Politics: A Modest Proposal
This pic was forwarded to Matt Yglesias:
As unproductive as this sort of talk usually is, I couldn't help but think this pic was really funny.
The worst part of this whole situation is that Dems are fervently mocking exit poll suggestions that the greatest concern of voters was "moral values." Of course, when the folks who responded this way say "moral values," what they really mean is they want their guns, they want abortion to be federally outlawed and its practicioners hanged with hooks from fences, and they want gay people drug out in the street and shot (if thirty minutes of intense 'witnessing' doesn't do the trick to 'cure' them of their abomination). This simply wasn't a campaign of moral values. Kerry was a perfectly 'moral' guy. But the evangelical base is huge, and they've already pretty much won the gun war. Guns weren't even an issue this election. Congrats to the NRA for ensuring that our homicide and suicide rates will be high for years to come!
So yeah, the average white suburban family voter wants to see their way of life protected. Their pulpit says abortion is bad, swearing that the Bible confirms that the spirit enters the body at conception (which is of course theologically arbitrary, revisionary, and very poorly defensible), and nobody they know needs an abortion (or talks about it), so it must be a moral failing--the same sort of moral failing that makes black people have to live in the projects because they're lazy. And gay people, well why can't they just read the Bible and know that God didn't make them that way, that God doesn't want them doing that, that God has a nice house in suburbia with a trophy wife, cocker spaniel, and 2.6 kids waiting for them if they'll just quit sticking their tongues and genitals into people who pee the same way they do?
And as mocking as I'm being, maybe we'd be best to stop acting this way. The religious right (for the most part) doesn't hate gay people. They also don't think that they're protecting an unspoken-for human being by opposing abortion. They think they're doing what they're doing because they honestly believe that God has a better plan for people. And while they insist on shoving everyone in the country into their little suburban box, they're doing so because they think they're happy, and they think that other people aren't happy--or couldn't be happy without Jesus in their lives. And they're partially right. Most of those people are very happy with their philosophies. Christianity is beautifully escapist. No matter what goes wrong, you can pawn it off as transient, or better yet, as a 'test.' Whatever goes right, you can savor it forever as an indication that either you're doing something right, or that God is just that nice. It's not exactly an unhealthy way of dealing with things. It worked great for the lower classes of Rome, and its worked great for lower classes ever since. If you have something worth dying for, you have something worth living for--so it goes.
So how does the left un-wedge the 'moral value' voters? I'm not sure anybody will ever be able to convince them that its less important to worry about gays and abortion and more important to worry that poor people have health care and that we are able to maintain our Social Security and other welfare programs for people who genuinely need help (which are both EXTREMELY biblical values that are more abstract, and thus less polarizeable). But these are our 'moral value' issues. There is nothing 'moral' about 'conservative' economic policies. There is nothing 'moral' about disregarding the public health implications, of education implications, of running the federal deficit up to ensure that in the future, we're not going to be able to afford to give old folks food, nevermind prescription drugs.
The neo-conservatives beginning with Reagan have very effectively co-opted the religious conservative message with their own, which is probably the Republican party's greatest work of trickery ever. If the Democratic Party cannot figure out how to undo this great anti-intellectual robbery, then we face irrelevance in the 21st century.
6 comments:
Sadly, my dad's girlfriend really IS in favor of mass execution of the gays. I love hearing them talk about the "sanctity of marriage," seeing as how they're two divorcees who have been living together, unmarried, for about 2 years now. If you're Baptist, you shouldn't be allowed to vote, cause the last political piece you "read" was written thousands of years ago, and went through an untold number of translations. And they tend to conveniently forget that "Jesus" feller.
Fat James
Gosh, Garret; with all due respect, it looks to me like you still don't get it. My favorite line from your post is when you talk about the religious right's "insist[ing] on shoving everyone in the country into their little suburban box."
I wish I had some clue what on earth you are talking about. I have never heard of anyone coerced into moving to the suburbs by an evangelical Christian. I have actually never even heard of an evangelical Christian despensing any advice about where to live.
It is revealing that you cannot imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to live in the suburbs. Believe it or not, some people truly like the suburbs. I find it even more revealing that this comment appeared in your "time to cozy up to the suburbanites" section.
Ridiculous! You really think that suburbanites didn't choose where to live? You really think that you can empathize with suburban voters while sneering at their choices?
I love how you say, "think they're happy" -- because you, Garrett Sparks, are clearly in a much better position to judge the happiness of millions of suburbanites than the suburbanites themselves. Why should they listen to their own instincts when they could just listen to you?
I think you have no credibility to question the happiness of people you don't even know. Because you know a few suburbanites doesn't mean you know all of them -- and it doesn't mean you know what's best for them.
My take is: Keep trying. For what it's worth, I'm glad you seem to be grappling with the the left's problems with non-urban voters. But your attempts at empathy are still too condescending.
Bo, welcome back to Sparkgrass.
Considering I grew up as a very conservative suburbanite, I thought my views were at least valid. I'd like to break down your response a little so I can clarify the points you address:
re: "insist[ing] on shoving everyone in the country into their little suburban box."
"I wish I had some clue what on earth you are talking about. I have never heard of anyone coerced into moving to the suburbs by an evangelical Christian. I have actually never even heard of an evangelical Christian despensing any advice about where to live."
Here, I thought it was clear that the figurative "little suburban box" refers to a cultural phenomenon, not literally forcing anyone to live anywhere. I think you're making a little bit of a stretch to imply otherwise. You can disagree, that's fine, but I believe it's clear your interpretation of my turn of phrase was not what I meant. Or at least, I intended it to be clear.
"It is revealing that you cannot imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to live in the suburbs. Believe it or not, some people truly like the suburbs."
Really? Ann Arbor is pretty suburban. Lexington is pretty suburban. Ashland certainly is. So for 23/23 years of my life, I've lived in suburbia. I've always lived in Suburbia. And until I moved to Michigan and entered Med School, which is a MAJOR zap of time, I've attended Southern Baptist Churches regularly. I taught Sunday School all through undergrad--second, third, and fourth graders.
I fully intend on living in suburbia, so if you got it from my post that I don't think people choose to live in Suburbia, then you are confusing me with a portion of the Left than I am not a member of. My wife, for example, has no desire to move back to suburbia. I'm sure we'll be wrestling with this when the time comes, but your assertions that I'm anti-suburbia are either a result of your misreading or my miswriting. Either way, I hope I'm clarifying here.
Besides, I really enjoy being able to drive to get groceries and not have to get on a highway or a subway. If anything this dynamic is WHY I chose to come to the University of Michigan rather than Johns Hopkins, who also accepted me.
It's also pretty fair to look at an electoral map of various states and see that urban counties seem to favor blue, suburban counties seem to favor red. These are obviously trends, not absolutes, and to treat my response as if I'm not aware of this is a little unfair.
Again, I think you jump the gun: "I love how you say, "think they're happy" -- because you, Garrett Sparks, are clearly in a much better position to judge the happiness of millions of suburbanites than the suburbanites themselves. Why should they listen to their own instincts when they could just listen to you?"
By using the phrase "think they're happy," I wasn't questioning their happiness any more than I was commenting on the idea that happiness is a subjective decision. I grew up an evangelical Christian, and I was a happy kid. Every member of my family, save my wife and puppy, are evangelical Christians, and while they all voted for Kerry, they all voted for the gay marriage ban. I'm not sure who Derby would have voted for. Do I hate my family members? Do I think they're stupid? No, I do not. As my audience is primarily liberal, I thought it was obvious that my feelings were in opposition to those of bloggers like Oliver Willis, Matt Yglesias, Daily Kos, and much of the staff at Slate who find the conservative right to be mindless and stupid. I don't think they're mindless and stupid. I know my posts tend to suggest otherwise often, because I am personally very passionate about the homosexual agenda, and the homosexual agenda is losing. That saddens me, and if my posts become wrecklessly anti-evangelical in that regards, that's why.
"I think you have no credibility to question the happiness of people you don't even know. Because you know a few suburbanites doesn't mean you know all of them -- and it doesn't mean you know what's best for them."
Again, I'm not questioning their happiness. They think their happy. Can you be not happy if you think you're happy? I would think not. Not everybody wants to live in NYC. I avoided applying to med school there because I didn't want to live there.
If anything, I thought I was defending evangelicals as not being bigoted, but rather feeling that they have something that other people would like to have: a personal relationship with Jesus Christ which allows an individual to know what their Creator has meant for them through God's own plan. Their belief is that only through following this plan can someone attain their greatest joy in Christ. This may absolutely surprise you, but I still claim Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I also feel that cultural (moral might be the best choice of words--I'm searching for the idea) conservatism has taken away my ability to exercise my faith in a congregational setting, because I don't believe that being homosexual necessarily has to exclude someone from God's plan. I think we can agree that puts me in a serious minority. If THAT take on the conservative right is still unfair, feel free to gently correct me. I don't feel I'm too far removed from it personally to comment on its dynamic. Evangelicals feel they have something great, and they think everybody should want it. Fundamentally, that isn't hateful. I disagree with them philosophically in many ways, but even an angry liberal like me can understand that when people have good intentions, they probably aren't being evil.
If my 'attempt' at 'understanding' the non-urban vote is 'condescending,' it's because I'm frustrated. I don't think the left is going to (or should) back off from its stances on abortion and homosexuality. If it plans to appeal to the culturally conservative 'suburban' vote, it better be focusing on the other parts of its platform that DO reflect the value of middle America. And I believe those portions of the platform DO in fact exist, but that's another debate.
I appreciate you commenting on my blog, as we've had some great, if spirited, debates in the past. And if anything, debating you forces me to try to tighten my writing to a degree that I often won't. I would appreciate if we could both refrain from undue hostility. I imagine the sort of nation that the two of us would like to live in is remarkably more similar than either of us might imagine. I respect you as a highly intelligent conservative, and you at least think my opinions are relevant to the current political climate, even when you find them absurd, or I don't believe you'd still be visiting.
Garrett, I do not doubt your qualifications, intellectual gravitas or good intentions. Clearly, I enjoy visiting your site. I regret any undue hostility, and I can certaintly empathize with the frustration you must be feeling about the election results.
It seemed to me that your comments were an example of this:
"We Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously."
As I hope you can see, the "they only *think* they're happy" argument sounded a lot like that. So does the idea that evangelicals "force" people to live in certain areas. It sounds as though you make no real effort to understand why someone would want to live there besides coercion or social pressure.
As I said, I do not quesiton your intelligence or good intentions. Even intelligent, well-intentioned people can have disagreements sometimes (and this is an example). I didn't mean to suggest that you are evil or stupid for any of your comments, and I hope your feelings aren't hurt.
One more thing: You might remember that I haven't actually seen you in about six and a half years, that we didn't even email/IM/blog for about six years and that we weren't especially close before that!
So don't take any of this too personally -- I'm going off what I see written on your blog and have little else. I'm guessing that many of your other readers are in the same boat!
I don't mean to come off as excessively sensitive, nor do I want to over-emphasize some once great friendship. We're friendly acquaintances who share a state of origin that we both love despite things that are less than ideal about it.
That being said, I AM excessively sensitive. Which is why I'm thinking against any sort of political career at this point, because I'd wind up pulling a Vince Foster.
I still disagree that I implied the things that you're saying, but the liberal blogosphere is nuts right now, and if there was some insanity bleed-over into my post, that's probably very understandable. I don't believe evangelicals only 'think' they're happy--I believe they're as happy as anybody else, if not happier. And I'm still not sure where geographical coersion comes into play in my post except with the most literal of readings.
I meant no class warfare, no 'city vs. country' warfare, none of the intellectual snobbery that my party is engaging right now with its spilt milk. Which isn't to say I wasn't trying to have some fun, either. I don't particularly appreciate the message of the 'Jesusland' picture, in that its obviously pretentious and divisive. But I can't help but laugh at it. What worries me is the way some blogs are using the Jesusland meme as a description of a land of all things bigoted--which obviously isn't fair, or particularly going to make any friends. I'd think a very high number of people who live in 'Jesusland' would be very proud to have that label (of Jesusland, not of being bigoted). Using it as a derogatory term seems like legitimacy suicide.
The most bothersome thing I've seen in the liberal sphere is variations of "this country is going to get what it deserves." Geez.
I've been researching a pretty extensive blog post on the biological basis of homosexuality. I'm hoping it will be relevant for quite a few bloggers who would prefer that homosexuals have more rights than rather than fewer. A biological basis doesn't particularly throw the whole debate out the window, but its quite important for a rounded picture.
Post a Comment