![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
~
Richard Cohen gives us another look at the issue of whether the American poor are being duped by rich Republicans on the issue of 'values,' on top of George Will's treatment, that is, whether the American poor are being hoodwinked to vote for the Republicans on account of religion and hence going against their real economic interests.
Mr. Cohen picks up on the point that it's not like Kerry and company offered a clear and tangible alternative that would enrich their lives:
"So just how, precisely, were all these cultural conservatives duped? It seems to me that they saw through the promises for what they were -- empty -- and voted on what mattered most to them. They knew, just as we all know, that nothing in the Democrats' oh-so-moderate program was going to make much difference to them -- or, even if it did, it was not worth what they would have had to give up in exchange."
In addition, Cohen points out the striking example of the American Jews who seem to vote in favor of 'values' over economic self-inerest:
"Sometimes a voter may actually decide to vote against his or her economic self-interest. In an Oct. 26 column I cited Jewish voters as an example. As a definable group, they are among the wealthiest in the country, and yet time and again they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. In the 2004 election, Bush got only about 20 percent of the Jewish vote. In that column, I cited the power of culture, which is not simply inherited, like hair color, but can be the product of thought as much as tradition.
"Most Jews are not voting Democratic out of mere habit. They are making a conscious decision to forgo an economic benefit for something that matters more -- a cultural imperative for social justice. They believe in social welfare programs. They believe in redistributing wealth (some of it, anyway), and they believe firmly in civil rights and civil liberties. What are these rights worth? Anything you can name, because history teaches that without them even the pursuit of happiness is futile."
But these last values are ones which we can appreciate. It seems tragic that so many Americans should cling to medieval values.
___ ___ ___
A phrase from a press release struck me: "In voting for George Bush, religious Americans were duped into voting against their best interests." The operative word is "duped," and it explains, almost by itself, why the Democratic Party is in the pits and John Kerry is not the next president of the United States. Only a dope thinks these voters were duped.
The press release comes from an organization called "Retro vs. Metro America," which -- par for the course nowadays -- is also a book and a Web site and soon, probably, a breakfast cereal. It is Democratic, and consists of some pretty impressive people, including the pollster Celinda Lake. And while a press release is, after all, just a press release, the one from Retro vs. Metro does represent the fairly common view that cultural conservatives have no idea what they are doing. For a little piece of heaven, they will sacrifice a better standard of living, health insurance and a chance to live their retirement in splendor.
In some theoretical way, this may be the case. But in the real world, as they say, you tell me what Democratic program would have improved the economic well-being of your average family so that, even for a moment, it would have to weigh trading off a cultural conviction. Is there a single American out there who really thought that Kerry's program to end or limit or whatever the outsourcing of jobs overseas was going to amount to anything? If so, that person should have been deprived of the right to vote on the grounds of insanity.
And tell me, is there anyone out there who thought you could narrow the deficit and fund all sorts of programs merely by eliminating the tax breaks President Bush gave the very rich -- people who make more than $200,000 a year? I voted for Kerry, but I didn't believe that for a second.
So just how, precisely, were all these cultural conservatives duped? It seems to me that they saw through the promises for what they were -- empty -- and voted on what mattered most to them. They knew, just as we all know, that nothing in the Democrats' oh-so-moderate program was going to make much difference to them -- or, even if it did, it was not worth what they would have had to give up in exchange.
Sometimes a voter may actually decide to vote against his or her economic self-interest. In an Oct. 26 column I cited Jewish voters as an example. As a definable group, they are among the wealthiest in the country, and yet time and again they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. In the 2004 election, Bush got only about 20 percent of the Jewish vote. In that column, I cited the power of culture, which is not simply inherited, like hair color, but can be the product of thought as much as tradition.
Most Jews are not voting Democratic out of mere habit. They are making a conscious decision to forgo an economic benefit for something that matters more -- a cultural imperative for social justice. They believe in social welfare programs. They believe in redistributing wealth (some of it, anyway), and they believe firmly in civil rights and civil liberties. What are these rights worth? Anything you can name, because history teaches that without them even the pursuit of happiness is futile.
It behooves Democrats to understand that Christian conservatives can make the same, hard choices. Of course, real economic privation can change the equation -- would you rather have a job or stop gay marriage? -- but barring that sort of choice, culture wins out.
That does not mean that liberals have to feign agreement or abandon their values. When it comes to gays, for instance, the Republican Party has engaged in unconscionable demagoguery -- and the president knows it. In the short run, gay rights may be a losing issue, but this is a matter of human rights, not to be traded away. With all due respect to the voters of most of the states, on certain issues, I'd rather be right than red.
Still, what matters most is attitude, a mind-set that does not convey the message that people who vote the "wrong" way are dupes. These people know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is the people who insist otherwise who are the true dupes in this case -- not of some political candidate, but of their own wishful thinking.
-- "Dupes and Dopes of Campaign '04" by Richard Cohen for The Washington Post
Richard Cohen gives us another look at the issue of whether the American poor are being duped by rich Republicans on the issue of 'values,' on top of George Will's treatment, that is, whether the American poor are being hoodwinked to vote for the Republicans on account of religion and hence going against their real economic interests.
Mr. Cohen picks up on the point that it's not like Kerry and company offered a clear and tangible alternative that would enrich their lives:
"So just how, precisely, were all these cultural conservatives duped? It seems to me that they saw through the promises for what they were -- empty -- and voted on what mattered most to them. They knew, just as we all know, that nothing in the Democrats' oh-so-moderate program was going to make much difference to them -- or, even if it did, it was not worth what they would have had to give up in exchange."
In addition, Cohen points out the striking example of the American Jews who seem to vote in favor of 'values' over economic self-inerest:
"Sometimes a voter may actually decide to vote against his or her economic self-interest. In an Oct. 26 column I cited Jewish voters as an example. As a definable group, they are among the wealthiest in the country, and yet time and again they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. In the 2004 election, Bush got only about 20 percent of the Jewish vote. In that column, I cited the power of culture, which is not simply inherited, like hair color, but can be the product of thought as much as tradition.
"Most Jews are not voting Democratic out of mere habit. They are making a conscious decision to forgo an economic benefit for something that matters more -- a cultural imperative for social justice. They believe in social welfare programs. They believe in redistributing wealth (some of it, anyway), and they believe firmly in civil rights and civil liberties. What are these rights worth? Anything you can name, because history teaches that without them even the pursuit of happiness is futile."
But these last values are ones which we can appreciate. It seems tragic that so many Americans should cling to medieval values.
___ ___ ___
A phrase from a press release struck me: "In voting for George Bush, religious Americans were duped into voting against their best interests." The operative word is "duped," and it explains, almost by itself, why the Democratic Party is in the pits and John Kerry is not the next president of the United States. Only a dope thinks these voters were duped.
The press release comes from an organization called "Retro vs. Metro America," which -- par for the course nowadays -- is also a book and a Web site and soon, probably, a breakfast cereal. It is Democratic, and consists of some pretty impressive people, including the pollster Celinda Lake. And while a press release is, after all, just a press release, the one from Retro vs. Metro does represent the fairly common view that cultural conservatives have no idea what they are doing. For a little piece of heaven, they will sacrifice a better standard of living, health insurance and a chance to live their retirement in splendor.
In some theoretical way, this may be the case. But in the real world, as they say, you tell me what Democratic program would have improved the economic well-being of your average family so that, even for a moment, it would have to weigh trading off a cultural conviction. Is there a single American out there who really thought that Kerry's program to end or limit or whatever the outsourcing of jobs overseas was going to amount to anything? If so, that person should have been deprived of the right to vote on the grounds of insanity.
And tell me, is there anyone out there who thought you could narrow the deficit and fund all sorts of programs merely by eliminating the tax breaks President Bush gave the very rich -- people who make more than $200,000 a year? I voted for Kerry, but I didn't believe that for a second.
So just how, precisely, were all these cultural conservatives duped? It seems to me that they saw through the promises for what they were -- empty -- and voted on what mattered most to them. They knew, just as we all know, that nothing in the Democrats' oh-so-moderate program was going to make much difference to them -- or, even if it did, it was not worth what they would have had to give up in exchange.
Sometimes a voter may actually decide to vote against his or her economic self-interest. In an Oct. 26 column I cited Jewish voters as an example. As a definable group, they are among the wealthiest in the country, and yet time and again they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. In the 2004 election, Bush got only about 20 percent of the Jewish vote. In that column, I cited the power of culture, which is not simply inherited, like hair color, but can be the product of thought as much as tradition.
Most Jews are not voting Democratic out of mere habit. They are making a conscious decision to forgo an economic benefit for something that matters more -- a cultural imperative for social justice. They believe in social welfare programs. They believe in redistributing wealth (some of it, anyway), and they believe firmly in civil rights and civil liberties. What are these rights worth? Anything you can name, because history teaches that without them even the pursuit of happiness is futile.
It behooves Democrats to understand that Christian conservatives can make the same, hard choices. Of course, real economic privation can change the equation -- would you rather have a job or stop gay marriage? -- but barring that sort of choice, culture wins out.
That does not mean that liberals have to feign agreement or abandon their values. When it comes to gays, for instance, the Republican Party has engaged in unconscionable demagoguery -- and the president knows it. In the short run, gay rights may be a losing issue, but this is a matter of human rights, not to be traded away. With all due respect to the voters of most of the states, on certain issues, I'd rather be right than red.
Still, what matters most is attitude, a mind-set that does not convey the message that people who vote the "wrong" way are dupes. These people know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is the people who insist otherwise who are the true dupes in this case -- not of some political candidate, but of their own wishful thinking.
-- "Dupes and Dopes of Campaign '04" by Richard Cohen for The Washington Post
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 03:00 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 04:12 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 05:24 pm (UTC)From:But I really do think the democrats SHOULD have been able to win. They almost did win. But a campaign like the one we saw just isn't going to do it.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 05:32 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 10:58 pm (UTC)From:But the ruling elite (both Republican and Democrat, I suspect, as well as the more dominant force... corporate) has been quite adept at preventing that kind of thought to grow.
I'm not arguing with your basic point, just looking at some of the many reasons why this is.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 01:15 pm (UTC)From:You can also see this in our Electoral College. Although there is a federalism interest involved, it's also there to keep the selection of the president one remove away from the unwashed masses.
Regarding our vaunted Bill of Rights, the minority that the founders were mostly interested in protecting were the wealthy, wanting to provide safeguards against any inclination on the part of the masses to 'eat the rich.'
Presumably, the advantaged continue to play the system for what it's worth.
Our conservatives are more fond of pointing out that we are a republic first, a democracy second.
(Though, such elitism has been beneficial at times. For instance, we probably wouldn't have seen the advance we've had anent racial issues without it. In the beginning of the movement, it took the elites through the courts to get the Civil Rights Movement going, in terms of becoming the law of the land. No American majority at the time would have brought that about.)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 05:29 pm (UTC)From:In Illinois lives someone I love, alone in a trailer park with her kids. Since I got to know her, I have been appalled to discover how she has to live. So believe me, until I can take her from the USA (she is of English stock and wants out) I am concerned about the US poor as only a man who has to watch those he loves suffer can be.
It is possible to combine economic liberalism with social conservatism. If most people want values that seem outdated, is that because they are stupid or because they think social liberalism has been a mixed blessing, and liberals appear to have no credible solutions to the problems they endure?
I live on a former council estate. 20 years ago every house for a mile was council owned. Now it's 70%+ private, due to measures Mrs Thatcher forced through against my own howls of protest. I visit a friend living 2 miles away where there is maybe 20% owner occupation. I would now say, Mrs Thatcher, why didn't you make them sell the lot? The problems of the poor in that area, of whom my friend is one, include :-
Crime committed by gangs of youths the police cannot touch; a council that will not throw out known vandals because the poor dears would have to rent a house privately; three generations of women living side by side who have never done a days work, but live by getting pregnant early and staying in motherhood as long as possible, so that they can have a free house and livable benefits until they are old enough to be unemployable, and get benefits until they 'retire'; children aged 10 who cannot multiply further than times two, 13 years olds who cannot read, 12 years old girls who argue that all money is received from the Post Office (where benefits are paid out) and work is unnecessary (no one they know works). Everyone with any concern for their children tries to get them into a religious school, because they have standards and get results, on exactly the same budget the state schools fail on, in the same places.
Just the other week I saw a girl of about 11 being baptised into the Anglican church solely because her parents wanted to get her into a religious school. Parents of these children are desperate. There have been deaths of children running from bullies struck down by road vehicles that were less frightening to them. A youth in hospital fighting for life who had been stabbed in the head with a screwdriver whilst at school. Fireworks get put through letterboxes of ordinary people for fun because youths know the law can effectively do nothing. I myself whilst protecting a disabled person from a gang of stone throwers was threatened first with arson and then with death; in the end they trashed my car. The next door house had only been saved from going up in flames because I spotted a ten year old I knew going into the house (abandoned because the tenant was in fear); acting quickly, I found out they had set fire to the place, and I called the fire brigade before the fire took. A local carpenter told me that very shortly the whole row would have gone up, because they had wooden sections that interlinked.
Two miles down the road, I am in a comfortable haven where packs of small children roam the streets safely, houses are all busily being improved and no one fears anything. Why? Owner occupation leading to preservation of property rather than condoning vandalism against council property which was 'nobodys'. The schools aren't great but they are better.
I can't say if that is the situation in the USA, but I strongly suspect that it is commonly worse, being compounded by drugs and gun crime.
Do you live in such places?
Do you know people who do?
Do you know what they want?
Have you got solutions?
So, if you lived in an area like the one I described, and were on low wages, would your issues be social or economic? I really want to know.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 07:39 pm (UTC)From:In so far as these problems of poverty are worse in America than in other parts of the West, as you suppose probably rightly, I would suggest that it could have to do with the fact that we are more conservative in our governance, that is, we have smaller government - we don't have anything like universal healthcare, nor as much public education support, nor as generous a layout of government benefits and protections.
A stronger mix of socialism in our system, like what Europe and Canada has, may improve our problems of poverty, bringing them at least more in line with the rest of the developed ecnomomies. As you know, it evidently cannot eradicate poverty. Capitalism is a great boon, and I suppose we accept some level of poverty as the necessary cost - content to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number, so if we don't live in a perfect world, we at least live in a better one.
Unlike this Administration, I don't think the answer is more faith-based policies. And I don't think it will help to deny women the right to have an abortion, nor to neglect the interests of minorities in being able to partake of the opportunities of society, nor in moving to creationism over science in education, nor to have people pay homage to god in public pledges.
At best, such are distractions from the problems. At worst, it oppresses and possibly retards a society's development - as we see in the move to restrict embryonic stem-cell research - taking us down that stagnant road on which so much of the Muslim Middle East is on, where greater premium is placed on faith and religious observance than on reason and liberty.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 09:12 pm (UTC)From:We now know here that nationalisation and tax and spend will never be possible again. They have failed repeatedly; our taxation was always much higher than yours, and higher taxes actually got less revenue from the rich - they either gave up trying to make money, or just left the country. So it didn't work in the manner tried, and no one will get voted in to do it again here for at least a generation.
You don't mention the social issues I spoke of - well it's your journal. But I think if I were facing those social issues every day rather than just when I visit my friends, I would vote for what I thought was going to solve them rather than an increase in my income. This is why I was wondering if this was the cause of the blue collar Republican vote.
A lot of the problem with poverty here, is not lack of money, but localised ghettos of permanent unemployment as a lifestyle, of low expectations, of uncontrolled teenagers ruining residents lives (three houses occupants left in terror of the local youths, including a homosexual couple who were taunted unmercifully, and an old lady of 80 who was evicted by the council for defending herself against the ring leader with a broom). When ten year old children are attempting arson, money has nothing to do with it.
So, where are the liberal solutions? One may say right wing / Republican / religious solutions are not trusted, but the problems remain; where are the left wing / liberal / Democrat solutions? What is being proposed? I would be interested to know. Over here the secular state is in no doubt that faith based schools have a better record of discipline and achievement - you can read the results in the papers - and is encouraging them, not because of doctrine, but because they are doing a good job and people want them.
Because of the strange position of the C of E, their schools are state funded. There is minimal religious input as far as I can tell - certainly no forcing ideas on pupils. Without an 'established' church in the USA, I assume there is no direct equivalent. I think better of home schooling; Sheepy is a fine example. There is a record of home schooled children being two years ahead of the state system, but the public here is not used to the idea. I say, if it works, do it.
I made no mention of creationism, abortion, minority interests, or enforced public pledges. I could be drawn into the things you list, but I don't think there is any point in the Democratic party adopting them even if they wanted to, and some I don't agree with myself, so there is little point.
My concern is, are there social issues the Democratic party can adopt that suit the religious, without including the barmy ones? Will that neutralise the religious issue and enable the poor to vote in their own economic interest - which I am sure they would be doing.
Religion is in many ways a fashion. You can enjoy it when fashion suits your preferences, but you can't call it progress. However having not been subjected personally to the kind of phenomenon you have in the USA at present, I must admit that what I am saying depends on talking about forms of religion I am familiar with.