New York Still Doesn't Get It

[DFW HOYA]

NY Times article on the befuddled city that can't understand why Red America can't be more like them:

www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/nyregion/04york.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[Z]

please see my post in the thread below re: iraqi casualties. elitism runs both ways.

[nychoya3]

I do have a hard time understanding how 20% of the country thinks men getting married is the most important issue facing the nation. Guess I must be an ivory tower liberal commie lover.

[jerseyhoya34]

There are perfectly good reasons for us blue staters to be befuddled. Perhaps what most offended me during the campaign was President Bush's attack that someone from Massachusetts was unfit to be President. Not only was the argument about Kerry's service, which we can disagree about on the merits, but the argument was geographic. He attacked Massachusetts itself. Coming from a person who reveres the role of Massachusetts Bay in our independence and the leadership of Massachusetts' residents, such as Adams and Kennedy, the argument is tough to swallow. When folks in the red states stand up and fight for some right to fly the flag of the Confederacy above government buildings, it gives one pause. On a personal level, it hurts especially when one's ancestors fought on the winning side in the Civil War and died on the fields of Gettysburg.

What I have yet to hear is an argument that substantiates the American-ness of flying the flag of the Confederacy, legislating how people should live their lives, and why northerners are inherently unable to be President of the United States. How are these things, or "values," American? Perhaps it reflects a lack of understanding on my part, but I fear that it has more to do with the lack of convincing argumentation from the red staters. The only argument that I've heard is that one cannot win the Presidency without espousing these alleged values or at least pay lip service to them. Well, to be perfectly honest, were Kerry to have done so, especially in the primary, my vote would have been elsewhere. What the argument seems to suggest is that might, in the form of the evangelical "Christians" and "moral" "values" voters, makes right and seems to justify Bush's positions. I find this argument dangerous for moral and ethical reasons and would be curious to hear whether I may have misinterpreted something in the argumentation.

I would suggest, in passing, that there is a degree to which the evangelicals have been duped. Bush decried the gay marriage issue by pointing to Massachusetts. What he failed to mention is that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of any state in the Union. Additionally, Bush talked about creating a culture of life. What he failed to mention is the apparent increase in abortions over the past few years.

[Z]

i have to admit that if i didnt firmly believe the policies of this administration would result in more americans dying at home and abroad over the next four years at the hands of islamo-facists than would under kerry, a part of me i'm not proud of would be inclined to wash my hands of this mess and let this country see where the fully realized bush agenda takes them. as barney frank noted today, many americans "like the conservatives' theme music, now they will find if they like the lyrics."

but the bottom line is that this isnt a "woe is us" moment for us progressives to throw up our hands and start figuring out a way to acquiese to values we disagree with. i have never backed away from the "liberal" label, as i am proud of the values it stands for and the critical role they have played in making this country what it is today. i haven't the slightest inclination to pander to views i find abhorrent. if that means losing elections, so be it. its time we remembered the importance of trying to convince people that we are right, rather than trying to convince them that we are closer to their worldview than they think we are.

[Z]

and to your point, dfw, i am a little befuddled when i walk out of my apartment a mile from the WTC, say good morning to the gay couple across the hall who have been together for 15 years, and read the paper to discover that i'm an unpatriotic fool out of touch with the threat that terrorism poses who may very well spend eternity burning in hell for my sinful worldview.

[jerseyhoya34]

Z said:

i have to admit that if i didnt firmly believe the policies of this administration would result in more americans dying at home and abroad over the next four years at the hands of islamo-facists than would under kerry, a part of me i'm not proud of would be inclined to wash my hands of this mess and let this country see where the fully realized bush agenda takes them. as barney frank noted today, many americans "like the conservatives' theme music, now they will find if they like the lyrics."

but the bottom line is that this isnt a "woe is us" moment for us progressives to throw up our hands and start figuring out a way to acquiese to values we disagree with. i have never backed away from the "liberal" label, as i am proud of the values it stands for and the critical role they have played in making this country what it is today. i haven't the slightest inclination to pander to views i find abhorrent. if that means losing elections, so be it. its time we remembered the importance of trying to convince people that we are right, rather than trying to convince them that we are closer to their worldview than they think we are.

Thanks for fighting, Z. I am at the point where I am willing to give Bush a chance. He can elect to unite the country with moderate policies, but if he continues to rally the base when he can and compromise when he must, then my support/good feelings is out the window.

What I am looking for from the Dems is leadership. We need to find someone who throws the old guard logic out the window and defines an agenda to move us forward anew with new ideas and so forth that have not been hit around for the past 60 years. While I thought Kerry did this to some degree (minimal), much more needed to be done. It is tough for me to define exactly what this entails at this point, but, suffice to say, my eyes are not fixed on the DLC, NDN, DNC, or even the party leadership. The change must occur from the fringe and work its way to the center.

As for people who I identify as possible leaders who can move us forward, Gov. Rendell comes to mind and not many more folks. I don't want to see Dean, Gore, or either Clinton much in these forthcoming discussions.

[Z]

i gave bush the benefit of the doubt in 2000, and it didnt get me very far. i hope he proves me wrong, but with no re-election to worry about and a "mandate," somehow i'm not optimistic (especially in light of today's not-so-conciliatory one liners).

the thought of hillary clinton representing the future of the democratic party horrifies me. she is an unbearably robotic politician, and if you thought kerry had a hard time "connecting with the red states," keep in mind 20% of the red state populous didn't viscerally hate him before he declared his candidacy.

[jerseyhoya34]

I agree completely re: Hillary. The thought of her running makes me shiver.

I also agree about Bush. He thought he had a mandate after 2000, which was incorrect. Based on my analysis of the polls in 2004, Cheney's claim that they had a mandate is likewise shaky. Usually one does not need to claim a mandate when one actually exists.

[Z]

to clarify, i'm not convinced that the presence of a "mandate" should dictate how one governs to begin with. its a pretty subjective enterprise to determine when one exists, and i'm not sure that politicians of any stripe should try to tailor their governing style to the percentages that elected them. what concerns me where is how quickly the right wing echo chamber is trumpeting the notion of having one; its clearly going to be the rhetorical backbone of an aggressive administration i feverently disagree with.

[DFW HOYA]

Z said:

and to your point, dfw, i am a little befuddled when i walk out of my apartment a mile from the WTC, say good morning to the gay couple across the hall who have been together for 15 years, and read the paper to discover that i'm an unpatriotic fool out of touch with the threat that tecordism poses who may very well spend eternity burning in hell for my sinful worldview.

No, that's not the point.

When the woman in the article wonders what her "European friends" must think, maybe she should ask what her Missouri friends must think.

The election isn't just about Bush but about a significant portion of the nation which votes differently than those on the coasts who increasingly distance themselves from the rest of the country. We can disgaree about which is better...but that's the point! It does no good for Blue America to simply dismiss the rest of the country as stupid or not as good as they are. A writer for Atlantic Monthly wrote that "In Red America they have QVC, the Pro Bowlers Tour, and hunting. In Blue America we have NPR, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and socially conscious investing." There's a lot more west of I-95 than QVC and bowling, and some of these intellectuals need to put down the Sunday Times, pick up USA Today, and go out and talk to some different people and understand the concerns of people in places like Indiana, like Colorado, like New Mexico. Engaging in some civil dialogue would be a better step. Maybe each side would realize that there is a lot of common ground.

However, the small segment of the elite that maintin this intellectual superiority over those in the rest of the courtry do their side no favors. Neither the Rush Limbaughs nor the Gore Vidals of the world have a monopoly on the truth.

But here's another thought, mindful of the argument that Middle America no longer relates to what they see as the effete of the Upper West Side, the Bay Area, or Beacon Hill: if the Democratic ticket were reversed (Edwards, Kerry), would the results have been different, and why?

[thebin]

I overheard a woman at work the day after the election. She was American, talking to some Indian co-workers and using a tone of voice and volume level that left it clear she wanted everyone around here to hear her. This in a room where she HAD to know half of us anyway voted for Bush as I work on a trading desk even if it is in NYC. (Probably 80% or so for Bush in my best guess in our particular department.) Essentially what she wanted us all to hear was: She was devastated but took some solace in the fact that Kerry won the "educated states." She also thought that Kerry wasn't a waverer- but rather he was so smart that people "in the middle of the country just couldn't follow him." She was "ashamed to be American that day."

I thought to myself that is the perfect encapsulation of why they lose. To be fair its generally not done by the blue state pols themsevles but the inability of the BASE of blue state voters to hide their elitist bigotry towards those who live more than a few hundred miles from the ocean or who travel to Europe very often- that is why no non-Southern Democrat has won the White House since John F Kennedy.

I am sure it didn't escape your attention DFW- that if the woman in question had friends or family who were unfortunate enough to have to live in Missouri- she wouldn't dare admit it to a NY Times reporter.

[jerseyhoya34]

thebin said:

I overheard a woman at work the day after the election. She was American, talking to some Indian co-workers and using a tone of voice and volume level that left it clear she wanted everyone around here to hear her. This in a room where she HAD to know half of us anyway voted for Bush as I work on a trading desk even if it is in NYC. (Probably 80% or so for Bush in my best guess in our particular department.) Essentially what she wanted us all to hear was: She was devastated but took some solace in the fact that Kerry won the "educated states." She also thought that Kerry wasn't a waverer- but rather he was so smart that people "in the middle of the country just couldn't follow him." She was "ashamed to be American that day."

I thought to myself that is the perfect encapsulation of why they lose. To be fair its generally not done by the blue state pols themsevles but the inability of the BASE of blue state voters to hide their elitist bigotry towards those who live more than a few hundred miles from the ocean or who travel to Europe very often- that is why no non-Southern Democrat has won the White House since John F Kennedy.

I am sure it didn't escape your attention DFW- that if the woman in question had friends or family who were unfortunate enough to have to live in Missouri- she wouldn't dare admit it to a NY Times reporter.

All of these analyses miss the point. Red staters are just as bigoted as the blue staters, if not more. Remember, many of these red states have a history of bigotry. I think I'd rather have elitist bigotry than racial or sexual bigotry because that has more to do with biology than status, and discriminating on the basis of biology bears rather evil fruit.

Is anyone willing to stand up and defend red state values? Someone please make an argument that flying the flag of the Confederacy is an American value. The fact is that most of these arguments from red staters and blue state Bushies is about "might makes right." If Kerry won, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[DanMcQ]

...the elitism and who's more bigoted arguments are missing the point. One of the great things about this nation is that there is ample room for multiple divergent points of view. Just because either "other" side has an opposing point of view on an issue doesn't make them bigoted or elitist unless you protray it as so. Doing so undercuts your own argument IMO.

One interesting attempt to get at things is in today's Boston Herald:

Democratic soul-searching overdue

news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=52625

[kchoya]

JerseyHoya34 said:

All of these analyses miss the point. Red staters are just as bigoted as the blue staters, if not more. Remember, many of these red states have a history of bigotry. I think I'd rather have elitist bigotry than racial or sexual bigotry because that has more to do with biology than status, and discriminating on the basis of biology bears rather evil fruit.

Is anyone willing to stand up and defend red state values? Someone please make an argument that flying the flag of the Confederacy is an American value. The fact 7is that most of these arguments from red staters and blue state Bushies is about "might makes right." If Kerry won, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I see you're talking about red state values? What are red state values? A lot of people would say that they're American values?

Again, I think that a lots of liberals look at someone flying a confederate flag, and thing they're an ingnorant, redneck bigot, and go no further. That's the problem. I grant you that there are some racists and bigots out there. There always will be. But to paint with such a broad brush misses the point. The red states are not populated with a bunch of single-issuse simple minded folks.

To say that those in the red states are racial bigots or sexual bigots is overly simplistic and highly dangerous.

[jerseyhoya34]

Unfortunately, the degree to which some groups in the red states turned out does seem to suggest that some of their values are inherently American by virtue of the strength they wielded in ballot boxes throughout middle America.

My problem is that I have yet to hear an argument outside of this "might makes right" argument that some of these values are American. Flying the Confederate flag, for example, above government buildings seems to fly in the face of the American flag and the spirit of one United States of America. I have no problem with the folks who fly it on their homes or pick-up trucks or whatever, but making it a symbol of our civic identity, to me, does not represent an American value. I am aware of the history and identity, however, that it conjures up among some red staters. However, what is the basis of that identity? A large part of it is exclusionary and represents an effort to distinguish between "us" and "them" (Yankees). That's the basis of my criticism, and I probably should have made the distinction between public, government displays and private displays of the flag. I hope that this advances the discussion.

Also, on the subject of the DOMA and marriage amendments, there is something deeper there than simply defending marriage as defined religiously. It is a wedge issue that, in part, is meant to distinguish the religious from those with a more non-traditional lifestyle. I think some of the political efforts in support of this legislation also attempts to excite the imagination of evangelicals with respect to homosexual lifestyles in an attempt to create revulsion among the evangelicals. They take it further by suggesting that homosexuals somehow may affect heterosexual marriage, which is dubious. One having a homosexual relationship and others having a heterosexual relationship are not mutually exclusive.

[showcase]

I would venture to say that blue-state values are American values as well.

Or maybe there are no blue states or red states - say hello to the purple states:



Or maybe it's the counties that are purple...



If we must look to red vs. blue states to define the national agenda, however, I insist we go all the way and use this map:



Anyone else think that maybe it's not quite so cut and dry as red vs. blue, and red has clearly prevailed?

[WilsonBlvdHoya]

OK, kc, I'll take your bait on the confederate flag since I live in VA, grew up in MD but was born in Philly....

When I see someone who flies the stars and bars, I think, "there's someone who's proud of their southern heritage." Who is proud of their self-proclaimed, "way of life." Yet has that person thought about what that heritage implies? It implies a social system where one race of people is treated as chattel/enslaved so that another might prosper. Is that something to be proud of? Is that something to be considered as fundamentally American? How does a person who is a descendant of slaves or shares the same race as that which was enslaved feel about the waving of that flag?

I'm not arguing that every individual who flies the stars and bars is a bigot. But I am curious as to what that person believes the stars and bars stands for and how defensible it is after nearly a century and a quarter later! Thoughts would be appreciated......