jollyroger's picture

    Is there such a thing as a sincere, well informed, non-venal Republican?

    By jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 3:40pm |

    As consternation sweeps the ranks of Dems in the wake of Wisconsin, and as a back and forth rages on these pages over the prospect of Obama's next campaign, a subtext that may bear some examination is the appropriate frame within which to view the voters who pull a lever adjoining the letter "R"

    I should at the outset, for purposes of candor, state the premise I bring to this question.

    It seems to me that if you have an annual income below $250k you are a deluded moron to vote Repugnant.

    If your income exceeds this threshold, and you vote Repugnant, you are merely venal--content to feather your own nest at the shortsighted expense of your less fortunate fellow Americans in the short run, and the expense of the world at large (global warming, endless war, death to people of color, etc.) in the long run.

    As one might expect, this contempt for those not voting Democratic makes me a poor prospective participant in the outreach project that many here (from Genghis--and Genghis, of course, is correct--on down) have prescribed as vital to shifting the electoral center leftward.

    I seek to rehabilitate my narrow minded self--convince me, then, if you can, as a threshold matter, that these benighted people are susceptible of change, that they can be reached.

    I blush to confess that I must number amongst the stupid and/or venal, some of my closest and well-loved relatives.  (No friends, of course--One gets to choose ones friends.)

    Comments

    A large part of the problem is in deciding which information sources to trust. My father gets much of his information from his investors' newsletter, and you can probably predict the bias inherent in that! I'm constantly having to undo some of the things he "learns", but the good news is that sometimes I succeed. I got him to watch An Inconvenient Truth, and it influenced him. He sometimes backslides on it, but in general, I think he's sympathetic to my environmental concerns. In addition to choosing what sources to read, one's biases also determine what we remember and how we process the information we receive. Do we decide some bit of evidence is the exception or the rule? In general, we humans aren't designed for the informational landscape that we now inhabit, and it's not just Republicans that have this problem.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:20pm

    I would generally incline to believe that the newsletter directed at providing accurate information upon which to predict, and thus successfully discount, the future, would at least as far as factual content, lean towards accuracy--thus it was a commonplace that while the editorial pages of the (old) WSJ were full of crap, the news department was surprisingly without bias.  That, of course, was before the Reign of Rupert.

    That said, (and noticing how my complaint about relatives vs. friends as the source of my angst seems to be mirrored across the board), I am struck by the processing failures that seem to afflict the right wing thought process (if so it can be termed...)

    I listen frequently to Limbaugh, and even within the distorted universe of discourse "informed"  by his factual inventions, the conclusions he tortures from those facts are manifestly without any grounding in logic.  This makes it really, really, hard to engage with people thus afflicted, does it not?


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:44pm

    You're assuming that the newsletter's goal is what it presumes to be. I think the "newsletter" is a tool of its corporate masters. If not, then they're just victims of the same selective perception.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 7:31pm

    Well, then, it's " Iceberg, dead ahead!"


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 7:36pm

    My answer would be yes.  I see that as actually a good thing.  If the answer were no, things would be bleaker.  Republicans have different understandings of how the world works in some cases, different values and beliefs in others, and of course their own unique personal histories which contribute to how they see the world.  They are actually human--of this I am quite sure.  Most of the time.  I'm sure the Republicans wonder the same about us.  

    stillidealistic was a Republican until not too long ago.  I wonder how she would answer your question.  She's told her story at the cafe.  It's a good one, too.  I would bet there are other former Republicans out there, maybe just lurking.

    People do sometimes change their minds about some things they'd held onto for a long, long time.  The process of trying to persuade others on political matters is typically slow and uncertain.  I would doubt there are many at dag who have never experienced some pretty strong frustration at the inability or unwillingness of someone they're discussing something with to "see the light".   Obviously including here, in exchanges at dag itself. 

    I don't think facts and sound arguments are irrelevant, although it can feel that way sometimes.  If more of us ordinary folks keep working at informing ourselves and getting better at making the arguments...well, that's one way change happens, at the personal and local levels.  Being able to represent and advocate what we believe in a way that generates respect, maybe even further thought, in another person (not necessarily at the time of the conversation) is part of change processes.  My reply here might seem pretty emotionally flat but believe me, if this isn't obvious from what I write here, I'm exasperated with all the craziness going on around us, too.  My two pennies.


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:36pm

    stillidealistic was a Republican

    Likewise LisB...go figure!  Can you fuck the crazy out of someone?  (Not meant as a reference to any person otherwise here identified...)


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:46pm

    Nope. I dated a woman once that I eventually came to call "Psycho Girl".  I couldn't fuck the crazy out of her, and believe me, I tried.


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:54pm

    There is a school of thought which holds that pscho pussy can be extra special primo good pussy, up until the violence...

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:34pm

    It seems to me that if you have an annual income below $250k you are a deluded moron to vote Repugnant.

    YES


    by Richard Day on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:02pm

    Paging Joe the Plumber,"Mr. Wurzelbacher, white courtesy phone, please..."


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:47pm

    "Is there such a thing as a sincere, well informed, non-venal Republican?"

     

    NO.

    "It seems to me that if you have an annual income below $250k you are a deluded moron to vote" Republican. 

    TRUE.

    " ... convince me, then ...that these benighted people are susceptible of change, that they can be reached." 

    THEY AREN'T AND THEY CAN'T BE.

    Wow, that was an easy test.  And for those that would say, "Well gee, Mr. Smith, you're being an idiot because we need to keep reaching out to the good people in the GOP and try to win the day with our ideas", I would say, that we would do better to build a series of roach-like "Republican Motels" and place them in the corners of every bank, brokerage house, Bob Evans restaurant, and NASCAR venue in America, so that all the GOPers will check in, but they won't check out. Then all we have to do is toss them all into a big dumpster and bury them in a landfill in New Jersey.  Yes, I'm that freaking angry and disgusted, and feeling completely hopeless,  But I've had it up to here with trying to be reasonable, cajoling, nice, logical, appealing to the better angels of their nature, etc., etc.  What's ... the ... point? They will simply come in with their big money, and voter caging, robo-calling, voting machine tampering tactics, and steamroll us all into oblivion and then, when the average GOPers allegiance to the rich and the big corporations, (which they thought was going to save them from the same fate as us Democrats), betrays and destroys them too, they will simply shriek at us for not doing more to save them. It's a never-win situation.  So, perhaps it IS time to let it all burn to the ground. Perhaps it will take destroying everyone and everything to bring the lower and middle classes together and let them see and feel their complete enslavement by the rich and powerful corporations that are strangling the very life-breath out of America. Maybe some people need to learn that when they have nothing, they have nothing to lose.  But us Democrats also need to learn that in the custom toilet business, there are no reasonable assholes.   


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:12pm

    I don't feel that your response is going to move my rehabilitation project along very much...oh well...maybe I'm not sincerely trying to rehab anyway.  That said, there may be a family gathering in my near future, and I'm now out of the closet in a big way vis-a-vis my inner state of amazed outrage, which, of course, mirrors yours.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:50pm

    Sorry if I went a little over the top with my rant, but your question obviously pushed a button in me.  I've tried to be so reasonable for so long, calmly explaining to my friends, for example, when they post on Facebook about how it's about time that their state passed a law forcing all people on Welfare to be drug-tested. I've explained calmly over and over why that's a stupid law (in brief, a) the drug testing costs a LOT more than the money saved by throwing all the drug addicts off Welfare and b) studies have shown that most drug addicts are not on Welfare, but have full-time jobs, to say nothing of the constitutional rights of privacy, etc. ) I also point out the irony of championing smaller government and cutting government spending and than creating a program that does neither. But, the logic doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter to them that drug addicts cut off from Welfare would be more likely to turn to crime to support their habits, it doesn't matter that every state in which this has been tried, it's been a complete and utter failure, it doesn't matter that in one state they tested 30,000 people and had only 12 people fail the drug test.  It doesn't matter than a false positive might toss a deserving single mother with child off the Welfare rolls.  All that matters is that it sure sounds like a dandy idea, gosh darn it, we have to do something about those danged Welfare cheats. On Facebook, it's easy to cut and paste the "lets pass a law requiring all Welfare recipients to be drug-tested", but then I always feel an obligation to defend my political views and explain to each and every one of these people (I'd say idiots, but I'm trying to be nice) why it's a bad piece of legislation. Then a month later, these same people are posting the same statement, because they have no memory when it comes to issues and reasoning, they have only buzz-words and cut-and-paste Facebook statuses. Willful, determined ignorance. There is simply no other words for it.


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:29pm

    Say "idiots". No point sugar coating. I'm waiting for the drug test to vote movement-it's just around the corner.

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:45pm

    I hope they don't invoke a Jim Beam law.


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:21am

    They already have one...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 4:01pm

    Family gatherings can be rough, I agree.  My Fox News and Limbaugh-loving brother in law in Pennsylvania is usually eager to welcome his progressive guests with some inflammatory remark intended to start a political food fight.  

    Last time we were there he was giving me the debt scare spiel (I do recall him mentioning at one point that one thing he wasn't totally happy with with Bush was the deficits.  Whoah!!  He didn't get that from Fox or Rush!) and I said to him, "look, businesses aren't expanding and hiring people because there aren't enough people who have money to buy what they'd like to sell.  How do you think we're going to get this thing turned around by making sure potential consumers get poorer and poorer?"  

    There was kind of blank look on his face. He didn't respond.  Maybe I'll get the response next time we're there.  Does Fox have some toll free number you can call if one if some liberal makes an argument you don't know the official Republican answer to?


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:55pm

    Not infrequently a troubled dittohead will call limbaugh w/just such a conundrum-also a good cover for smoking him out w/n alerting the screener...

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:29pm

    The Republicans have done an excellent job of combining the the economic agenda of the ruling class with the social agenda of many groups who seek power to do their thing and see the GOP as a resource. In addition, there a great number of people who think the best chance they will have of furthering their own opportunities is when that aforesaid agenda is allowed to generate a lot of wealthy consumers.

    Venn diagrams could represent how these different elements overlap or not in the world views of Republicans. Limbaugh's job is to make the organized efforts of the ruling class to maintain this overlap appear to be desperate attempts to stave off the hordes of hippies relentlessly plucking at the fabric of this nation.

    But since you are looking for the group that is not totally stoned out of its mind, I suggest concentrating on those who think they have cut the best deal for themselves by reducing their taxes and paying for what used to be part of  the public weal on a strictly demand basis.

    Add to this the fact that without government having the power to rescue markets when they threaten the collapse of the entire economy, we would be all in an apocalyptic hell-scape right now, the Republicans you might engage with have to start talking about governance that is strong enough to create fair markets.

    In other words, if the government is to have enough power to do the things Republicans want, that government will need to be liquid.

    Money talks, bullshit walks.

     


    by moat on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:11pm

    So this isn't yet an apocalyptic hellscape, moat? That's a relief, I guess.


    by acanuck on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:13pm

    A new model for presidential elections:

    TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES...

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:40pm

    If the bottom drops out, you will be in your cabin and I will be in mine, looking out the cracks at the roving bands.

     


    by moat on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:28pm

    "totally stoned out of their mind" But, but.....those are MY PEOPLE!

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:37pm

     The purple haze propagates many overlapping sets. Sharing states of mind takes many forms. That is why zombie films push so many buttons.


    by moat on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:15pm

    Zombies......mmmmm,.....send more cops.....


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:11pm

    I heard my name, so here I am.

    I was always more of a social moderate and fiscal conservative as a Republican, so I never really "fit" perfectly into the repub party, so I voted repub in national elections, and frequently for dems in state elections.

    Honestly, I really didn't pay a whole lot of attention. I was busy with "life" and had more of a tendency to vote out of habit, rather than because I was informed about the issues.

    That all changed when the repubs went on a spending orgy under bush, and they frickin' LIED to get us into Iraq, which really hit home, because my son could have been one of those to die for the lie. That smacked me upside the head, and I've been educating myself and really paying attention since then. And because I've been willing to "put everything on the table" and examine all my deeply held beliefs, I've been able to change my basic views on people, the country and the world. I am proud of that, because in doing it, I've had to admit I was wrong about some things I believed in, and there are lots of people who won't do that. It is much easier to take the "don't confuse me with facts" track.

    That is why I take offense at being asked if I'm dense or just gullible when it comes to my views about the President. I take very little at face value any more. In fact, I am often quick to believe some of the crap I hear about the President, then have to go back and figure out who the people are saying it, and evaluate where they are coming from before deciding whether to buy what they are saying. More often than I care to admit, I have gotten pissed at something I thought the President said or did, based on an article or editorial, only to find out that the person who said it had a major ax to grind, and was not telling the whole story.

    So, long story, but, yes, people CAN change their views, but often in order for that to happen, they have to have a personal reason for doing so. Watching only faux news, you get a whole different perspective than the real world does. I didn't realize faux was nothing but propaganda until I started investigating Obama, heard what he had to say, then listened to what faux said he said, and realized they were lying. It changed my world.

    I am on a kick now to change terminology..."entitlements" needs to be a word that never passes a liberal's (or dem's, period) lips...they are "safety nets." If we can shift that perception, we may have a chance at saving them.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:30pm

    Sounds like an epiphany born of cognitive dissonance. Query: How many of those can we hope for. as opposed to reaction formation and digging in harder?

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:42pm

    Ya got me. I did a post a few weeks ago about people digging in deeper when confronted with the truth, but it got VERY little attention. You might read it and see what you think.

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/how-do-we-avoid-backfire-effect-11181


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:51pm

    As I understand it, the effect is more pronounced in conservatives (or is it merely that they tend to have more beliefs which do not match reality--not sure..).

    Mucho depressing, anyway. 


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:15pm

    Thanks for stopping by, stilli, and sharing what you did.

    You give some of us hope.  Even if you don't always feel some of us are reciprocating!

      


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:49pm

    Hahaha! Thanks, AD, but I'm not here for hope, so you're not letting me down.

    I'm here to bounce ideas off of and debate issues with smart people, and there are plenty of those around! If we all were clones, it would be a pretty boring place to be. You don't learn anything by surrounding yourself with people who think exactly the same way you do, and I want to learn and further refine my views. You all contribute to that, even the ones I consider to be idiots. (And you KNOW you're not in that group!)


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:03pm

    Oh, and Jolly, I would venture to guess that we ALL have the crazy and venal in our families. I even have them in my friends, because they were my friends before I saw the light, and I won't give them up over politics. But, jeez...it can make a person want to stick a fork in their own eye!


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:15pm

    I wonder how they frame your conversion.  They probably think you have been  possessed, or sumpin...


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:17pm

    Oh, yeah...most of them think I am certifiable. At most gatherings, I am ridiculed. I find that going off and playing with the kids works best.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:34pm

    Well, then, if you are off with the kids teach it.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 10:56pm

    Well, the 6 year old looks like she's going to be a leftie...she asked me the other day why people have to use the earth like it's a trash can,  told her mom she always wants to eat at vegan restaurants, and we're working on ways of helping people less fortunate (she pulled out a bunch of her old toys and asked if we could give them to the poor kids.) So far so good...

    Child molesters, kidnappers and murderers we've told her about, but I don't think she's old enough yet to know there is such a thing as republicans. It would give her nightmares. LOL!


    by stillidealistic on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:42am

    What a sweetie! Bravo, & thanks for the nice helping of hope!


    by jollyroger on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:58am

    First this is a bit of unfair question because of the term "well-informed."  Basically political debate is those who believe themselves to be "well-informed" attempting to persuade others who are not so "well-informed."  I believe myself well-informed and this why I believe what believe when it comes to politics is correct.  In fact, one is hard pressed to find someone out there who will say I believe this strongly but I’m not well-informed about it. 

    And the notion that drives the political web sites such as Dag: Those who disagree with me, I have to believe (and the basis of the notion of the marketplace of ideas) that if they were to become as well-informed as me they would naturally come to believe as I do.

    Which is another way of saying that as many Republicans are sincere as Democrats.  Everyone is claiming to be adequately well-informed, and those on the other side are idiots, or at the very least victims of the conservative/liberal MSM.

    Which is another way of saying that of course I believe that those who choose the Republican party over the Democratic are not well-informed.

    But do I think a sincere, well-informed and non-venal individual could vote for Lincoln Chafee in 2006?  Yes.  Which is to say that the Republican party and politicians have not always been as they are in 2011.  (It is important to note that Lincoln is now an independent).

    Moreover, your blog focuses solely on the economic perspective and the people identify and affiliate with a political party for more than just pure economic matters.  These days it hard to understand that, but having myself worked on building the Green Party, the agenda which captures people’s imagination and resonates with their inner voter is not always reduced to the checking account.  The classic cases of course for the left are those who vote based on the abortion issue or who the NRA tells them to vote for. 

    One can disagree with the single-issue voter.  One can even call them not well-informed.  But if one is going to make progress on the shifting views, one has to first look to what is significant to them, not what you think should be significant to them.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 6:25am

    Moreover, your blog focuses solely on the economic perspective and the people identify and affiliate with a political party for more than just pure economic matters.  These days it hard to understand that, but having myself worked on building the Green Party, the agenda which captures people’s imagination and resonates with their inner voter is not always reduced to the checking account.  The classic cases of course for the left are those who vote based on the abortion issue or who the NRA tells them to vote for. 

    One can disagree with the single-issue voter.  One can even call them not well-informed.  But if one is going to make progress on the shifting views, one has to first look to what is significant to them, not what you think should be significant to them.

    All true, and wise.  Voters care about what they care about, not what any of us might think they should care about, or hope or want them to care about. 

    I thought Tom Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas? was insulting in that way.  It rubbed me very much the wrong way because its intent seemed to be ridicule and talking down to people he ostensibly was trying to persuade.  Which rarely works in my experience.   

    Frank was essentially saying these people are idiots because they care most about the abortion issue instead of the economic issue, even though they are faring worse economically in his view than they would if they voted different people into office.  They are, in Frank's view, fools to care about what they care about.  Good luck winning people over with that, Tom.

    With people who prefer to call themselves "pro-life" on abortion I try to make to them what is obviously to many a counter-intuitive, and unsatisfying, argument based on evidence suggesting the best way to reduce the number of abortions is not to criminalize it, refuse to talk about sex with young people and make it harder for young people to obtain contraception products, but to educate young people about birth control and make contraception more easily available.  And that if their actual goal is reduce the number of abortions, as opposed to making a symbolic statement by criminalizing it, they should prefer the latter set of policies to the former set.

    I have a friend in the US military.  He's a converted Mormon and has done two tours both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He votes Republican.  He's no "free market" ideologue--harder to be one if you're in the military and a good chunk of what enables you to live is subsidized by your government.  He is "pro-life" on the abortion issue.  I have tried talking to him about economic policies and his response is along lines of why should I--and we as a people--sacrifice our values for maybe a better paycheck?  What would that say about us? 

    That's how he sees things and I think I'd be foolhardy to show an attitude of anything other than respect for him, even though I disagree with the conclusion he draws based on his values (not mine).  Which I find not at all hard to do because I have great admiration for him.  I point out that if his actual desire is to see fewer abortions the Republican criminalization line on abortion actually works less well than the more typical Democratic approach of safe, legal and rare.  If we're talking about values, he's been willing to put his life on the line for what he sees as his country and his ideals.  He has a great service ethic.  My pitch to him on economic policy is all about trying to show him that economic policy choices are also all about values when you come down to it.

    I'm not going to win him over.  I know that.  But at least, maybe, he will have a frame of reference for thinking that there are Democrats who also have values and aren't condescending assholes.       


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:28am

    condescending assholes. 

    Reporting for duty....

     


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:32am

    unfair question because of the term "well-informed."

    Well, yes, we are trying to screen out the "low information" voter.  I think my evolution/creationism test would be a big improvement in the body politic.

    That said, we all have a pretty good idea what it means to be, or not to be, well informed.

    If you want more examples of the latter, I can recommend three hours of Limbaugh and three hours of Hannity (Weep for Jollyroger-he listens so you don't have to).  The insanity, the lies, and the totally unmoored in reality/logic discourse is straight outta Alice in Wonderland..


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:41am

    yes we know that are definitely low information voters on the Republican side. The most infamous are definitely dittoheads.  But remember Rush hated McCain and guess you got the nomination.  And it isn't like the Dems don't have their low information voters (even a blind squirrel will eventually find a nut). 

    Charles Blow reported on a Pew Research Center poll in October 2010 that found among other things only 62% of Democrats knew Joe Biden was VP (65% of the Repubs knew and only 54% of the Independents). 

    The question is whether there can be a well-informed individual (making, say, 65K or 40K a year) who still votes for Republican.  On one level, since my information leads me to the other conclusion, it would be contradictory for me say this could be true.  But if I acknowledge the legitimacy of having a different paradigm or frame of reference in making the choice, then, yes I could say that a well-informed individual could come to the conclusion that the Republican would be in his or her best interest, as well as the country's. 


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 4:31pm

    a well-informed individual could come to the conclusion that the Republican would be in his or her best interest, as well as the country's. 

    I don't suppose you would like to render a more granular deconstruction by citing any five Repugnant platform positions and then walking me through the reasoning via which they would fit the stated criteria, would'ja?


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 4:38pm

    Ah, see there's the rub.  I am talking about an individual voting for another individual who happens to be a Republican, not voting for a platform.

    How many people who voted for the Democrats ever glanced over, let alone know, what is in the 2008 Democratic National Platform, or Republicans of their 2008 Republican Platform?

    They may connect to just one such as:

    Republicans remain the party of vigorous action against crime and the party that empowers the law-abiding by protecting their right to keep and bear arms for self-protection.  Our national experience over the past twenty years has shown that vigilance, tough yet fair prosecutors, meaningful sentences, protection of victims’ rights, and limits on judicial discretion protect the innocent by keeping criminals off the streets.

    And as for the rest of the issues, well, the candidate seems like the one that can be trusted to make the right choice (no pun intended). 

    Or it could be as someone that tends to have nothing but blue dogs to vote for, I am merely going with the lesser of two evils approach, as some libertarians do with the Republicans.

    But in the end well-informed implies on has consumed the appropriate information in order to make the decision. The conclusions are debatable.  Although the conclusions as you see them may be self-evident.  Warrantless wiring tapping is a good example.  We all give up a certain amount of rights to privacy.  The line is drawn at unreasonableness.  What is an unreasonable invasion of privacy, what is an unreasonable search and seizure.  When can we say the police acted in good faith.

    And on it goes. 

    We could have had a two trillion dollar (with none of in tax cuts) stimulus and things could be just only marginally better.  Or they could be much much better.  We'll never know with pure certainty. 

    Peace through strength (ie pentagon gets what it wants) may have led to a more stable world than had we not done it, thereby maintain global economic stability and therefore a stronger economy and more jobs than had we slashed the defense budget.

    Only in a parallel universe where this alternative occurs could we truly know.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:38pm

    I did not mean by the use of the term "platform", unfairly to box you into referencing only the actual items listed on the national platform as emerging from the party convention.

    Feel free, (in the interests, as it were, of honoring the demands of nuance) simply to designate an issue and then extrapolate.

    I hope this freedom will empower greater clarity than manifested in your discourse above, which was unduly constrained by my clumsily put premise.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:01pm

    It's late and my brain is functioning at a level necessary to a thorough response.  But let me first throw out this: some dude living in Alaska could easily see it was it in his best economist interest to re-elect Ted Stevens, the guy who brought home the bacon.

    Another thing to throw out.  If one just looks at the candidate and not the entire behavior of the whole party (esp of late), I find it hard to say a professional couple who had, say, a 85K household income voting for Lugar, Brown, Snowe, Collins, or Hutchinson as being made out of sheer ignorance of how the world works, and that a reasonable person might come to conclusion that said senator would be better than the Democratic opponent. 


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:53pm

    Just because  I cut you loose from the tyranny of the platform I did not mean to elide the requirement that you address adherence to an issue, not and individual, in your defense of the supposedly sincere repugnant...

    Hence reference to politicians who are outliers at the edge of the party (and who, indeed, as with Lugar hang by a thread) is not convincing.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 11:27am

    In short, jollyroger, yes, of course. My best friend in the entire world, the Teamster, a member of  local 174, founded in 1909, when UPS began, was a Republican, not for any other reason except habit. Lots of Teamsters' consider themselves to be Republican. I worked on her for a few years, and was able to help her come to the conclusion, long before the Scott Walker BS that democrats are the people she should be voting for, because there are more important things than guns and abortion. (Although I have managed to change her opinions on the right to choose as well). There are plenty of people like Mary, plenty, they are fun and good people. They rarely discuss politics, but have been convinced by the press that Democrats are after their money and guns. Once I was able to disabuse of her those notions it was easy to bring her to this side.  She still has her gun, (.357), but I added another democrat to the rolls and she is still the best friend I have, even when she thought she was a republican. However I didn't change any of her opinions by calling her names or insisting she was stupid or anything negative, I used optimism and facts. It worked.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:38am

    Women do love those Magnums--as an aside, I bought my second wife one, and she would never shoot anything else.  (Note to self-don't arm your wife and then fool around on her, but that's another story...)

    On the broader point, yes, everyone knows charming and even apparently well-meaning Republicans.  Your riposte, however, does touch upon the failure to meet criteria two in my formulation, "well-informed" as you attribute to your friend a media induced fantasy re"Dems wanting her money and her guns", which, when finally cured, caused her to stop voting Repugnant.  If anything, your story goes to confirm that until the fever lifts, these people are a danger to themselves and others, particularly when in reach of a voting lever.

     My very own sister voted for McCain despite watching our mother descend into Alzheimer's dementia.  When I inquired how she could  vote for an obvious Alzheimer's sufferer over Obama, her daughter chimed in (succinctly) "She's a racist."

    I do hope she is careful not to let the grandkids get infected...

    My point is, those who vote Repugnant have a disease.  We may pray for a cure, we may apply palliative dialog, but they are sick in the head and there's no getting around it.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:30am

    Okay, first I want to hear that story some day, it sounds awesome! I softly worked on Mary for a very long time to rescue her from the dark side, without ever saying anything like that to her! Although I do now, but while I was working on her to bring her to my side, I never said anything offensive to her about politics which told her I thought she was stupid. Of course I don't think she is stupid.

    Then there is Ron, my next conquest, he is my son's friend. He moved into our home when he left Illinois, he is gay and his father of course rejected him. But when he came here to Seattle, he was much more conservative than I thought he would be, but after spending a few months with us and me, (I am mouthy if nothing else) he now identifies himself as a Democrat and is constantly updating me on what he is doing etc. Ron is smart, like my son Mike, when I say smart I mean smart, self made guys, (both are 25), I would go into how smart they are, but it is irrelevant here other than to say, if you want a complex program, or a new server etc and so on, you can't go wrong if they are there helping.

    Then there is my friend Timmy, from Havre Montana. I've known Timmy for more than 30 years, he was always a Republican, he is from Montana, but you know what after working on him for more than 15 years, he only votes for democrats and he is always arguing with his family because they badmouth democrats.

    I do it by treating people with respect though, I don't call them names and I don't insinuate they are dumb.

    You for the most part crack me the hell up Jollyroger. You do, but you'd win more people to your side if you were gentler in your criticism.  So I don't see soft republicans as people who have a disease, I see them as people I need to convince through real facts of why Democrats aren't as bad as the press portrays them.

    I want to know that story about your second wife and her gun and your girlfriends.. it sound epic, do it in the creative corner or something!


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:57am

    gentler in your criticism

    If I become the kinder, gentler version, can I be CIA director someday?


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:31am

    Yes.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:48am

    This guy  sums it up


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:10am

    Right.  So the job is to get to those who the Brain Bug hasn't gotten to yet, or maybe is just starting on.   Clearly there are folks on whom the Brain Bug's work is now done.  Probably they're not going to be voting the right way in this lifetime or if they do it will be because the Brain Bug did such a thorough job they just mistakenly voted the right way once.  So we have to get to the Republicans and Republican-susceptible or -leaning independents and Democrats who aren't hopeless before BB does.


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 3:02pm

    Do I understand that you are sending us out to teach kindergarten?  'Cause I'm ready.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 3:57pm

    Ah-nold, in a fun movie.  There in a likeable role.  Not so much IRL these days.  Do you suppose he supplied Maria with a Magnum?


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 8:42pm

    Talk about the lamentations of the women...btw, that first guy is Genghis....really.

     


    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:16pm

    Yes, there is...but it's called a newly declared Democrat.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 9:28pm

    Latest Comments