Shameful (But Sadly Not Surprising)

This shit just makes me SO FUCKING MAD. Not so much because it's being done by smarmy Republicans; I think I'd be just as mad if Democrats or Independents or Greens were doing it, although for some reason, it always seems to be the conservatives who pull this kind of crap. Actually, now that I think of it, it's more accurate to say that it always seems to be *radicals* who pull this kind of crap. There are some radical environmental and animal rights groups who I could lump right in with the crazy conservatives.

An excerpt from the article, which is about using an automated telemarketing system to push voters to vote for Republicans based on their answers to leading questions:

In Tennessee, after listeners are asked if terrorists should have the same rights as Americans, this comparison between Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., the Democratic Senate candidate, and Bob Corker, the Republican, is given: “Fact: Harold Ford Jr. voted against the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and voted against renewing the Patriot Act, which treats terrorists as terrorists. Fact: Bob Corker supports renewal of the Patriot Act and how it would treat terrorists.”

Now, my response to a question like that would be, "what the fuck kind of question is that?", and I imagine it would be the response of many other Americans, too (although some would probably say "heck" instead of "fuck"; I haven't quite learned to adjust my language now that I'm a mom), even those who happened to support Bob Corker. I worry about those folks who don't understand how biased, leading, and misrepresentative of the candidates' records such a question is, however. I'd like to think that we registered voters are all intelligent, reasonable, well-informed people, even if we disagree on many issues, but the last few elections have shaken whatever faith I had in this country's capacity for reasonable debate. I'm not just talking about the Bush years, either: Clinton's tenure was just as divisive and polarizing.

I'm hating my options this election season. I'm hating the animosity, the slander and libel, the mean-spiritedness and distortion of the current campaign and the several that preceeded it. I'm embarrassed for my fellow countrymen. And yet, I am proud to be an American and ever so thankful to have been born in this country. I can't quite believe that despite many, many missteps on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts, despite popular and unpopular wars, terrorism, depression, irrational exurberance, and despite rising religious conflict, this country is still the greatest democracy on earth. I choose to be hopeful, and to vote on Tuesday. And if I don't like my choices, I vow to do what I can to ensure better choices next time.

Posted by Lori in politics at 10:24 AM on November 6, 2006

Comments (6)

I live in Salt Lake City. It is red as red can Republicanly get here in Utah but the city itself is relativley liberal, it is a strange place to be sometimes. Blah, blah, I liked this post and I too shall choose to remain hopeful and try harder, thanks! Anyway, I dropped by to show support and say good luck with NaBloPoMo.
Cheers!

Lori [TypeKey Profile Page]:

I don't know which is stranger: living in a small island of people like yourself, surrounded by an ocean of people decidedly not like yourself, or having the illusion that everyone out there is just like you because your island is the size of Australia. The latter's what it's like living in the San Francisco Bay Area, and sometimes what it's like living in the Northeast Corridor. I guess I'd prefer the latter strange to the former strange -- it's just more of a shock to the system when you meet the Others, especially on Election Day. :)

Thanks for the support, Kahli!

Polarization is a Republican tactic and I'll even back that up.

When Newt Gingrich became speaker of the house he separated the freshmen congress person's orientation by party. The freshmen senators used to be oriented together, reminding them that co-operation was the lynch pin in the legislative process. A process that was promptly thrown under the bus when Republicans took power.

Secondly, compare the last Democratic president with the current president. Clinton is a centrist. As a centrist he was/is always trying get as much of the vote as possible. That's the essence of the centrist stance, try to appeal to as many people as you can and win by the largest majority you can muster.

Bush/Rove on the other hand are conservative, and are not interested in getting as much of the vote as possible. They are only interested in getting as much of the vote as they need to win. In order to do this they target their base and fashion a message that appeals to a smaller but committed number of constituents.

The second approach causes polarization because as opposed to the moderate politics that is the nature of the centrist, the Bush/Rove approach forces the message to not only start extreme but throughout the administration's time in office has pressured it to become more and more radical.

When republicans have disagreed with Bush/Rove, Rove's tactic to deal with them was to place a more conservative candidate on the ballot next to the republican that wasn't playing ball. Since primary elections appeal mostly to "the faithful" the more conservative candidate is almost always a shoe in. This process has lead the republican party to become more conservative and more disconnected from the values of the majority of Americans.

I myself am no fan of Clinton politics. I would like there to be a liberal party in America, not just a conservative party and a "whatever we think we have to do to get elected" party. I've always held that it's the liberal's duty to run head long for the edge of the cliff and it's the conservative's job to keep the liberal from pulling everyone over the cliff with her/him. Probably not a practical approach to political science but at least there's a place for everyone.

Lori [TypeKey Profile Page]:

The fact that Clinton was a moderate Democrat/modern Democrat was, for me, his appeal back in '92. (Now I like him more because he's incredibly smart and articulate. I never realized how much I valued these things—or rather, took them for granted—in a president until they were gone.) As much as I'd consider Clinton a consensus-building centrist, however, I've come to understand how incredibly polarizing he was. I don't think I realized it until the 2000 elections, but there are a large number of people in this country who HATE Bill Clinton (not all of them hate him for the same reasons, but the hate is palpable, physical... frightening).

One tangentially-related side note that just occurred to me as I was thinking about Clinton: In this country, we seem to want our political leaders to be morally purer than we are, but we seem to hate it when they're smarter than we are. I can't help but think that being smarter than the majority of us was Clinton's greatest sin, greater than trifling with Monica Lewinsky. I could, of course, be wrong.

You're right on about Clinton as a personality, being polarizing. Repubs are still blaming him for everything from 9/11 to the Poison reunion tour.

It does seem like we, as a nation developed some kind of prejudice against the smart folk. And then "we" went and elected somebody "we" thought was just a regular guy like "us". Save us from the regular folk.

I thought the only person Republicans hated more than Bill was Hillary. But now when I hear them talk about Nancy Pelosi, man, it's like she shot their dog or something.

nj:

There was a good discussion (PDF, 182K) at Brookings about why Congress in particular is so broken. One major reason for the extreme polarization within Congress is because the parties are so evenly matched, so close to 50-50, that the majority doesn't want to make any concessions that might give any advantage to the minority. If you constantly feel like you're fighting for your party's life, you'll never want to reach across the aisle.

Comments

I live in Salt Lake City. It is red as red can Republicanly get here in Utah but the city itself is relativley liberal, it is a strange place to be sometimes. Blah, blah, I liked this post and I too shall choose to remain hopeful and try harder, thanks! Anyway, I dropped by to show support and say good luck with NaBloPoMo.
Cheers!

Posted by: Kahli at November 6, 2006 12:16 PM

I don't know which is stranger: living in a small island of people like yourself, surrounded by an ocean of people decidedly not like yourself, or having the illusion that everyone out there is just like you because your island is the size of Australia. The latter's what it's like living in the San Francisco Bay Area, and sometimes what it's like living in the Northeast Corridor. I guess I'd prefer the latter strange to the former strange -- it's just more of a shock to the system when you meet the Others, especially on Election Day. :)

Thanks for the support, Kahli!

Posted by: Lori [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 6, 2006 12:48 PM

Polarization is a Republican tactic and I'll even back that up.

When Newt Gingrich became speaker of the house he separated the freshmen congress person's orientation by party. The freshmen senators used to be oriented together, reminding them that co-operation was the lynch pin in the legislative process. A process that was promptly thrown under the bus when Republicans took power.

Secondly, compare the last Democratic president with the current president. Clinton is a centrist. As a centrist he was/is always trying get as much of the vote as possible. That's the essence of the centrist stance, try to appeal to as many people as you can and win by the largest majority you can muster.

Bush/Rove on the other hand are conservative, and are not interested in getting as much of the vote as possible. They are only interested in getting as much of the vote as they need to win. In order to do this they target their base and fashion a message that appeals to a smaller but committed number of constituents.

The second approach causes polarization because as opposed to the moderate politics that is the nature of the centrist, the Bush/Rove approach forces the message to not only start extreme but throughout the administration's time in office has pressured it to become more and more radical.

When republicans have disagreed with Bush/Rove, Rove's tactic to deal with them was to place a more conservative candidate on the ballot next to the republican that wasn't playing ball. Since primary elections appeal mostly to "the faithful" the more conservative candidate is almost always a shoe in. This process has lead the republican party to become more conservative and more disconnected from the values of the majority of Americans.

I myself am no fan of Clinton politics. I would like there to be a liberal party in America, not just a conservative party and a "whatever we think we have to do to get elected" party. I've always held that it's the liberal's duty to run head long for the edge of the cliff and it's the conservative's job to keep the liberal from pulling everyone over the cliff with her/him. Probably not a practical approach to political science but at least there's a place for everyone.

Posted by: Stephen at November 6, 2006 3:58 PM

The fact that Clinton was a moderate Democrat/modern Democrat was, for me, his appeal back in '92. (Now I like him more because he's incredibly smart and articulate. I never realized how much I valued these things—or rather, took them for granted—in a president until they were gone.) As much as I'd consider Clinton a consensus-building centrist, however, I've come to understand how incredibly polarizing he was. I don't think I realized it until the 2000 elections, but there are a large number of people in this country who HATE Bill Clinton (not all of them hate him for the same reasons, but the hate is palpable, physical... frightening).

One tangentially-related side note that just occurred to me as I was thinking about Clinton: In this country, we seem to want our political leaders to be morally purer than we are, but we seem to hate it when they're smarter than we are. I can't help but think that being smarter than the majority of us was Clinton's greatest sin, greater than trifling with Monica Lewinsky. I could, of course, be wrong.

Posted by: Lori [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 6, 2006 4:18 PM

You're right on about Clinton as a personality, being polarizing. Repubs are still blaming him for everything from 9/11 to the Poison reunion tour.

It does seem like we, as a nation developed some kind of prejudice against the smart folk. And then "we" went and elected somebody "we" thought was just a regular guy like "us". Save us from the regular folk.

I thought the only person Republicans hated more than Bill was Hillary. But now when I hear them talk about Nancy Pelosi, man, it's like she shot their dog or something.

Posted by: Stephen at November 6, 2006 4:59 PM

There was a good discussion (PDF, 182K) at Brookings about why Congress in particular is so broken. One major reason for the extreme polarization within Congress is because the parties are so evenly matched, so close to 50-50, that the majority doesn't want to make any concessions that might give any advantage to the minority. If you constantly feel like you're fighting for your party's life, you'll never want to reach across the aisle.

Posted by: nj at November 6, 2006 8:47 PM

Comments are now closed.