Just Tell Me Why
john posted in politics & culture on September 27th, 2007
To a colleague and friend who is going to vote Republican:
You are a good Grandfather and a responsible citizen and all-around nice guy, you aren’t especially ideological or partisan, and you have a healthy skepticism about politics and politicians. Your self-characterization is centrist Republican, a stance I’d call Gerry Ford or Nelson Rockefeller Republican.
When we bemoan the state of the nation at the water cooler you agree that:
The Bush administration is incompetent and crooked and untrustworthy.
That religious zealotry has no place in politics.
The war in Iraq is a disaster with no positive outcome.
The war on terrorism is a front, created mostly to fund greedy opportunists and a hungry bureaucracy.
That the civilian work in Iraq is mostly war profiteering and waste.
That the Patriot Act invades the privacy of Americans illegally.
That the government cannot be trusted to obey the law.
That three-branch checks and balances are not functioning.
That the federal government utterly failed to do its job in the Katrina disaster
That the Bush administration is wildly over-spending.
That infrastructure spending has been wrongly ignored, and that it is inherently better for the economy than military spending.
That the Bush administration has put political flacks in government where professionals used to be.
You are not as keen on environmentalism and global warming matters as I.
You think schools ought to be better, but aren’t fond of “welfare:” that non-specific pack of programs for low-income people.
You think social security has been robbed to pay into the general fund.
You aren’t fond of unions, though you think they were needed at one time.
You have no desire to roll back the New Deal, and you know it was a Democratic initiative fought bitterly by Republicans.
So basically you think the party in power in the executive branch has grossly overstepped its mandate and the bounds of constitutionality, has lied about the most important matters of state, has pandered to religious groups you dislike and mistrust, and has failed to perform its day-to-day duties in managing the country. You think the Republican administration has sent the troops to war without a good reason, and without preparation. You aren’t concerned about the administration’s environmental or racial civil rights record, but don’t like its intrusions on general civil liberties that affect all of us. You are more pro-choice than pro-life.
So you think you might vote for Giuliani, saying he might be the lesser of the evils.
What I want to know is just what does a party have to do to lose your vote? Engage in genocide? Promote slavery? What?
September 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
If you get an answer — any answer at all — please share it with us as another post.
I had a similar conversation with someone in 2004 and ran into the same blank wall.
It seems as though climate change may not be the only sense in which we are like the proverbial frog in a warming pot of water.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Well I didn’t mention “Whats the Matter with Kansas” which talks about the issue of why people vote against their own interests. I have also written a bit about the tribal effect, where humans are evolved to live in kinship units, yet are thrust into the vast and complex modern world. So we often obey instincts which are not suited to our actual situation. I think this explains the Ronald Reagan phenomenon, but mass hysteria is also possible.
There really is a person who triggered this post, and my guess is he has a kind of tribal-elder feeling about Republicans, and maybe I do too about Democrats ( not Hillary! ). But I don’t think so in my case.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
This post pretty much sums up the frustrations of the liberals/progressives I know. I can’t even talk to my best friend of 33 years anymore. Her husband is a retired-after-30 years Navy SEAL who still works as a civil servant doing pretty much what he did while in the Navy (thank goodness he didn’t go to work for Blackwater; believe me, they tried to recruit him). We have never seen eye to eye on politics, but never before have I not been able to overlook our differences in favor of friendship. Her opinion is that W does all the things he does regarding Iraq, etc. because of all this secret info the public is not privy to, and is unflagging in her support of him. It’s sickening to me and I realize that I no longer know or respect her. It’s sad that 7 years of W has turned so many Americans against one another. It will be many years of cleaning up his mess, if that is even possible. After all, Iran is just around the corner.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:06 am
so the same person sends me this:
“Subject: Difference Between a Republican and a Democrat
Fred Thompson and Hillary were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson’s pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5..
Now, do you understand the difference”
I understand this to mean Dems rely on welfare paid for by rich people, and Republicans rely on job creation by rich people, and that 75% of welfare goes to administrative fees. Since the original welfare was part of the New Deal, and was entirely about job creation, and since our current welfare is essentially a Republican system of return to work for mothers with dependent children, it doesn’t make much sense. It is true that Democrats are generally in favor of a more progressive income tax. But maybe there is an insight into his views?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
pathetic.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Well I have pondered this bit of Republican wisdom for a couple of days. At first I thought I’d respond by pointing out the facts, after all it’s perfectly valid to argue for more military spending and less domestic spending. That’s part of what I’d call centrist Republicanism. But the same people making this argument, are comfortable with a future Attorney General who, when asked whether waterboarding is unconstitutional, says “if it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional” But then refuses to say whether it is torture ( good old NPR finally wakes up and points out that American soldiers have been prosecuted as long ago as the Spanish American War for waterboarding, and it has long been considered a war crime under the Geneva Convention.) Then when asked if the President can authorize people to disobey the law, says “The president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law,” and “The president doesn’t stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/washington/19mukasey.html
Without going into a long argument, it is obvious that there is a total lack of consistency among Republicans on fundamental constitutional issues. Indeed, in spite of their ’small government’ stance they support near-total Presidential power.
So why do good people support them?
After all the caveats about right-wing media control, silly fear of terrorism, American naiveté, the failure of the vast majority of people to keep themselves informed, and so on, I think it comes down to tribalism.
Jimmy Carter: too whiny not a Big Chief
Ronald Reagan: firm and sunny, no troubling doubts, Head Man
see http://www.jawfish.net/wp/memes-ideas-that-reverberate/
October 19th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Well said. Deserves to be a NYT Op Ed.