clever attempt to rally an eminently non-objective press corps.


[ Parent ]
This shit only works (0.00 / 0)
because they know they can get the TV pundits to regurgitate anything they put out, no matter how retarded or insane. They're not better players. They've just got the refs on their side

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Indeed (4.00 / 2)
It would be interesting to locate whoever is responsible for health care policy in the McCain campaign and ask them what it means for McCain's stances on health and nutrition that the McCain campaign is explicitly attacking eating lettuce and going to the gym.

[ Parent ]
Voting McCain is Voting for Hostile European Takeover. (0.00 / 0)
Now that Cindy's business has been bought out by the Dutch, her hubby is trying to distract those Nascar fans so they'll forget to stop drinking Bud.

[ Parent ]
Here's the thing, though (4.00 / 1)
this is such a double standard.

It's okay for the left to mock Republicans, McCain, anybody who disagrees with their POV or ideas or policies, and snark on and on and on and on, but "whites" are supposed to not feel or express this - especially not about Barack Obama, whether there are real concerns about him and his policies and move back to the center.

Was it "okay" for the left to humiliate Hillary Clinton as too different? 'Cuz that's essentially what it was often about: she is a woman, an older woman, a left-defined hawk, etc., etc.

This double standard is one of the things I am really, really, really disappointed about from so-called progressives. We can't have a civil dialogue anymore about issues because we (and, yes, I now include myself in this) can't and often don't see the world the same way and we certainly don't see others' perspectives on issues or how to solve them. We're too interested in protecting our own sacred POV and are frequently afraid of openly criticizing or commenting negatively about these, or about Democrats - who are our supposed "heroes." And Barack Obama is the ultimate symbol of this.

Frankly, I blame eight years of George W. Bush for a lot of this. But it's taken on such a life of its own now that even an Obama presidency can't turn that tide.  


I'm not sure I follow, but... (4.00 / 5)
I don't think the "left" humiliated Hillary Clinton.  Being a woman was not "humiliating" for her; in fact, it's what kept her campaign from suffering a humiliating loss.  The woman turn-out carried her farther than the base would have, I suspect, were she a male.  

In anycase, the "left's" problem with Hillary was about the War in Iraq.  That seems about as substantive as any disagreement, and all those who supported it deserve whatever humiliation comes down on them.


[ Parent ]
Rather than generalizing (4.00 / 4)
You might want to make your charge more specific. A blanket statement that "the left" "humiliate"d Clinton.

Also, disagreeing with someone's point of view, ideas or policies is not the same thing as mocking and looking down on someone for their cultural predilictions and demographic categories.

If either of these are something you see me doing, I'd like to see examples.  


[ Parent ]
If she was mocked for anything... (4.00 / 2)
...it was for her quixotic, desperate quest for the nomination when she had no mathematical chance of obtaining it... not 'cos she was female.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
I thought that... (4.00 / 2)
Clinton was defeated because she was - pardon the creative grammar - too the same.  That is, she was too entrenched in the status-quo corporate-kickback shenanigans.

It may be probable that Obama won't turn out to be the progressive reformer we hope he will be, but it is dead certain Clinton wouldn't have been.


[ Parent ]
Huh. (4.00 / 2)
It's okay for the left to mock Republicans, McCain, anybody who disagrees with their POV or ideas or policies, and snark on and on and on and on, but "whites" are supposed to not feel or express this

When you put it that way it sounds like you're describing a scenario where it's okay in politics to express negativity toward someone you disagree with or have different POV or politics from, but it's not okay to express negativity toward someone on the grounds that they aren't... "whites"?

...Is this really a "double standard"? It sounds kind of more like a "standard". Divisions based on policy disagreements okay, divisions based on "like me"/"not like me" problematic.


[ Parent ]
You are nuts. (4.00 / 1)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are possibly equating "humiliate Hillary Clinton" with simply supporting and voting for a different candidate.

'Cuz that's essentially what it was often about: she is a woman, an older woman, a left-defined hawk, etc., etc.

Bullshit. Yes you are right about people on the left opposing her for being a hawk. That is based on policy differences. Find me one single comment from this blog that attempts to diminish her in anyway for being a woman, or an older woman. That's such bullshit.

People on the left mock Republicans because they suck. They're hypocrites who support harmful policies and market them with deception, fear-mongering, and appeals to racism, sexism, and the general theme that "people who are different suck" as Chris points out. Do you have a particular Republican you'd like to argue for? Bring it on. I guaran-fucking-tee you that my arguments will not rely on mocking their beverage choice, lettuce preference, or choice of bowling vs whatever. Your "double standard" argument is complete nonsense.

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
My point is... (0.00 / 0)
that "difference" of any kind isn't tolerated - by Republicans, by Democrats, by people in general. Aren't progressives/liberals saying that Republicans are "different" (and thus mocking them) when you use really noncreative names like "McSame", "McLame", "Repugs", "Rethugs", or mock the things like $500 shoes? Or anything they (and McCain) do or say?  

This just perpetuates the same old, same old mindset: Dems (us) = good; Republicans (them) = bad (or very bad).

The blogosphere is full of this kind of crap. It's juvenile; it's time-wasting and energy-wasting. If it's the best the left (or right) can do, it's damned depressing. It's demeaning to individuals; it's demeaning to us as a society. It doesn't solve problems and it certainly doesn't create a higher level of communication or understanding with or among anybody.

There are plenty of examples of primary stuff that demeaned both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now we've just changed the levels of play and the faces: GE campaign, Obama, McCain.

No. This isn't "new". But everybody is responsible for it and I get really tired of progressive Dems acting like the offense goes all one way, because it doesn't. I'd like to see progressives start calling on Republicans (minus the cute names and derisive tags) to stand up and say what they're for. Same for Dems.

We have too many problems and crises to be engaged in this kind of childishness. And frankly, the public (aka voters) aren't a bunch of idiots who don't see beyond it. They/we want solutions; they/we want a real definition of the problems and some real solutions from candidates and their constituencies, not more of the same.

Isn't that part of what Barack Obama's message is? So, where's the beef? Yet spending any time in the blogosphere is more like being in a junior high boys locker room than a supposedly informative/educational environment to learn something. And the condescension (on both sides) in which they engage isn't change we can believe in. It's just more of the same crap, in a different election year, with different candidates...  


[ Parent ]
You're A Great Spinner, But There's A Truth You're Hiding (4.00 / 3)
Sure, all groups have a sense of group identity are more trusting of insiders than outsiders.  And in the case of political groupings they tend to distrust the other side, at best.

But that's not the same thing as organizing your politics around the principle of xenophobia, and that's the truth you are struggling mightily to obscure.  Democrats simply are much more diverse than Republicans any way you want to slice it, and they are also much more concerned with solving problems.  Republicans are much more concerned with attacking people who they see as the problem--both in foreign and domestic policy.  (See the current FP diary on Senator Grassley, for example.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
You appear to be arguing that partisanship is bad thing (4.00 / 1)
I don't remember hearing that argument from you three months ago. Do you actually have any core political beliefs aside from "You should have voted for Hillary"?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
"The question, jerk!" (0.00 / 0)
In response to your claim that:

'Cuz that's essentially what it was often about: she is a woman, an older woman

I requested the following:

Find me one single comment from this blog that attempts to diminish her in anyway for being a woman, or an older woman.

I have to assume that you can produce no examples. You try to claim that progressives are just as bad as Republicans, yet you cannot produce a single example. It is Republicans who mock Hillary for being an older woman. Progressives and liberals don't do that because it is not a progressive or liberal thing to do.

I can only assume that you have no political principles at all, because you seem to be arguing that there is something inherently wrong about criticizing a party that holds opposite principles.

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
McCain wears $500 shoes (4.00 / 2)
It's true! What American, besides some latte-drinkin' NYC-type like Sarah Jessica Parker, spends that much money on shoes! Someone who doesn't worry about the price of gas, that's for sure.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs...


You know (4.00 / 6)
I don't care if he wears $500 shoes. I just care if, when he wears $500 shoes, he criticizes the footwear choices of others. Which is basically what he is doing here, even though the specific consumable goods choice in question isn't footwear.

But you won't see me jump on the "McCain wears $500 shoes" line of attack. If he likes shi-shi shoes, fine. I really don't care. Just stop criticizing others for their likes and dislikes.  


[ Parent ]
well shoot (0.00 / 0)
I'd wear $500 shoes, if I could afford it. I also enjoy lattes and have recently discovered the health benefits of kombucha tea. I wouldn't eat those protein bars though, not since I read that Michael Pollan book.

So yeah, it's not the shoes, it's the hypocrisy.  


[ Parent ]
$500 shoes? ... (4.00 / 1)
F-ck that!!  I'd spend $100 tops .. and use the rest of the money for more useful things .. getting better Dems elected .. going to see more Springsteen and Neil Young shows .. giving some to the local soup kitchen ... there are plenty of better things to do then spend $500 on a pair of shoes

[ Parent ]
It's all relative. (4.00 / 3)
I guess when you dump your wife for a young beer heiress, $500 is nothing. I can't afford $500 shoes because I have to save all my money for Cheetos and lattes. Wait a minute. I hate Cheetos, and I don't actually know what a latte is. I assume it's some kind of coffee beverage involving milk, but I'm not sure since I've never had one. I do like arugula though, and I can't bowl for shit, so I must suck. And if I ever spent $500 on shoes, I would be gay, since I'm a Democrat, but if I were a Republican I would be a "real American" who could afford $500 shoes because I "create jobs." See how it all makes sense?

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
The Funny Thing About This Is (4.00 / 9)
This all goes back to the core conservative psychological attitudes--rightwing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO)--as well as the institutions and ideologies they're entwined with.

As Robert Altemeyer discovered, high-RWAs will readily take off after any group that seems weird or different... including, he discovered, high-RWAs.  It seems that high-RWAs aren't very big on self-awareness, so when they eagerly sign up to help round up deviant groups, one of the groups they'll agree should be rounded up is themselves.

Ever since I first read that--over a decade ago, now--I've been trying to figure out how to turn it into a political strategy.  So far, without any luck.  But maybe someone here has an idea.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Become a low RWA, high SDO (4.00 / 2)
And lead the high RWAs.

It works for Cheney.

Then, lead them on the glorious crusade against themselves to victory.  


[ Parent ]
"how to turn it into a political strategy" (0.00 / 0)
Convince them that they're gay and then explain that God demands that they throw rocks at themselves.

(Sorry. That's a bad joke. As much as authoritarian behavior frustrates me, I would not want to see anyone throw rocks at themselves.)

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
really? (4.00 / 1)
as a gay or something like it man i would love to see internalized homophobes that are promoting anti-LGBT policies throw rocks at themselves :)

[ Parent ]
It may not be morally laudable (4.00 / 3)
But I would certainly watch it on YouTube.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
CONFORM CONFORM CONFORM (4.00 / 1)
Who needs tolerance when we can all be the same.

Oh how the Republicans must miss the 1950's.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan


For want of a better word, this "rant", which I totally get, probably would have touched a nerve (4.00 / 1)
with the Founding Fathers especially Sam and John Adams.

Nothing they were ever going to do was going to change the dynamic they were born intounless they demanded and fought for the change and the respect they wanted for themselves and their 'posterity' because they were to the British,  by their very existence, :second class citizens, because they were 'colonists'.

The truth was, they along with Thomas Jefferson,recognized that they were just as smart and as capable of self governing as any British Lord or King despite where they were born.

The Republican Party are the Tories of today..and have a vested interest in keeping certain people/groups out of the corridors of power.

It's why it was said by Republicans of his day that FDR was a 'traitor to his class'...these people actually do believe an 'aristocracy' should rule and I use the word 'rule' deliberately:'governing' to them is so 'plebian'


Remember those nerds (0.00 / 0)
were writing the Declaration of Independence while the Conservatives were fetching tea for the redcoats.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
education (4.00 / 1)
Chris, don't forget the importance of education.  Many people who are "different" like you outlined carry much higher education levels and are much more likely to vote Democrat than their less-educated counterparts.  Especially if you control for variables such as race, gender, and socio-economic status.

kinda (4.00 / 4)
Post-graduate education yes. But college graduates (as in stopped after a bachelors) are more often likely to vote republican. Then as you go down to people with the least education (less than high school) it tilts back towards majority democratic.

Let's not turn this into a "Progressives are smart people that went to school and conservatives are dumb people that didn't go to college".


[ Parent ]
there are different kinds of "education" (0.00 / 0)
in the aggregate, i really believe the more disempowered people are, in whatever sense, the more likely they are to understand what disempowerment means.  Unless they drive you maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

[ Parent ]
political fundamentalism (0.00 / 0)
the only thing the rw gop has to sell is hatred, bigotry, and racism toward anyone that doesn't meet their image of white protestant america.

the gop has obviously convinced too many average voters to vote against their own best interests because many of those voters are just as hateful if not more so then the leaders of the gop that are doing this for political reasons and to reap the rewards from such outrageous behavior.  


This is true, but Obama does very well in the Midwest (0.00 / 0)
Which goes to show that regional identity can sometimes trump race, that hard work and good political friends can overcome fear of difference, that many people do appreciate common sense and an adult-run campaign and that Americans aren't all stupid.  

Way back in the primaries I said that Obama would win because his secret source of support was the Midwest.  (It comes to him via his mother and especially grandparents from Kansas with whom he lived and his many years in Illinois.)  They recognize him as one of their own in terms of body language and common-sense attitudes.  This is going to hold true in the General as well, especially if he picks a fellow Midwesterner as a VP.  The Northeast and Pacific Coast will vote for him because those areas are more instinctively receptive to people who are different and majorities there despise the GOP.  But the Midwest is his base and they will tip the race to him.

Good post though--as a gay person who grew up before it was tolerated and a lifelong eccentric in general, it is especially nice to see the revenge of the out parties.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
AWW, you're gay too?!? (0.00 / 0)
My love affair with you is complete.  Figuratively, of course.

Do you ever go to the drinking liberally here in SF?  Has anyone here ever gone?  I have to admit I haven't, due to being equal parts lazy and chicken.  But I think it's at Zeitgeist, and it might be fun... if I knew there was at least one person there who wasn't a complete stranger...  : /

=====

Anyway, I swear I'm not stalking you, it's just that we've been showing up in the same neighborhoods online for years now.  TNH, SSP, and here.


[ Parent ]
Same Sh*t different Candidate: (4.00 / 3)
2008:
Only celebrities like Barack Obama... and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew -- Black Forest Berry Honest Tea

2004:
CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, in an attempt to portray Senator John Kerry as out-of-touch, suggested that green tea is a rare and exotic beverage unfamiliar to "most of America.

http://mediamatters.org/items/...

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

Different people VOTE. (4.00 / 1)


Montani semper liberi

Republicans In The 60s (4.00 / 3)
     In 1964, when I was twelve, the Democrats dominated every level of government, and one way to oppose the establishment was to be a conservative Republican. The right wing Republicans quickly became the establishment after that, but people should understand that a large part of the attractiveness of the Goldwater movement and the rise of the right wing in the 1960s was a rebellion against the Democratic establishment under LBJ in the late 1960s and the left-wing predominance among students on college campuses in the late 60s and early 70s. The right's sense of victimhood, which is still so strong today, has its roots in that era.

Actually, It's Much Older Than That (0.00 / 0)
They've been feeling victimized every since they lost the 1932 election.

In fact, they even tried to organize a military coup to overthrow FDR.  They are not good losers, not even the occasssional loss after totally decimating the country.  By 1950, they were totally livid, and they birthed Joe McCarthy.

So, while the story you tell is certainly true, it's only the latest part of a much longer tale.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
The Time Has Come... (4.00 / 1)
...for the REVENGE of the NERDS!!!!



"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers


Wait... don't y'all hate Obama? (4.00 / 1)
I've been reading this blog for a while, and I wonder at your concern about how people perceive Obama.  They can scarcely think worse of him than you do.  I have read post after post about how he has betrayed your principles.  And, so, some other people don't like him because they fear he might betray theirs.  Seems to me y'all should have common cause.

[ Parent ]
I think you're onto something (0.00 / 0)
About the only thing we know about him is that he is "change" politician -- heavy on the change, but without a lot of beef behind it. And, yeah, I'm concerned about what principles he'll water down or sell out if he becomes president. Then again, I have a lot of fear about McCain, which is why I may sit out POTUS and expend my time, energy and money on good local candidates (and sending my Congressman - Jay Inslee - back to D.C.). When the primaries started out (about 25 years ago) I really thought there was no way I could be disappointed and there was no way we could lose this year (LOL).

Same s***, different election...


[ Parent ]
Thank you for your concern. (4.00 / 2)
It has been duly noted and will be submitted to the appropriate department.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Total comprehension failure (4.00 / 3)
Obama is not beloved by many on this blog because we don't trust him not to sell out to the right on our core issues. That's acknowledged.

But why does it make sense to make common cause with those on the right, who are attacking him on entirely mendacious grounds?

Our objection is that he isn't good enough. That's not a reason to ally ourselves to the worst.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
the one thing that's missing from this post (4.00 / 1)
is a class analysis :)  The Republicans as a political force are not just promoting prejudice of various kinds for its own sake - they have done it in the interests of the market and the rich.  And more recently just the uberrich, which is why the people who run the market are giving money to Democrats now for such economy-enhancing measures as maintaining political stability, investing in infrastructure, and other things.

Vote Green!  Or something!

:)


{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ Chris Bowers}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} (0.00 / 0)
if it makes you feel any better... (0.00 / 0)
... it ain't gonna work.  "He's like Britney Spears?"  "Don't vote for him because he's eloquent, worldly and suave, keeps in shape and is popular?"  Not only are those contradictory messages... but more importantly, neither of them makes the least bit of sense and people will see right through them.  McCain is a trainwreck

well (0.00 / 0)
There's plenty of people who have no problem having contradictory messages in their minds, as long as they reinforce the same meme (people who are different suck). Like how Obama is a secret Muslim at the same time he has a crazy Christian preacher. Voters just aren't as rational as we want them to be.

However you are right that McCain's campaign is heading towards a trainwreck, he's not doing much to uphold his "maverick" tag.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers


[ Parent ]
Rachel Maddow said it best (0.00 / 0)
Last night on Olbermann she commented that what we are now seeing is the car crash of John McCain 2000 and John McCain 2008.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
People are different (0.00 / 0)
Be careful here.  People who are different are not necessarily more progressive or leftist.   Women, homosexuals, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans all can be quite conservative when they want to.  Maybe the best thing is to go back to the original hope of the Left, which is to save the whole of the human race, and not just parts of it.
Also please do not neglect the working class.  That is, do not follow in the footsteps of Axelrod and speak of them as a group of declining significance in American life.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search