tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post542201797211136952..comments2023-09-29T06:57:06.991-07:00Comments on Anglachel's Journal: Much Better Than I Can Say ItAnglachelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01110546252851760414noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-30279373971160195592008-04-16T19:23:00.000-07:002008-04-16T19:23:00.000-07:00This formulation—the first thing he offers—quickly...<I>This formulation—the first thing he offers—quickly makes everyone suspect. “There is no mystery here,” he says—although, of course, there is.</I><BR/><BR/>That's the part I didn't like and where I thought that Somerby was denying Herbert a valid point. And it's a foolish fight to pick. <BR/><BR/><I>By the way, in the Democratic primary do you think more people are voting against Sen. Obama because he is black than are voting for him, first and foremost, because he is black?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know. Nobody will ever know b/c you have to be able to read hearts and minds to know the answer. The whole argument can be boiled down to "race (among other identity issues) matters." I'm more interested in what we do after we acknowledge that. I think Herbert's column addressed that question.eRobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05189252064595168859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-21458955783277086642008-04-16T12:58:00.000-07:002008-04-16T12:58:00.000-07:00eRobin writes:****************Somerby goes too far...eRobin writes:<BR/><BR/>****************<BR/><I>Somerby goes too far when he uses Herbert as an example of his thesis though. That Herbert column was an exercise in moderation. <B>To deny that there are people who won't vote for Obama b/c he's black</B> is to lose the argument b/f it begins.</I><BR/>******************<BR/><BR/>Does Bob Somerby deny "that there are people who won't vote for Obama b/c he's black..."?<BR/><BR/>Somerby writes:<BR/><BR/>****************<BR/><I><B>Are there people in Pennsylvania who will vote against Obama due to race? Presumably there are</B>—although, in fact, there’s plenty of “mystery” about how “substantial” the “number” might actually be. But at least since the late 1960s, many progressives have behaved just as Herbert does here. It’s our first instinct! We start by attributing the worst possible motives and attributes to wide numbers of everyday people—people whom we’ve never met. What exactly does Herbert mean when he says “a substantial number” of Pennsylvanians won’t vote for Obama due to his race? There’s no way to know for sure—but his formulation seems to take everyone in. This formulation—the first thing he offers—quickly makes everyone suspect. “There is no mystery here,” he says—although, of course, there is.</I><BR/>****************<BR/><BR/>You read Somerby's claim that "presumably there are...people in Pennsylvania who will vote against Obama due to race" as <I>The Howler</I> reporter denying that some people will vote against Obama because he is black? By the way, in the Democratic primary do you think more people are voting against Sen. Obama because he is black than are voting for him, first and foremost, because he is black?CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-2887643001150880962008-04-16T10:16:00.000-07:002008-04-16T10:16:00.000-07:00Somerby goes too far when he uses Herbert as an ex...Somerby goes too far when he uses Herbert as an example of his thesis though. That Herbert column was an exercise in moderation. To deny that there are people who won't vote for Obama b/c he's black is to lose the argument b/f it begins. I'm voting for Hillary b/c I prefer her health care policy and I love her idea to have a bond-funded WPA-style program to rebuild our infrastructure and b/c I haven't heard any good economic ideas from Obama that I haven't heard from HRC. Plus, Obama takes every opportunity to tell Roosevelt Dems like me that he can win without us. To that I say, "Be my guest." BUT I don't kid myself that there are some people are voting or not voting at all b/c they don't want the black guy to win.eRobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05189252064595168859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-26259364670282723422008-04-16T09:46:00.000-07:002008-04-16T09:46:00.000-07:00hi. i stumbled upon your blog post and i really en...hi. i stumbled upon your blog post and i really enjoy the openness of the discussion here. anyway, i'd like to throw out a very different take on the "bitter" comment.<BR/><BR/>i think the salon article about that post has it wrong concerning how most people are likely to vote, as does hillary, and so too obama. i think they all are focusing a bit too much on the rational, and may have the wrong unit of analysis. first, salon.. they characterize the "bitter" comments like so:<BR/><BR/>"In the words of Todd Gitlin, Obama "did indeed fall into the Tom Frank vulgar Marxist trap of seeming to say that love of guns or religion (or antipathy, even) is merely derivative, not fundamental." The attempt by eminent figures on the left to belittle traditional values by reducing them to personal pathology dates back at least to 1950, when the German Marxist émigré Theodore Adorno, in "The Authoritarian Personality," attempted to explain fascism (and by implication American McCarthyism) in terms of repressed individuals who take out their psychic frustrations on minorities. Similarly, the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset explained the Goldwater-Reagan conservative movement as the product of "status anxiety" on the part of socially insecure Americans. This line of thinking, inspired by absurd comparisons between Weimar Germany and post-1945 America and between libertarian conservatism and Hitlerian totalitarianism, has been discredited by scholars like Lisa McGirr, who shows in her 2001 book, "Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right," that Goldwater-Reagan activists tended to be successful, educated people for whom conservative ideology was not a mask for something else but a coherent belief system. Nevertheless, the cliché that working-class and even middle-class social traditionalists, when they are not simply ignorant, "low information" hicks, are maladjusted misfits whose political views are nothing more than feeble gestures of misdirected rage, persists as an article of faith among many progressives, who then wonder why the Democrats cannot win over more of the voters they despise."<BR/><BR/>i think they get caught up in this personally fundamental vs derivative situation, which is misleading. people don't live in a vacuum. most of our opinions, beliefs, habits are derivative -- they are first imitated! we don't have the energy to think everything through clearly. so when does something become fundamental, let alone personally fundamental? that's a somewhat strange question, in my mind. furthermore, the way to turn this around may not be to call the people making the "bitter" comment elitists, but question to what degree those people actually rationally construct their voting decisions. it would've been so awesome if obama's speech in sf also contained a quote along the lines of "and what about you people sitting in this room? if you were voting your pocket books, voting selfishly, maybe all ways point republican. if you valued smart CEOs with clear experience and results, as many of you must, you might vote clinton. so why are you voting for me? think hard about this. how'd you hear about me? are all your friends doing it? was this decision a long, conscious struggle? maybe your voting beliefs are just as derivative as we suggest they are for rural, poor americans. but don't worry, i'm your man!" i think everyone should think hard about these questions.<BR/><BR/>the people who must be really enjoying this debate are the marketers, especially those who have gone to work for campaigns. i think they've long ago realized that many of our beliefs are socially constructed and socially reinforced and hinge not on clearly rational bases. with that observation, they are then able to develop campaigns that either attempt to reinforce or disrupt those beliefs. i want to see the MSM or the blogosphere write about that possibility. maybe they have..omhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05588852550026056519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-38795880716736425432008-04-16T08:44:00.000-07:002008-04-16T08:44:00.000-07:00Remember Political Correctness? Remember how that ...Remember Political Correctness? Remember how that was a bad thing, how it kept people from saying what needed to be said about (mostly) minorities? Now, all of a sudden, political correctness is back, only this time in the form of affirmative action for one, and only one group: Reagan Democrats. We can't make any statement that might ruffle their feathers, because to do so would offend their dignity. <BR/><BR/>Fuck that. Here we are, flogging ourselves over what and how many sins progressives are guilty of (one of them is excessive self-flagellation), but the Holy Smalltown Voter is of Virgin born. Why don't we all grow up and demand that the HSV be subject to the same rules as everyone else? It's not like a lot of what's floating around this discussion is anything new. On the negative side, the HSV has been under the microscope since Sherwood Anderson and Winesburg, OH, and Upton Sinclair's Main Street. There is much to recommend smalltown life (I live in one, though not in the US), but as long as they are populated with human beings it will contain its own, economically and socially determined traits. And some of those traits will not be virtuous, provincialism among them.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say, of course, that politicians can afford to make remarks that offend a group if they expect to get their votes. But that is a case apart from the question of what we can and can't say about each other in public.Potato Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07197891921849976586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-63641528210965754492008-04-16T08:22:00.000-07:002008-04-16T08:22:00.000-07:00I write this consumed by guilt and shame.I have a ...I write this consumed by guilt and shame.<BR/><BR/>I have a twin brother who only votes Repug. And my older sister and I have always gotten into "discussions" with him as to why that is wrong. (It truly is wrong - he is someone who NEEDS Democratic policies but refuses to consider that option under any circumstance!).<BR/><BR/>I started realizing last year that what he was probably responding to is our "we know what is right - you don't" attitude.<BR/><BR/>And this flap about Obama has made me realize that we have been condescending toward him. He probably thinks that we believe him to be stupid. <BR/><BR/>Well, I realize now - I've been the stupid one. I'm so sorry Mark!<BR/><BR/>We will do better to understand your POV's and explain ours in the future.Shainzonahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18219260005354359058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-74503564901631789402008-04-16T04:42:00.000-07:002008-04-16T04:42:00.000-07:00"Respect for the humanity and dignity" is exactly ..."Respect for the humanity and dignity" is exactly it.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sayin' it.jacilynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726220065951856055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-34898088172586014152008-04-16T00:15:00.000-07:002008-04-16T00:15:00.000-07:00There is a 2006 South Park episode titled "Smug Al...There is a 2006 South Park episode titled "Smug Alert" that describes the phenomena we're talking about. I would provide a link to the video, but I just re-watched it and realized that some parts of the video could be offensive to gay people (a person says "that song is so gay" to mean "that song is not good"). So, I'm not providing a link, but if you can stomach this offensiveness, the video is otherwise good satire of exactly what we're talking about.Chinaberry Turtlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08917878302338229102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-24978675682906022452008-04-15T23:14:00.000-07:002008-04-15T23:14:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chinaberry Turtlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08917878302338229102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-88840713897273449732008-04-15T22:41:00.000-07:002008-04-15T22:41:00.000-07:00So I know some of the sort of people who've left a...So I know some of the sort of people who've left a particular white cultural milieu behind for the city, and who despise the realm in which their parents still live.<BR/><BR/>Is this a real clash of values? I mean, just judging from the atheism warz on the Internet (cf blogs like Pharyngula and the Flying Spaghetti Monster phenomenon), it seems like a real issue and not a reconcilable difference.Námo Mandoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876501353961485728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-52173291062285408692008-04-15T22:13:00.000-07:002008-04-15T22:13:00.000-07:00BTW, I read that second link about John Mccain, th...BTW, I read that second link about John Mccain, the press's darling favored son, and now I want a goddamned doughnut. Wah.<BR/><BR/>Off to bed. Maybe I'll get lucky and <I>dream</I> about a chocolate cruller from DD. :-(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-79129172581570888432008-04-15T22:08:00.000-07:002008-04-15T22:08:00.000-07:00janis, interesting categories and how the dems and...janis, interesting categories and how the dems and reps deal with them. This is the heart of the problem with the 2-party system. We very seriously need a third party, but of course the donkeys and elephants aren't going to let that happen. I would be willing to bet, though, that if the Precious steals this nomination that the Green Party will be getting more votes than they've ever seen in a presidential election.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-80095067615619479752008-04-15T21:49:00.000-07:002008-04-15T21:49:00.000-07:00People are (and have been for years) splitting wor...People are (and have been for years) splitting working-class whites' issues into two categories:<BR/><BR/>1) economic<BR/>2) cultural<BR/><BR/>The current opera libretto we're all working from makes the following claim:<BR/><BR/>1) Liberals support the first while deriding the second.<BR/>2) Conservatives deride the first while supporting the second.<BR/><BR/>And the left wing says, "So what if we deride them as ignorant, thick-thumbed palookas? You'd think they would be smart enough to forgive our insulting caricatures of them and vote for their economic interests instead!"<BR/><BR/>Here's the thing: "those people" are too smart to think that you can deride their culture and then turn around and fight for their rights. They read your libretto, and what they see is:<BR/><BR/>1) Conservatives fuck us over economically and value us culturally.<BR/>2) Liberals deride us culturally and hence,for all their protestations to the contrary, they ain't gonna be in our corner economically either, not when the chips are down.<BR/><BR/>So why do "those people" vote conservative? What the hell else are they gonna do? It's a two party system, dumbshits.<BR/><BR/>So they lost them -- white, male working-class men.<BR/><BR/>The thing is, they're leaking everyone else now. Women are (FINALLY!!!) waking up to the fact that the liberals aren't going to go to the mat for us, either. Especially not when the supposed elite vanguard of liberal America is coronating a guy who has his very own bikini-clad bimbette shaking her shit on YouTube to the brays of appreciation of his fucking brownshirts. Not when his campaign is making digs at her, not when they are drunk onthe glee that comes from fucking over a powerful woman and knocking her ass back down to earth. Those are not the sort of people who will wake up the next day after the convention and suddenly go, "Hey, let's pass us some single-mother friendly legislation!"<BR/><BR/>They aren't going to be there for us in a clinch. That's why they don't have us over a barrel on choice anymore; for the same reason they don't have the white male working-class over a barrel on the minimum wage. They just defected earlier than we did.<BR/><BR/>Old people are next. Then, once they find out that St. Barack ain't going to give two shits for them after he's president any more than he did before, black people. Gays are next.<BR/><BR/>And again, we'll vote for Repubs because WTF else are we going to vote for, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com