Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Which is of course why there are half a dozen open right-wing bigots on this board while only one I can think of on the left...

And that's just bigots. If you're talking civility, the numbers get worse.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Which is of course why there are half a dozen open right-wing bigots on this board while only one I can think of on the left...

And that's just bigots. If you're talking civility, the numbers get worse.

What planet are you living on? The vocal left is openly bigoted against the Right, whereas of the vocal right, only 3 of us give a shiite enough to hurl insults. And those 3 have their own issues.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd explain, but we're not allowed to name names.

[Agathon]

It's still psychology.

That makes you an evil continental. We Analytical philosophers draw a strong distinction between the logical features of belief and psychology. Justification of beliefs is a logical matter.

Unless you want to disgrace yourself by joining the ideas that lead one to being a pomo.

What planet are you living on? The vocal left is openly bigoted against the Right, whereas of the vocal right, only 3 of us give a shiite enough to hurl insults. And those 3 have their own issues.

But you are all too pathetic to defend your beliefs when pressed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
That makes you an evil continental. We Analytical philosophers draw a strong distinction between the logical features of belief and psychology. Justification of beliefs is a logical matter.

Yes, but you believe things that have evidence and logical arguments supporting them because you dislike being wrong

[Agathon]

Yes, but you believe things that have evidence and logical arguments supporting them because you dislike being wrong

That again is a separate matter from justification. I could want to support them because girls will sleep with me if I do. That makes no difference to their justification.

[Theben]

Originally posted by JohnT

What planet are you living on? The vocal left is openly bigoted against the Right, whereas of the vocal right, only 3 of us give a shiite enough to hurl insults. And those 3 have their own issues.

I can think of a LOT more, off the top of my head. As to the vocal left, that's pretty much just in the aftermath of this election, as opposed to the constant barrage of venom from the right over the last 15-20 years. Stop listening to Ned.

[JohnT]

Puh-leeze. What message board are you looking at? Surely not the same one I'm posting to.

[Ramo]

Horsie is correct. The Democratic Party is generally disdainful of popular attitudes. This is reflected in the hierarchial organizations they create - the DLC, the DNC. And it's reflected in the way that they'd like to organize the economy - their disdain for organized labor. It's absolutely flaberghasting that the most prominent Dem that I can think of that advocates the repeal of Taft-Hartley is Dennis Kucinich. The closest that some of the Democratic leadership comes to support of unionism, is through naked protectionism. In addition to being generally bad policy, it only reinforces the Republican frame of political debate that nationalism is inherently good. The point is, that the Dems have sold themselves off as the party of professionals, rather than the party of the working class as it tradionally has been. And that's been hurting it. People vote their values, and when the economic value in question is fighting against large budget deficits rather than disabled people losing their right to form unions, they're going to vote their social values.

Which leads me to something that irritates me to no end, that the primary issue that caused Kerry to lose, gay marriage, is one on which the Kerry campaign didn't even bother to put up a fight. Kerry had a subtle position, clearly borne out of political calculation, and the GOP went around turning his position into advocating on gay marriage, a position that national Democrats have both implictly and explicitly said was wrong. If Kerry made the simple the case that gay marriage is about treating gay people with equality and dignity, he probably would've won. And even if he'd lost, it would've been a moral victory.

This is a general problem with the Democratic Party. When the Dems refuse to make a moral case for their positions, the Republicans win by default, because that is how the debate is invariably framed.

[Ned]

Ramo, if Clinton has his way and the Dems retreat even further from the gay marriage issue, this year may mark the high water mark for gay "rights" in America. I see some states passing domestic partner rights legislation which over time will eventually be nationwide. But, I no longer see even courts intervening to force gay marriage on the public. Court's tend to endorse fundamental values of society, not fluant them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
He has a larger audience than anybody else either on TV or radio in the US. Limbaugh may be the most influence "man" in the US outside of the president. Oprah is a woman, of course.

There are tons of TV shows with larger audiences and Limbaugh slid into the #1 talk radio show after Howard Steirn was taken off the air.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


There are tons of TV shows with larger audiences and Limbaugh slid into the #1 talk radio show after Howard Steirn was taken off the air.

I never once heard Howard Stern on the radio. Not once. Even by accident.

AFAIK, Rush's 20million weekly audience dwarfs all other talk shows on radio or TV except for Oprah.

[Drake Tungsten]

that the primary issue that caused Kerry to lose, gay marriage

edit:

The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?hp

[Zkribbler]

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

Wow, Drake Tungsten those are some stunning figures, which I have not seen elsewhere. They certainly run against the common "wisdom" that's now being bandied about on the TV talk shows.

[pchang]

The raw numbers are on any news site. They just haven't been interpreted as such for you.