He added: “So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”
This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count.
Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.
People worry more about social issues now because they're immediately adjacent to the heart, AND because the American government circa 2008 shows no hesitation in mucking with that which is near and dear to us.
This is WHY the Founders drew certain lines around governmental power.
They knew full well that if the government ever got to wield these powers, politics would become a degenerate game of grabbing-the-stick-to-either-beat-the-other-guy -with-it-or-prevent-being-beaten.
Poor analogy, geek. The disease is in the mind of the patient, hence the cure via a lesson instead of surgery, drugs, or bleeding. The pain is mental, not physical.
Or, y'know, it could be they decided to focus on that stuff because there is no difference large enough to be notable between the two of them in policy vis-a-vis Iraq, health care, or education, which is why all the previous debates were dull as dried milk.
Ha, imagine a truthful debate:
Q: What is your stance on gun control
H: "Ban everything except muskets"
O: "Hillary is too far right on this issue, ban it all!"
Q: What about Health Care?
H: Government should force everyone to be covered and if they can't pay, add a tax to cover them.
O: ............. hmmm, yeah and take from big oil and Pharma and the rich*!
* Those that have jobs and already pay 30% income tax
Q: Foreign Policy?
H: Let the terrorists have it if they show themselves but don't bother them otherwise.
O: Negotiate the US surrender to the UN so we can be ruled by Iran and North Korea! Terrorists will leave us alone.
Mark is right, We are not worthy of Barry's leadership.
Being our president would only sully his shining aura and his wisdom and magnificence would not be properly appreciated nor venerated by us undeserving peasants.
He should recuse himself from further participation in this election and wait in the wings, waiting to come to our rescue when we are both willing and deserving of his leadership.
You know, the flag pin issue and the pledge of allegiance issue may seem small, but they really go to the core question of why hire the guy if he can't get on board with the organization he's supposed to be leading?
Can you imagine hiring a CEO for General Motors who did not believe in the system of capitalism or in the value to society of anything that General Motors made?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/04/quote-of-day_18.html (14 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
It is true that American voters attach significantly more weight to social issues than they did 20 years ago. It is also true that church attendance has become a stronger predictor of voting behavior. But both of those changes are concentrated primarily among people who are affluent and well educated, not among the working class.
He added: “So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”
This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count.
Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.
People worry more about social issues now because they're immediately adjacent to the heart, AND because the American government circa 2008 shows no hesitation in mucking with that which is near and dear to us.
This is WHY the Founders drew certain lines around governmental power.
They knew full well that if the government ever got to wield these powers, politics would become a degenerate game of grabbing-the-stick-to-either-beat-the-other-guy -with-it-or-prevent-being-beaten.
America may well deserve Obama, good and hard.
"America may well deserve Obama, good and hard."
America needs the lesson. I hope it can withstand the pain that goes with it.
I dunno man, I've never believed that killing the patient taught the disease a lesson.
Poor analogy, geek. The disease is in the mind of the patient, hence the cure via a lesson instead of surgery, drugs, or bleeding. The pain is mental, not physical.
I can dream, can't I?
Or, y'know, it could be they decided to focus on that stuff because there is no difference large enough to be notable between the two of them in policy vis-a-vis Iraq, health care, or education, which is why all the previous debates were dull as dried milk.
Ha, imagine a truthful debate:
Q: What is your stance on gun control
H: "Ban everything except muskets"
O: "Hillary is too far right on this issue, ban it all!"
Q: What about Health Care?
H: Government should force everyone to be covered and if they can't pay, add a tax to cover them.
O: ............. hmmm, yeah and take from big oil and Pharma and the rich*!
* Those that have jobs and already pay 30% income tax
Q: Foreign Policy?
H: Let the terrorists have it if they show themselves but don't bother them otherwise.
O: Negotiate the US surrender to the UN so we can be ruled by Iran and North Korea! Terrorists will leave us alone.
And on and on.....lock step. :)
Mark is right, We are not worthy of Barry's leadership.
Being our president would only sully his shining aura and his wisdom and magnificence would not be properly appreciated nor venerated by us undeserving peasants.
He should recuse himself from further participation in this election and wait in the wings, waiting to come to our rescue when we are both willing and deserving of his leadership.
Kevin:
Are we still discussing that "Nope" fellow?
Hasn't he joined Kerry, Algore, Dukakis and Mondale in that special Hell reserved for former Democratic Presidential candidates?
I do hope that Barak Hussein Obama will give some thought to Hollywood, he'd make a bitchin' Tuvok when they make the "Star Trek-Voyager" movie...
http://www.starfleet-knights.com/Pictures/tuvok.jpg
Yes, Bilgeman, we are. And he very well may become the next President of the United States.
i have yet to see the critique of what bo said soon after being called out on his now infamous clinging quote...it was this:
http://poetnthepawnbroker.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-dont-want-to-seem-ungrateful-but.html
i wonder how the resident bho apologist will defend those words...and that thought process?
jtc
Kevin:
"And he very well may become the next President of the United States."
Just so that you know, the UberFrauFuhrer forbids Starfleet officers from holding political office on planets of the Federation.
The Prime Directive and all that...
Heil, Hillary!
Color me proud to be unworthy, I guess. I already *have* parents, thanks.
You know, the flag pin issue and the pledge of allegiance issue may seem small, but they really go to the core question of why hire the guy if he can't get on board with the organization he's supposed to be leading?
Can you imagine hiring a CEO for General Motors who did not believe in the system of capitalism or in the value to society of anything that General Motors made?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>