quote: In times gone by, Democrats were regarded as the master panderers of American presidential elections on the basis of their supposed belief in generous benefits for the working class. But as Democrats gather in Boston, they do so as a party that has surrendered the title. The Republicans are now the champion panderers in American politics and have been since they discovered the demagogic value of what Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard disingenuously calls “cultural populism.” ... Rupert Murdoch’s kept journalists at the Weekly Standard deserve much of the credit. The journal attacks economic populism as “condescending” and “patronizing,” because it implies that the masses require government protection from the military-industrial, investment banking and petroleum complexes. But “social,” or “cultural,” populism is praised as a genuine expression of national values. Thus acceptance of the agenda of Bush social policy-abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, guns-is required, even by people who know better. “Country-club Republicans have been forced to accept it. Countryclub Democrats can’t,” Fred Barnes, an editor at the Weekly Standard, wrote this year. This must be the most blindingly honest admission by any Republican pundit this year, for it exposes the contract at the heart of the new Republican pandering. As long as affluent, educated Republicans are allowed to control wealth in this country, they’re willing for the rednecks to pray in the public schools that rich Republicans don’t attend, to buy guns at Wal-Marts they don’t patronize, to ban safe abortions that are always available to the affluent, and to oppose marriage for gays who don’t vote Republican anyway. ...the Republicans have given U.S. workers a new cultural enemy to replace their traditional class rival on Wall Street and in the big corporations: the amorphously dangerous “liberal elite.” The Republicans’ new cultural populism has created an odd couple of a different sort. In their heart of hearts, the party’s leadership in Washington and the conservative think tanks disdain the social rigidity and common tastes of the party’s NASCAR wing. They worry a bit that George W. Bush seems to have a genuine liking for the slumming required of a self-created cultural populist. But GOP strategists and thinktankers are able to stifle these concerns, because there’s been no one since Ronald Reagan so good at getting votes from Southern Baptists trying to raise families on 40 grand a year.
--From a column in The Washington Post
You know, this is my ultimate problem with the Republican Party -- it seems utterly hypocritical. Some close family friends of ours are Republican, but for purely economic reasons -- they liked Bush's tax cuts a whole hell of a lot. They're in that nice cushy income bracket that got one hell of a tax break. But they're not particularly religious, and they have moderate social views, and don't particularly take issue with gays getting married.
In fact, this article kind of hit on a personal ntoe for me because it's my dividing line -- I don't vote Republican because I think gays should get married and abortion should be legal and prayer shouldn't be allowed in schools. I'm tempted to vote Republican because I like the idea of smaller government and lower taxes and I'm a bit of an individualist. But that split is just too big for me to bridge.
What about those people on this board who vote Republican for mostly social reasons? Do you feel as though the Republican party is pandering to you or talking down to you? From living in Washington, I feel as though there's an enormous divide between the ideological Republicans -- those who live and work in Washington and deal with the day to day business of the party and of governing -- and those who they pander to for votes. Don't you feel used and abused? Oftentimes I feel as though the conservative elite is just as bad as the dangerous 'liberal elite'.
Though maybe it's just all in my head.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm with you on this one. I often resent the baggage that comes along with voting Republican. However, I cannot, either, accept the baggage that comes with voting Democrat.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you too, Kasie. I'm not always sure the Democrats know what they're doing, but there's little question that they mean well for poor folks like myself. And if I were concerned solely with money, I'd be happy to vote for them. (My family does, if they vote the way they talk.) But I'm not concerned solely with money, and I can't get the Democrats to budge a hair on their social position.
The only thing that might lead me to change my mind (in general--this year I plan to vote for Kerry) is that the Republicans seem increasingly prone to fail in their promises, so that I get nothing out of them at all.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am a registered Independant, both because I don't want to get political mail and because I believe both parties are hypocritical. The high-echelon Democrats are just as remote and unconnected with the common man as are high-echelon Republicans.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I plan to vote Democrat in the national election, but firmly Republican in the local elections.
This may be totally tangential, but I find it irritating that because I live in Vermont, I'm instantly labeled as an liberal elitist (or a Volvo-driving latte-drinking body-piercing freakshow). This is especially true now that everyone can point at Dean and say, "Those liberal elitists elected this crazy person as their Government! They're hardly Americans they're so far left!" At least that's what I feel, probably because I'm overly-sensitized to generalities made about Vermont or the north-east in general.
I'm sure a lot of Texans (or just people from the south in general) feel the same way when genralized. Generalization is stupid, unfortunately, it's the name of the game in recent politics. Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wheat Puppet, that was a Republican ad that called which Vermont names. You think that that ad had your interests in mind? Do you like your schools? Do you consider yourself some all of those things the ad said you were? If not, keep doing what you think is right? It saddens me to think that such a mean-spirited untrue ad worked. Don't let some ad tell you who you are.
I don't drink coffee, I don't drive a volvo, and while I do have my ears pierced, I haven't put an earring in them in ears. I do on the other hand like good schools, the environment, and affordable healthcare. That's why I'm voting for the Democrats this fall.
posted
Republicans like those things, too Irami-although generally with less emphasis on the environment-but they disagree on how to get at them.
It's politics of the most depressing sort to say that Democrats are the ones who like good schools, and Republicans are the ones who like a strong family.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a side note, I regularly get mail targeted to Democrats. I'm a registered independent, and as such I have NO IDEA why. The only thing I can think of is that I donated to public radio.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah. Less government is the Republican adopted platform but I doubt it'll ever come to pass.
Not that I'm encouraging the adding more layers when the existing layers can't seem to work either.
As to the rest, I just don't care anymore. Democrats are ducking the marriage issue, at some level the Democrats and Republicans are interchangeable and I'm back to my entrenched apathy.
posted
Well, the Republicans keep saying they are for "less government". Nice line.
As far as I can see, The only "less government" they ("they" being Republican leadership; I'm not necessarily talking the rank and file here) are for is less government regulation of big business. But they are all for more government regulation of the lives of individuals, and more ability to snoop into the lives of individuals.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That bothers me. It's why I get so disturbed about the Patriot Act and losening restrictions on meat companies. People have died in the past because of that!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or which parts of the Constitution environmentalists are so willing to discard. Substantive due process is OK for abortion but not OK for right to contract or property.
posted
I registered as a republican when I turned 18, but have become increasingly irritated at basically all of their policies. Now, I classify myself as a democrat in foreign affairs, a socialist in economics and a moral conservative.
When I first registered as a republican, I did so on the rationale that at the very least, I'd be voting my conscience in abortion policies. Now I'm toying with voting democrat so at the very least I can vote my conscience in war and foreign affairs.
How can you pick what to vote your conscience on? Perhaps I'll just vote socialist. Not that we have any socialist candidates in the rocky mountain region.... I think I'm just going to have to expatriate.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor, that's very true. It's why, despite all the crying about it from both sides, I'm pleased with the Blakely decision which struck down judicial fact-finding to increase convicted defendant's sentences.
While pragmatic issues have a place in constitutional reasoning, pragmatic practices which strike right at the heart of the protected right cannot be tolerated.
Of course, every single part of that sentence can be applied in multiple ways to every constitutional issue. Which is why the law is so fun.
quote:Now, I classify myself as a democrat in foreign affairs, a socialist in economics and a moral conservative.
Annie,
that pretty much fits the profile of Catholic social justice/antiwar activists - many of them, anyway.
(Someday, I expect Dagonee will be joining the Jesuits on the line at the protests at the School of the Americas. )
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you people need is a proper multi-party system, like sensible countries have. Then you, too, could feel the joy of minority coalition governments, prima donna parties who refuse to form governments unless they get 36.9% of the vote, and one-man parties with a single issue that nevertheless get seats.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been thinking about this, and while it might annoy me to be "pandered to" by the conservative elite, I prefer that to being treated with contempt and disdain by the liberal elite.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know, this is my ultimate problem with the Republican Party -- it seems utterly hypocritical. Some close family friends of ours are Republican, but for purely economic reasons -- they liked Bush's tax cuts a whole hell of a lot. They're in that nice cushy income bracket that got one hell of a tax break. But they're not particularly religious, and they have moderate social views, and don't particularly take issue with gays getting married.
It seems this displays more your friends' hypocrisy than that of the Republican Party. Heaven knows there are plenty of Republicans who are part of the GOP for more than financial reasons.
I dislike the "pandering" argument (as it was set forth in whatever article Kasie quoted) which gets hurled at both Dems and Repubs. You can only give your message to those who are identical to you in every way, who shop at the same stores, and like all the same things, otherwise you're "pandering"? This hyper-sensitive hypocrisy-seeking wishes for complete unison-or vote-abstention?
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig means that the leaders of the Republican Party, although they have little in common with social conservatives and don't sympathize much with them, are willing to exploit them to get their vote -- in the same way that leaders of the Democratic Party are willing to pander to and exploit the minority vote, even though they don't particularly share their sensibilities.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I got that much....I just don't quite understand how the Democratic party does 'quite share their sensibilities'. I mean, the old southern Democrats certainly didn't. But today? Are you talking about something in particular?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting - I would have likened the reference to the chosen defenders of a particular interest.
Republicans are the chosen defenders of things the social conservative view as sacred while Democrats are traditionally the favored sons and daughters of African American voters.
posted
It helps because the Democrats didn't have to. They weren't compelled to help out and they did. It's the party of the good Samaritan, or even the uncorrupted King Midas. As legacies go, I imagine that's the best legacy you can leave. It's a matter of principle. That's what Bush fundamentally didn't understand when he asked what has the Democratic Party done for black people lately. The kind of people who are only concerned with "lately" and what someone can do for you and scratch your back are the same kind of people who'll screw you when it's no longer advantageous. That's why it was so insulting. By the way, this lack of understanding also is a blindspot of international relations.
He came when he wanted something, and if he hadn't wanted something he wouldn't have come. It's also a matter of trust, and it's insulting to walk into someone's house and pretend that they do not have principles. You can imagine the Bush family or the Cheney's or the Rice's in cahoots with some shady energy interest. Can you really imagine that Kerry, as drab as he is, does this out of no other reason than duty. And maybe Edwards has some sort of elaborate scheme set up to make more money through reforming Healthcare policies, and maybe I'm a fool, but I honestly think that these two see it as their civic responsibility.
posted
Well, that has to do with your own bias, preconceptions, and thoughts concerning past events than it does with the actual politicians involved. On both counts. Same with me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, I meant to say "as much to do with..."
I still think it's true, though-how we view things like politicians is as much due to our own character as it is to theirs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, there are some old theories about how murderers and theives live in a degraded condition because they see themselves and their crime in everyone else, living in fear of how everyone in the world is out to kill or steal from them.
posted
Tom has most of it. I also mean that it is in the best interests of the Republicans / Democrats to never actually do anything to help social conservatives / minorities. They need a reliable voting base.
The Republican leadership were all partiers in college. Bush was the stereotypical frat boy; his daughters like to party, his niece is a crackhead, etc. Laws about abortions and drugs are for little people.
The Democrats... they do not care about minorities. They care about being reelected, and because minorities believe (probably correctly) that the Republicans are even worse, why should the Democrats do anything to piss off their WASP supporters?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
