MuddyPolitics's picture

    It’s not PC to be candid about candidates

    By MuddyPolitics on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:55pm |

    Just as Hillary Clinton wasn’t a woman when she ran for president in 2008, neither is Herman Cain black nor Mitt Romney Mormon.

     
    That’s not to say that Clinton was a man in 2008, or that Cain is white and Romney is a Protestant. It’s only to say that Clinton’s lagging support among male voters, that Cain’s appeal to a conservative base that has no historic record of electing black people, and that Romney’s personal faith is viewed by the evangelical Republican constituency as a non-Christian religion are all inappropriate topics when analyzing modern American politics.
     
    It’s gender-baiting, race-baiting and faith-baiting, respectively, and it has no place in any political discussion about a candidate’s ability to govern or a voter’s intolerance to diversity.
     
    If an openly gay, admittedly atheist, observably Hispanic and self-described Communist were to run for president of the United States, any analysis of his electability should focus only on his economic platform, his foreign policy proposals and his views on how to improve or privatize Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
     
    In other words, it is politically incorrect to be candid about our candidate’s chances of being elected.
     
    This is why the far left-wing base is so easily ridiculed, mocked and satirized not only by Republicans, but by centrist Democrats, as well. It has nothing to do with their adamant views on economic and social equality, their support of a woman’s freedom to make her own health care choices, their very well-documented and scientifically-supported belief that excessive reliance on fossil fuels is damaging our environment and our atmosphere, or their insistence that legitimizing homosexual relationships will not, contrary to Republican rhetoric, diminish the institution of marriage.
     
    It has everything to do with their inability to accept the facts – despite the successes of the Civil Rights movement, the victories of the Women’s Suffrage movement, the inclusion of religious freedom that was written into the U.S. Constitution, and the advances made in the LGBTQ movement ­– that racism, sexism, religious intolerance and homophobia nonetheless continue to exist in America, and that the American people cast their votes for candidates seeking public office based on these factors.
     
    It’s not right. It’s not fair. It’s not civilized. And it’s not something we should tolerate. And yet, if we don’t actually discuss these issues, these influences in national politics, then we are turning a blind eye to the misogyny, bigotry and embarrassingly lacking diversity that prevails every year, every election cycle, and every day in the lives of millions of American citizens, thousands of American cities and countless Americans’ conscious or subconscious minds.
     
    George Lakoff observed in “The Political Mind” that 98 percent of all thoughts, including political beliefs, are unconscious.
     
    Arguing that Hillary Clinton’s gender, Herman Cain’s race or Mitt Romney’s religion are inconsequential to their electability will keep it that way.

     

    Comments

    This is all BS.   You adopt the pose here of are some sort of scholarly analyst, engaged in the dispassionate analytic study of electability and the impact of bigotry on voting patterns.   But you are really just a hack engaged in campaign activity relying on the snarky exploitation of that bigotry.

    If you found out one of the Republican candidates was queer, you would be all over the blogosphere sending out the queer alert.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:16pm

    You're not helping your case, MP. I've tried to keep an open mind with you, and I'll still try, but this piece makes it harder.

    Many here have asked the question about whether Romney's Mormonism will affect his electability. It's not that you're wondering about how Romney's Mormonism will affect the nomination process, it's how you do it (e.g., the picture of Romney with "Mormon" stamped on his forehead).


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:27pm

    e.g., the picture of Romney with "Mormon" stamped on his forehead

    Speaking of which, the new picture isn't helping. Please tell me you didn't create the original picture with Mormon stamped on Romney's forehead. Try to understand why people are upset about that. It'll help your future communications.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:35pm

     

    Sure, I understand. A picture of Romney with his actual face faded out, with "Mormon" stamped on his forehead -- an illustration of how the real Romney will be overshadowed by a religion that his base doesn't trust, and is actually threatened by. I understand why people could be upset by that. I actually think a lot of people should be really upset by that.

    As you can probably assume, I believe showing Americans images of war when America is at war is offensive as well.

    In conclusion, reread the point referencing Lakoff.


    by MuddyPolitics on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:47pm

    I'm hoping you don't understand, because if you do, then you're being deliberately disingenuous. The thing is, I kinda think you do understand, even if what you wrote here suggests otherwise. Anyways, unless you're actually interested in understanding what the problem is, I'm done here for now, in honor of Genghis. However, if you genuinely don't understand the difference between what you just wrote and what people here have written as the actual problem with the picture, let me know (seriously).


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:03pm

    Okay. I'm writing BS. I'm a hack engaged in campaign activity (because you believe I'm an Obama plant). I'm snarky. I'm exploiting bigotry.

    Obviously I have bad intentions. But am I wrong? 


    by MuddyPolitics on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:27pm

    Yes, as I just pointed out (as you were writing your comment).


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:33pm

    This post contains no such "Mormon" stamp on Romney's forehead. 


    by MuddyPolitics on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:36pm

    No, it doesn't. What it contains is:

    1. A picture with "Not Mormon" stamped on Romney's forehead, which brings to mind the classic non-apology apology.
    2. A lack of understanding as to what the objections were with your previous post.

    As I've said before (both in the previous post and here), other people here have pointed out how Romney's faith affects his electability, without being told they were out of bounds. Thus, your thesis is invalid.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:40pm

    Perhaps Muddy does understand but doesn't pay those objections no never mind? He didn't say he felt he had to apologize.

    Whether others can get away with saying something and Muddy can't only proves whether a clique exists.

    Some people can say Obama's ignoring critical areas like jobs, and they'll be slapped down - others can say the same thing and be upheld as insightful.

    Me, I'm trying to move to Rorschach scribblings.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:57am

    The clique hypothesis cannot be ruled out. Personally, I'd characterize it more generously, but I do think there's something to the idea that we forgive those we've interacted with for a while more readily than those we haven't, and that we're more likely to read something malevolent into something written by someone we don't know than by someone we do.

    However, the hypothesis that it's just because he is being "candid about our candidate’s chances of being elected" can be ruled out. Perhaps that wasn't meant to apply to the bloggers at dagblog, but if so, he definitely hasn't done anything to dispel that interpretation. If anything, he's reinforced it.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 7:27am

    It isn't whether you are wrong or right that is at issue—it is how you explain it. If you had said that Hillary Clinton was unelectable because she is female, that's one thing. If you throw in a lot of stuff that demeans all women at the same time, that's just going to annoy folk and detract from your point.

    In any case, Genghis asked that we all give it a rest, and that includes you.


    by Donal on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:40pm

     

    Donal, I'm not sure where I've demeaned anyone. It’s a fact that Mormonism is viewed as a cult. In fact, similar to Islam, media coverage of the fanatical branches of the Mormon religion are the only knowledge most people have of the faith. (Someone in the last post said they didn’t even know a Mormon, but I’m sure they’ve read about them.) To point that out, to note that the most sensational (Warren Jeffs, married cousins, rape, polygamy) elements of the fanatical branch of Mormonism serve as the basis for most folks’ general understanding of it, because those are the stories that make headlines, I don’t see how that demeans anyone but people who have not been taught the differences between FLDS and LDS. (And of course, nobody wants to read about pious, good-natured Muslims. What a bore.)

    If I’ve demeaned anyone for pointing out that bleeding heart liberals are mocked, which they are, for this type of politically correct nonsense (which might actually contribute to religious and other types of intolerance because it avoids admitting to the facts), then I’m sorry. It still doesn’t invalidate the argument made in this post. Nor does it mean that I’m demeaning you. All of these comments could have been about how sad it is that Romney tried so hard in 2008 to explain his faith to voters, and it didn’t change a thing. We could be talking about the fact that conservative voters are less educated in general, and what role that plays in the tolerance of an individual or community. We could be talking about how Romney won’t even attempt to educate the public because whatever he says will never make newspapers stop publishing stories about FLDS raids.

    Instead, here we are…diminished by alleged sensitivities.

    And yes, Genghis asked that we chill out on the “hostilities” and restrain from urges to “lash out.” I haven’t lashed out or been hostile. 


    by MuddyPolitics on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:06pm

    It's a fact that a lot of minorities and religions are viewed as inferior for one reason or another. But, as you've just seen, if you throw around tired old clichés without careful clarification, they rub off on you—the writer. Again, I don't think your main point was wrong, but you certainly rubbed a lot of otherwise tolerant people the wrong way in how you presented it.

    Political correctness is not an exact science, and can be irritating in some cases, but it is a fact of life, and we all have to deal with it.


    by Donal on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:36pm

    As a rule of thumb, I equate "political correctness" with just plain good manners, and more often than not, people who complain about it are typically complaining about not being able to be insulting without someone calling them on it. It's not that dissimilar to complaints about censorship, which are typically without merit, at least around these parts.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:49pm

    The difference is that it used to be possible to adjust your manners depending on who was listening. You were polite in the dining room, and told dirty jokes in the smoking room. Now everything could end up on record unless you're talking to the dog.


    by Donal on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 7:17pm

    I wouldn't be so careful to exempt the dog…


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 7:29pm

    I tend to think that very few conservatives will get worked up about Romney's religion in the end.   People have become fairly sophisticated poll respondents in recent years.  If somebody calls my home and says, "Does it make a difference to you that candidate X is Y?", my answer might depend on why I think they are asking the question, and how my answer will influence the outcome of the campaign.   If a Rick Perry supporter gets called by a pollster who says, "Does the fact that Romney is a Mormon make a difference to you?"  they might say, "Well, well ... it just might!"  Answering this way would help damage Romney's chances and boost Perry's.  However the same voter might eagerly get in line behind the Republican standard-bearer if Romney wins the nomination.   They would grouse for a while.  But in the end, just like for all of us, they are faced with a choice between two options, and their conservative hatred of liberals and Democrats is such that they will easily suck up the religion business and vote for the more conservative candidate.

    We actually discussed this issue before here, and nobody accused anyone of getting down and dirty as far as I can recall.   The blowback against your writing - from me at least - is that your writing on this and other topics is not very thoughtful or reflective.  It's a fairly conventional and shallow style of political hack advocacy, in which you attempt to use things like Romney's religion to make political points - that is, you are exploiting the same base motives you claim to be criticizing or analyzing.

    Now I think you are not actually as shallow as your posts portray you as being.  You seem fairly intelligent.  You're just not aiming very high.  Use some moral conviction instead of just snark, slime and low blows.

    Think of it this way:   You clearly support Obama strongly.   How many people do you suspect there are who, after reading your posts, would say, "Well, I was really on the fence about Obama before.   But after wallowing in this muck dished out by this committed Obama supporter, I am now sure to vote for the President!"


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:18pm

     

    Jesus! Thank you, Dan. Great comment.

    I believe what your referencing in a hypothetical fashion actually took place (now don’t “lash out” because I’m referencing my boss here) when pollsters started asking people if they believed Obama was a Muslim. Something like 20 percent said they thought he was. (Incidentally, the Ground Zero Mosque controversy was all over the news around the same time – another moment that didn’t reflect too beautifully on religious tolerance in America.) When a question is phrased as a hypothetical inquiry about religious tolerance, as mentioned in my original Romney post, the tendency would be to say no to a question about the influence of a candidate’s religion. However, if the respondent knew that one of the candidates was affiliated with the religion the pollster was asking about, the respondent’s general feeling about that candidate would most likely influence his or her answer. Similarly, I think people were more willing to say yes, Obama’s a Muslim, in part because they didn’t agree with his policies, or they preferred McCain, or whatever. At the time, a prominent poll analyst actually said something to this effect.  

    And yes, when it comes down to it, I believe that if (when) Romney is selected as the GOP nominee, conservatives will rally, because the thought of another Obama term is worse. That said, I do believe hardcore Christians (some evangelical voters) will sit out the election on principle. Depending on the actual size of that demographic, it could be difficult for Romney to rally that portion of the base. Depending on how involved they are in 2012 – if they campaign publicly, for example – that too could be problematic.

    As for the remainder of your response, again thank you. I’m glad to hear that you don’t think I’m as shallow as my posts portray me to be. I too don’t believe that you are as shallow as some of your comments portray you to be, as evidenced in the top half of this comment. That said, my support of Obama is not the core component of my writing, or the underlying theme of my arguments. I happen to think that Obama is much more politically savvy than the far left cares to acknowledge. From health care reform to the budget negotiations on down, there were political power plays involved that were actually quite brilliantly executed. I’m not a blind Obamabot, and my writing is not intended to be a reflection of that. However, given that many folks here believe I’m blogging as an infiltrator or a plant, I can see how that would be the first thought. Still, you’ve obviously found something of substance to which you felt compelled to respond. Either way, I appreciate the feedback. It was mostly constructive.


    by MuddyPolitics on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:37pm

    I promised Genghis I would behave while he was on his birthday soiree in the south of France or wherever those 1 percenter successful authors go on holiday.

    So my only response is to thank the blogger, because if Q is correct, I've been called a member of the far left, and I've not been labeled as such for a very, very long time!  My kids will love it! :)


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:30pm

    Go back to Russia, you commie pinko!


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:48pm

    Hee!  Keep it coming, it brings back such fond memories! :)


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:55pm

    Actually, I think this is where you are wrong MP, all of those things you think should be non issues in politics, are always, at least in the near future, going to be relevant in politics and are a reflection of our society and how it has evolved. 

    Hillary Clinton was not just a politician when she ran for the Presidency, but she was the first woman who really had a shot at the office and that made her gender relevant. The same is true for Barack Obama, it was relevant that he was the first African American who had a real shot at being President of the United States. That is relevant and a testament to how we've evolved as a nation, certainly in earlier years, i.e. 1984, gender worked against candidates. I can't tell you how many times I read about Geraldine Ferraro crying, and the insinuation that it made her unable to take the reigns of the Presidency if something were to happen to Mondale. I think  these are all indications we are moving forward as a society and that those particular issues are become less important than they were in the past.

    By the same token, if Romney were to win it would indicate people would set aside their borderline religious bigotry and vote for him as a man.  So all of those factors become relevant in that they are becoming less relevant because as a nation our beliefs about people are evolving.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:44pm

    I don't understand the controversy on this thread. What's so offensive? Isn't one of the strengths of those of us on the left our ability to talk about (sometimes uncomfortable) issues that others would like for us to just stay silent about (collude with)?


    by Kudra on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:10pm

    It's the context of previous threads. In that context, it seems that MP is asserting that in his previous dialog on the issue, the only problem people had with it was that he was pointing out that Romney was Mormon. As was pointed out in that thread, other regulars have made that point before without any objections being raised. On that thread, people made specific objections about what they found unsavory. MP seems to be ignoring all of those specific objections in favor of the strawman that what was objectionable was that he was pointing out that Romney was Mormon, which offends those who took the time to be specific about what they found objectionable.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:21pm

    Hm. That link you provided to the previous threads had way more comments than I was willing to sort through. I wasn't really sure how to follow who was responding to what, either. I rather liked both pieces. I gather from the comments above my own, that I may be alone in that regard.


    by Kudra on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 5:15pm

    You are not alone. I don't see much wrong with Muddy's pieces either.

    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:47am

    I find it laughable that Harry Reid is Mormon and most people don't even know, but we think about "discrimination" as a problem?

    Mormons aren't on the big list.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 6:02am

    I find it interesting that Harry Reid is a Mormon - running against what can only be described as the fringes of the fringe of a Tea Party popular lore asserts is defined by evangelical bigotry, prejudice and hate. Yet, amazingly, nobody slapped a big 'ole Mormon on his forehead and declared he had to explain to everyone that Mormons don't fuck their under-aged cousins.

    I'm sure it's coincidence this shit seems to happen most in races that concern a Democrat. Thinking back, the whole Reverend Wright thing was also almost entirely a Democratic op too ... McCain specifically refused to let his people go there.

    I really don't see as many redeeming qualities and high-road distinctions on "the left" as you all seem to see in yourselves.

    Henry Waxman is Jewish ... so is Joe Lieberman ... so are others. Neato. By your math, call the ADL and tell them to find a worthwhile pass-time! Anti-Semitism has been cured as a problem for decades - silly Jews. With the election of Lieberman (as an independent over a Democrat and white guy) - stamping Jew on a candidates' head when they run for office can be seen as just a playful observation now. And, oh dayum, look at this shit - even though is a whole caucus of folks in congress who are black - and nobody even really seems to raise an eyebrow when they win these days - can you believe some folks think of "discrimination" as a problem?

    Your logic is truly dizzying of late. In this case especially - when one considers you are speaking out in support of a post that uses as it's underlying premise an exploration of the idea anti-Mormon bigotry is so prevalent in America that being Mormon would disqualify a candidate for higher office. Skin color certainly didn't disqualify a black dude.

    Maybe not being on the "big list" is a form of discrimination in itself.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 4:12pm

    Reverend Wright was completely a Democratic op? Surely you need to sandblast the sparkplugs. McCain might have refrained because he had a whole machine to do his dirty work.

    But I'm grateful you showed up to comment on my comment, since Lawd knows if you get upset every time someone Photoshops "person" or other accurate description on a head, you've got a lot of victims to shield.

    I used the example of Harry Reid and "nobody knows" because that gives an idea how unimportant being Mormon is in America. Sure, there might be some discrimination, but it's not like the flap over Keith Ellison swearing in on a Koran, or "Obama the Magic Negro" out of Limbaugh. They don't send bug-eyed pictures of Harry Reid around, do they?

    It's not whether Joe Lieberman is Jewish - it's whether people care or whether it's just another fact on the bio.

    But feel free to worry about the rise in hate crimes Photoshopping against Mormons. Something has to keep you up at night, might as well be this.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:18pm

    Reid is a Mormon in a state with a large Mormon population. And, he's a Democrat. Democrats will elect the first black president, the first Catholic president, and numerous ethnically diverse congressional representatives. Republicans have no such record of diversity. That's why it's not an issue for Reid. (Of course, the fact that Angle was a nutcase definitely helped. Reid stayed out of the limelight while Angle made a fool of herself every time she opened her mouth.)

     


    by MuddyPolitics on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 6:24pm

    George Romney was governor of Michigan. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachussetts. Neither state has a significant Mormon population. Neither politician was a Democrat. 


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 6:38pm

    Not sure I see your point.

    How many members of "on the list" demographics can be said to have achieved similar feats - getting elected to represent regions that don't have a significant population of their particular ethnicity or religion? Shouldn't that mean we can downgrade them to a "Mormon" level and duplicate this agit-prop methodology in relation to any demographic that qualifies for a downgrade ... and proceed to trivially dismiss any who (correctly IMO) protest of racism, anti-Semitism, and so forth?


    by kgb999 on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 7:15pm

    Oh crap. Still not entirely seeing your point ... but I *am* seeing it doesn't make much sense to try and construe it as if it was a reply to *my* comment.

    My bad.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 7:27pm

    ;-)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 5:53am

    You are exactly right - Reid is a Democrat. Hence you, and those like you, weren't out stoking the fires of religious bigotry and hatred against him. It causes me to shudder how closely you stoking it to benefit your political objectives like this looks like what Richard Butler did here in CDA; even in the way you are washing your hands after getting called on the act with a big wink, nod and a shrug.

    Americans elected the first Black president. They also elected the first Catholic president. They may just elect the first Mormon president. Americans occasionally celebrate diversity - not sure it matters what party chooses to present it. Democrats would do well not to forget that.

    What you appear to be saying is that Romney presents an opportunity for an historic election - symbolic in it's beauty and showing that Americans can overcome old prejudice to elect the very first LDS president in history. Really, what does electing Obama a second time net us besides a "been there - done that" on the whole "historic" scale of elections? Romney provides a golden opportunity to once again feel good about our commitment to diversity. Right?


    by kgb999 on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 7:03pm

    I agree, kgb999. If Romney wins, it will be historic. I'll celebrate our nation's religious tolerance by having a beer. (Or I "would" celebrate assuming Romney were a Democrat and actually had a chance at being elected as a Mormon, and also assuming I and other Democrats embraced his conservative ideas.)

    For the record, I wasn't out stoking the fires of religious bigotry then nor am I now. When I said "Americans elected the first black/Catholic president" that was a nice way of saying "Democrats elected the first black/Catholic president."

    The fact is, Republicans have no record of racial or religious diversity when it comes to national races.

    And the point is that it's ignorant to say that what happens in individual races with individual candidates in individual states somehow applies to every race and every candidate in every state. I'm not making that argument. I'm making the point that when it comes to Republicans being open to non-traditional (dare I say "unconventional") religions, or when it comes to Republicans electing black people, they are not historically open to the idea, nor do they have a strong record of actually doing so.

    As for Reid, again he's one candidate in one state -- in this case a Mormon in a state with one of the highest Mormon populations in the country, and a member of the Democratic Party, a party whose voters are historically less encumbered by religious or racial intolerance than are Republicans.

     


    by MuddyPolitics on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 11:46pm

    I enjoy talking about the uncomfortable issues of astroturfing, paid bloggers and organized propaganda campaigns, but many find that offensive.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 6:28pm

    I, for one, was quite moved when real Americans elected the first Muslim half-breed President.  But I was sorta hoping that he actually was the AntiChrist.  That would have been really interesting and religious distinctions would have significance beyond petty identity politics and misguided world views. 


    by Saladin on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 4:40pm

    Latest Comments