The Exodus continues.
Rank and file wingnuts–racists, patriarchalists, homophobes, and everyone in between–have been betrayed and enslaved by their corporate masters. And they know it. Their masters have engaged them in bondage, subservient to the NSA’s All-Seeing Eye on the greenback’s mighty Pyramid, with chains as invisible at first as Jacob Marley’s. And now that dawn has finally broken over marble head, there is no recourse–nowhere for them to turn when they shout in unison to let their people go. They are trapped in a bind of their own creation, such that now they wander aimlessly in an intellectual desert parched by the twin Tattooine suns of Coulter and O’Reilly–and no manna from heaven can save them.
There is so much dissatisfaction with the GOP right now–and president Bush in particular–that you could cut it with a knife. And last night I found out just how bad it had become: the craziest, nuttiest wingnut I have ever known has officially turned his back on the GOP.
I’ve known him for years, yet I don’t know his name. He is a gamer, you see–and in the gaming world, as in the blogging world, people’s real identities tend to be anonymous (unless they choose otherwise–or unless some asshole outs them). And, in order to protect even his online persona from scrutiny, I will simply, for the purposes of this post, call him “Joe.”
I am also a gamer: I have been a member of the same competitive PC-gaming clan for almost a decade now, ever since I was a teenager; we mostly play first-person shooters in the sci-fi genre. Within this virtual reality, “Joe” and I have been teammates and brothers for many years, always getting the other’s back and protecting the other from the virtual gunfire of opposing teams–even though we couldn’t be farther apart on the political spectrum. Even for someone like me, there are arenas, literally and figuratively, where politics comes second.
In-between tests of skill in the camaraderie of gaming, however, there have been multiple arguments over the years in what our clan calls “The Senate.” Political arguments. Arguments whose heat would make even Armando blush. It got so bad, in fact, that the “Senate” was eventually shut down by the right-wing Republican clan leader.
“Joe” was and has always been one of the main proponents and loudest voices of the GOP line. In order to give you a taste of just how wingnutty “Joe” is, I’ll just give you one example:
During the 2004 election season, Joe was going on about how one could not be a patriot without supporting the war that one’s country was engaged in. When I asked him whether a German would have been obligated to support Hitler’s visions of conquest in 1937 or else be considered unpatriotic by Joe, Joe responded “yes”–that a German’s two choices were to renounce his/her citizenship, or actively support Hitler’s upcoming wars, and that I should do the same regarding America in Iraq. Joe also thinks that all forms of welfare should be abolished permanently, and that homosexuality should be illegal. In 2004, he asserted that George W. Bush was the greatest President in America’s history at least since Lincoln, if not before.
There are many, many other examples of Joe’s wingnuttiness, but I think the ones I provided should suffice.
————————————-
Last night, however, something had happened to Joe. Joe was lost–wandering Phaoroh Bushenaton’s desert with no Moses to guide him, and eschewing any and all dictates of Karl Rove’s Commandments.
I had not gamed with or spoken to Joe for many months before last night: we had both been busy with our lives, and had not had much time for fun and games. And it had been even longer since we had discussed politics.
So it came as something of a shock to me not only that he and I were back online together again, but that he brought up the subject of politics to me after such a long hiatus.
I cannot reproduce the exact transcript of his statements, but the conversation went something like this:
Joe: You know, we’ve got a real problem with all these Mexicans.
Intrigued, and deciding to play it a bit coy, I demurred:
Me: Hmmm…what do you mean?
Joe: They’re coming in and taking all our jobs, and our Congress won’t do a damn thing to stop them. There’s even threats of massive layoffs where I work!
This was news to me. Joe works in a middle-class profession; yet he thought a Mexican was going to take his job?
Me: I’m terribly sorry to hear that, Joe. I hope you’re doing all right, and that things stay stable.
Joe: Me too.
After a brief pause, I decided to try a gambit.
Me: You know, you can’t lay this one at our feet. You’ve got a serious problem with your own prez on this…
At this point, I half-expected a big diatribe against liberals from Joe. But none was forthcoming. The other half of me expected some sort of single-issue backlash against Bush. What I actually got floored me.
Joe: Yeah, definitely. Bush has COMPLETELY sold this country down the river. And not just on immigration. The man is a real menace to the entire country right on down the line–and the Congress ain’t much better.
After collected my senses and picked up my jaw from clattering on the floor, I asked,
Me: Really? I can’t believe I’m hearing this from you. Why do you say that? I mean, I have my reasons, but…
Joe: The rich just keep gettin’ richer, and the poor get the shaft. All over the place. And I’m sick and fucking tired of it.
At this point, it was over. I sprang in on immigration…
Me: Well, I couldn’t agree more. And you know, the reason Bush has sold you down the river on immigration is because the corporations that fund him want to keep paying only $3 an hour labor.
Joe: We need a wall. A big fucking wall.
Me: Well, maybe. But I don’t think a wall will stop them. You’re a supply and demand guy: you know as well as I do that if we companies stopped hiring them, they would stop coming. But the companies line Bush’s pockets…
Joe: Man, it’s about time SOMEBODY stood up for real Americans.
Now, of course, Joe’s sentiment was lined with the vilest racism, but the frames were ALL OURS. Not the DLC’s; not Karl Rove’s; but OURS.
It was then that I went on a verbal rampage: I talked, gently, about how wages were down versus inflation; how productivity had shot up versus wages; how CEO pay has increased 700% in the last 10 years, while workers got the shaft; how corporate profits had gone up 93% in the past five years while workers lost their pensions and got outsourced.
It was then that Joe said something truly extraordinary: “Man, this country is fucked–and somebody better get it unfucked real quick. I won’t vote for a Dimocrat because they don’t stand up for guys like me either–so it looks like I’ll be staying home playing the WoW [world of warcraft] on November 7th.”
—————————————-
The opportunity lying in our hands is extraordinary, my friends. Guys like “Joe” are waiting–no, begging–for SOMEBODY–ANYBODY–to deliver a message of economic populism.
They are crying out for deliverance from their economic bondage–to be released from the ponderous chains.
They would sooner eat bug poop than support the GOP–but they still see no reason to support Democrats.
What say you, friends? Are we going to sit on our asses and pray that Joe really stays home from the polls in November? Or are we going to give him a reason to vote–in spite of his own racism and homophobia–for a Democrat?
Our options are painfully clear at this point: we can be Moses, part the sea that divides red and blue, and lead these wandering slaves out of intellectual and political exile. Or we can sit back, do nothing, and pray for the best.
Me? I know where I stand. I stand with Moses.
in orange.
Howard Dean got in big trouble for saying the Democratic party should appeal to rednecks with confederate flag decals on their pick-up trucks and that’s, basically, what you’re saying.
The problem is: your friend “Joe” wants somebody to stand up for him but he won’t accept anyone that could remotely be described as liberal. He’d vote for Pat Buchannan running as an independant in a heart-beat, I betcha. Or Lou Dobbs.
Homophobic African American ministers? American Populism has always had a nasty nativist aspect- it was the burgeoning labor movement which gave us the Chinese and Indian exclusion acts after all. Folks like Joe were a big part of the new deal coalition and were fractured off from the Dems in two movements- Nixon’s southern strategy and the Reagan Democrats.
Not to excuse racism or homophobia, but most folks like Joe are all hot air, let them vent long enough and underneath all that nastiness is a decent person waiting to get out BUT that decent person will never emerged if greeted with hostile and shaming responses. MLK, Jr was an extraordinary example of a person who, by showing love to those who opposed him, provided his antagonists with the ability to (eventually) admit that they were wrong.
When times were very hard after 1929, people were looking for economic aid and cover from their government. The new deal got a lot done, but stayed away from the civil rights issues to do so. When the dems went after the civil rights issues, their working class coalitions started to fracture, and here we are today!
This guy “Joe” will never be a progressive advocate for many issues, but he may again join a pro-labor coalition even headed by Democracts (as it sure as hell will never be headed by the other party!). Taking a page from the spin masters over at that other party and knowing the not so bright types like Joe are looking for some meaningful economic help, is there not a way for progressives to deal with clear distinctions (almost real walls) between their different issues. Build a great case for helping the working class lke Joe, and then build a separate argument/case for other issues. Through selective social marketing and good spin, could it not be possible for Joe to hear what he wants to hear and for others to hear what they want to here, and thus rebuild a democractic coalition of the one issue voters, as long as you include that main one issue most important to each working class voter addressed separately in your platform?
Could this tightrope walk type platform be created and marketed enough to get enough voters to win?
and that is exactly what I am suggesting.
outstanding point. We’ll win these people over with love, not with scornful derision for their disgusting, antiquated views.
“Joe” is actually a decent guy–if you can get past his bigotry. And if you think that statement is an oxymoron, than I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree…
The fags, niggers, and spics of the Democratic Party welcome you, “Joe”! Not to mention the “dirty hippies” and the “tree huggers” and the “sanctimonious women’s studies group” types!
Call us names, despise our gender, denigrate our ethnicity and national origin, spit on our most cherished causes, call us traitors to the country and cross the street rather than walk past on the sidewalk–it’s OK as long as you vote Democratic! We’re sure that once we get past your hateful bigotry and Neanderthal political views, you’re a peach of a fellow.
Yeah, include me out of that scene. See, I’m funny that way–if somebody says they hate me because of the color of my skin, or my sexual orientation, or because of my most deeply-held beliefs, I tend not to want to associate with them. But hey, I’m one of those sensitive touchy-feely liberal types.
I’m also a military combat veteran (Army)–and all my shooting was done in real life, where the other guy gets to shoot back at you, and real people die and bleed real blood.
This might make things a little clearer.
So if the most progressive candidate imaginable were to run for president, and Joe said he’d vote for him or her because he thought the policies espoused would protect his job, you’d refuse to vote the same way as Joe.
That is what you are saying.
Perhaps we should find out what brand of peanut butter Joe eats so we can all avoid eating the same one. I hope he doesn’t eat Skippy. I’d hate to have to give it up in order to maintain my purity, but if a bigot likes it, I have to hate it.
No that is NOT what I said.
Don’t supply words and attribute them to me, please.
What I said was that we shouldn’t make the effort to recruit Joe to vote Democratic.
If Joe wants to vote Democratic, fine. But I’m not going to seek him out as my ally.
I don’t appreciate having my words twisted around.
There are just so many things wrong with this post. I don’t know where to start.
At first I was going to be sarcastic and say, Thank God! Joe has seen the light! Finally! The break we’ve all been waiting for!
Then I read it again. First, I don’t want to hear about how grown men are honing their skills while playing first person shooters, when real people are being blown to pieces in a country we invaded against international law. On a progressive website, I don’t want to hear a frontpager say that maybe we need a wall on our southern border. And I don’t want to hear Biblical references to how we should lead the slaves out of bondage.
What I want to hear are real answers for how to do this, and whom will take us there. Because if Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton are all we’ve got, then we really are fucked.
And last, but not least, because there’s much more here that twists me the wrong way, I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to advocate bringing racisists and homophobes over to our side, just to get their votes. How fucking more far to the right do we have to slide to sacrifice our principles and ideals on the alter of unfettered surrender?
You should have seen the paragraphs I deleted from my comment on this thread. I was afraid I was being too harsh. LOL! I can’t get them back now but the last line was:
If you can get Joe to vote for the Democratic party, you’ll lose me.
why? Nowhere did I ever say that we should throw women and minorities under the bus.
We can get Joe to vote for us despite our stands on these issues.
It’s not a zero-sum game.
How can we get Joe to vote for us without throwing women and minorities under the bus?
by appealing to his wallet. He has to hold his nose and vote for either the Dems or the GOP–both of which are anathema to him.
Or he can stay home. Which also works.
it’s not sliding to the right.
Look, these people have to hold their nose to vote for SOMEBODY: they either hold their nose against their own economic interest to vote for the GOP, or they hold their nose against their own racism and homophobia to vote for us.
We can get their votes without sacrificing our principles, if we connect with them through economic populism.
According to you, Joe won’t vote for a Dimocrat because they don’t stand up for him. He’s mad because Bush is advocating amnesty for illegal immigrants. He won’t be happy unless there’s a wall. Show me any democrat that advocates building a wall, besides possibly you. He won’t vote for a democrat. Get real.
where, pray tell, did I advocate building a wall? I said “maybe”, to appease him and attempt dialogue.
Why are you trying to appease a person you describe a person as you describe as “racist” and “homophobic”?
if you have to ask…
I don’t “appease” such people, I confront them firmly about their bigotry and challenge their worldview.
We have to stand up for our beliefs, and challenge bigotry wherever we find it.
The only way to get the majority of these people to vote for a democrat is to be less of a democrat, across the board. Our sisters are already being abandoned by the party in the name of votes. What next Spoon?
By that logic, no Christian Fundamentalist would ever vote for Bush because he drinks and listens to devil music such as ZZ Top.
You’re just wrong here. You can be pro-choice and for gay rights and a guy who doesn’t like women or gays will still vote for you if you can credibly promise to help him take care of his family.
I think credibility is big here, though. People know when they’re being bullshited. We shouldn’t pretend we’re not sympathetic toward gays. I think “Joe” would respect Dems more if they just came out and said…
We like the gays, what of it?
I’d like to think that it was that simple. But it’s really not. Why don’t you run that one by the Warner or Clinton campaighns, then get back to us and let us know how it worked out. You do what you advocate here and you’ll push those fundie, racist, homophobes away. They’ll have no choice, cuz they aren’t going to choose jobs over Jesus. Not ever. Not when they’ve been promised a seat beside God.
So what to do? The only other option is to do what our current crop of so called democrats are doing. Yeild, yeild, and yeild again on our most basic, and fundamental principles in the hunt for votes. Current party tactics aside, if it were as simple as you say, then we wouldn’t be in this struggle right now for the soul of the party. And those of us who’ve either voted for, or seriously looked at third party candidates would have no reason to do so.
I’m not taking a side one way or the other here, but when you say –
They’ll have no choice, cuz they aren’t going to choose jobs over Jesus. Not ever. Not when they’ve been promised a seat beside God.
– I think you’re off base. An astute politician we all know once said “It’s the economy, stupid!” And no less an authority on religion than Thomas Aquinas said “A man who’s hungry can’t be happy and won’t be good.”
A fundie will hold his nose and vote Dem in a nanosecond if he’s out of work and the Dems promise him a job. He has kids to feed, and Jesus promises God always forgives. (When they’re down on their luck is when they remember that side of their Christianity.) So he can get his cake from the Dems, and eat it too, as God will forgive him for just this once, in his desperation, voting “D.”
It’s all back to that “heirarchy of needs.” Bread, with or without circuses.
Yeah, I’ve run across Maslow too… but I’ve also run across the guy outside the homeless shelter who thinks Bush and the GOP are just the best thing to happen to this country since Kennedy was killed, because these are Godly men who will get the country back on the Path Of Righteousness and Salvation. He blames his troubles on all the God-Damned (literally, he’s not cursing) bleeding-heart liberals who hate America and REAL Americans. See, if it weren’t for the Liberals and their quotas he’d have gotten into College, and if it weren’t for the Liberals and letting in all them furriners the company wouldn’t have moved its plants down to Mexico and he wouldn’t have lost his job…
and so on.
But after he kicks them Eye-rakki’s asses, and nukes them Eye-Rainians, Bush’ll come through and kick out the furriners and get the libruls under control and it’ll all be better, just you wait.
It’s a big country, and the wingnuts and fundies aren’t always that much more monolithic than the rest of us… but I remain skeptical, based on the ones I’ve encountered, that those who think Bush isn’t fascist ENOUGH are ever going to consider seriously that maybe fascism itself is the problem.
At least here, the “Christians” are Old Testament fundies… and that God is NOT a forgiving one, especially if you’re actively helping the Devil’s Work by voting against God. No, we need MORE enforced Christianity, and LESS rights for furriners and Devil-worshipping libruls and other such scum….
But there is a clear record of them consistantly voting against their best interests. The economy, and the availability of jobs hasn’t just suddenly gone in the tank. It’s been sliding that way for a while now. Granted, maybe it takes those people a lot longer to catch on. And I’ll admit there has to be a certain number of them who care more for their families than the ideology. But I see no evidence that the true believers will ever vote for a fag loving, baby murdering democrat. And if, as Thereisnospoon contends, they’ll ultimately stay home, then yes, that is a good thing. But they won’t vote democrat, and the party shouldn’t destroy itself from the inside out in a useless pursuit of votes they won’t get anyway.
It comes to this, I think: What are we fighting FOR?
If all you want is to get D’s in office, regardless, then yeah. Say what you gotta say to catch the Joe’s. It’s a pure numbers game. There are more nativist bigots than thinking progressives, and numbers say get the NB’s, to hell with the progressive bloc.
The problem is that the nativist bigots have never and will not now support or work with a party platform that isn’t tailored to pure nativist bigotry — as evidenced by his argument that the Bushies aren’t going far ENOUGH.
I’m not interested in that; a country run by nativist bigot Democrats is every bit as bad as one run by nativist bigot Republicans. There’s nothing magical about having a “D” after your name.
Personally, I want to see a BETTER world, not a worser one, and I know enough Joes of my own to know that their idea of a “better world” and mine are absolutely incompatible. If he gets pissed off enough at the Republicans to split off and go do his own thing, well and good, and I’ll be glad to see that … but we’re on different, opposing, courses, and if that wall he so desperately wants ever goes up, we will be on opposite sides of it.
and i’m sorry if you don’t want to hear any of those things. In the future I will see to it that my posts are thoroughly scrubbed of any references to possibly offensive past-times, or cultural traditions that might smack of a tinge of religious reference. In the name of freedom, of course.
Is that how you respond to people who disagree with you?
With a temper tantrum?
This remark was the adult equivalent of “I’ll hold my breath”. I’m sorry, but you’re not presenting yourself very well in this diary, particularly not in your response to the comments.
You’re a front-pager on Booman Tribune. You’ve been given license to write as you please by Booman, and given a prominent showcase for your ideas. Nobody here has called for you to censor your ideas, they’ve merely disagreed with them.
Adults can disagree with each other, you know, without demanding that the other person submit absolutely.
who threw the tempter tantrum, exactly? I gave subtle snark, I think…
It’s not subtle. It’s a hissy fit.
One thing I’ve noticed on this diary is that you don’t seem willing to engage in a respectful manner–after reading the very warm reception your ideas got on Daily Kos, I’m thinking that the relatively chilly reception at Booman Tribune is a bit hard for you to take.
And to repeat: Why, exactly, should we be trying to win over racist homophobes like “Joe”? Why would I want a person like him on my side? Should we start recruiting for the Democrats at Klan rallies?
i’ve gotten FAR worse receptions than this before on this site. I’ve been troll-rated to oblivion.
Honestly, there is a select portion of this community that brooks no argument on ideological purity, and would rather lose elections until the cows come home by voting Green, trashing the likes of Ben Nelson, and supporting pro-choice Republicans. I don’t agree with them, and they dislike me with a passion.
I’m not DLC by a LONG shot–but I am something of a “pragmatist”: a word that has become a code-word of derision (!) for me on this site.
And yes, sometimes I get a little frustrated–but I would hardly call what I said a hissy-fit. The poster said some pretty explicit things about what they didn’t want to see a frontpager here say, and insulted some of my hobbies to boot…
and to answer your last question: I think we need to get votes for Democrats wherever we can take them–so long as we don’t sacrifice our principles.
If we can frame our own issues in certain areas such that even Hitler would vote for us, so be it–so long as we don’t change what we stand for.
If we can win “Joe” with economic populism while retaining our support for gay marriage, why shouldn’t we court his vote?
After all, we take the votes of people in the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition…
I didnt read it the same way.
What I saw was (even though the guy has real nasty political/racist views) some guy starting to feel the bite of his fuck-up in the oval office.
That guy is really a turkey but we need for people like him to see what bad news our current government is. If people like this can figure it out – that’s when we see change.
PS
I don’t know about all that Moses stuff since I am a rabid agnostic. Moses parted the Red Sea for his own people only. People need to do stuff for everyone.
I don’t believe Moses actually parted the Red Sea either–or even that he existed.
It’s simply a cultural reference for the sake of rhetorical power…
About a year ago, (don’t recall the exact date off the top of my head) one of the local winguts wrote an lte to the local paper that slammed bush. Ran into the wingnut awhile back this year after I was recovered from pneumonia–had to picking up other rx’s–Wingnut was picking up one for mom who has Part D. (Wingnut gave me a phone number, in case I needed help with anything, I gave Wingnut some info I had on Part D.)
And I thought I was pissed about Part D! If I typed what Wingnut said, I would need a new keyboard!!!
[On anther note, I have called Wingnut exactly that face to face, as Wingnut call me Liberal Peacenik face to face. Noone of us loses any sleep over it.]
Fact of the matter is, people are talking to anyone who will listen about their concerns.
This whole notion of the “Big Business” boogeyman who hires all the “illegal” immigrants and fosters our “giant” immigration “problem” is the in my mind the liberal populists equivalent of the right wing “they take our jobs” bullshit.
Just as the wingnuts can always be counted on to exploit racism and the “phobias” be they homo or xeno, liberal populist can be counted on blaming “big business” for their woes.
While their are some big businesses that do hire undocumented workers the vast majority of them, like the rest of the population, work for small businesses.
Just open your eyes and look around.
Or read the studies and see what businesses undocumented workers work in. Construction/home improvement, restaurant/hospitality, food preparation/manufacture, healthcare/childcare and finally agriculture. Outside of big agribusiness, most of these industries contain large small business/independent components. These are not huge megacorporations that are hiring the bulk of undocumented workers … they are small potatoes kind of guys. The local diner or coffeeshop, the small home improvement guy, the garden supply store, florist, dry cleaner, grocery store, etc.
Everyone pictures the “crack down” as some sort of Ken Lay moment… that’s not how it would be. It would be much smaller … it would be the local deli “laying off” that girl who works behind the counter. It would be the home health aid who takes care of grandma just not showing up one day. It would be the delivery guy from pizza place “going back to his country”
In the end it would not be “big business” getting its justly deserved comeuppance, but a million small personal tragedies for individual undocumented workers in little businesses all over America. When the small businesses get scared, Tancredo’s “attrition” begins, not when they raid Wal Mart. Wal-Mart and Tyson have huge legal teams to keep them insulated … the local coffee shop just fires Paco the busboy.
I think “liberals” sometimes lose sight of that in their quest to punish the big evil corporate monsters. In the end they really only punish the immigrant workers and the little businesses that are already battling to stay afloat against the Wal-Marts of the world.
There’s got to be a better solution.
tragedies? that small businesses have to pay a living wage?
I OWN A SMALL BUSINESS. And I’ll tell you flat out, that as Greg Palast says, most small business owners are the stingiest, most selfish people you’ll ever meet–though it’s political suicide to ever make such a statement.
Your local restaurateur isn’t going to go out of business because he actually has to pay minimum wage to his/her dishwasher…
I would love for just once to see someone present some statistics on all these people who work for $3.00 an hour.
I’ve been working almost exclusively on this issue for two years. I’ve read EVERY study done. The only study I’ve seen that mentions the pay that undocumented immigrants receive was the Center for the Study of Urban Poverty study on day laborers. In that case the average day laborer was paid $10.00 an hour.
We also know that there is a huge Social Security windfall from all the undocumented workers who pay with false SS numbers. When presented with that info, those who want to build walls, arrest undocumented workers and their employers usually reply about the “illegality” of the situation … but never acknowledge the fact that the reason this windfall exists is that the vast majority of undocumented workers are working “on the books”. And that makes perfect sense. If you own your own small business as you say, then you should be well aware of the risks you face having someone “off the books”, not only in your liability to tax and labor audits, but more so in the case of a workplace injury. If an employee was to be injured, even slightly on the job, without the coverage of workmen’s comp insurance and disability you could be put out of business paying hospital bills. Since many of the industries that rely on undocumented workers are somewhat dangerous and accident prone like construction, gardening, agriculture and restaurants, they face this problem more so than an say office work or retail. This is where all that SS money is coming from. These businesses hire undocumented workers but carry them on the books using false documentation.
I think the one thing you find that most of these businesses have in common is that they require little or no education, extremely hard work that is often dangerous, and pretty shitty working conditions. This is why they’re dominated by undocumented workers …not because they pay cheap wages. Americans won’t do those jobs because they suck.. not because they pay too little … Ask the average native born worker with a sixth or eighth grade education what kind of job they do … it will be pretty much the same as that of the undocumented workers.
While undocumented worker probably do work below the wages native born workers would take, I have seen no statistical evidence to prove they work for below minimum wage. Perhaps you have some studies I haven’t seen on this subject.. and I’d love to see them.
Again this “undocumented workers work 2 or 3 dollars an hour” meme has no basis in any statistical evidence I’ve seen, and to me is just another convenient talking point that prevents us from truly analyzing the true situation going on in the slow and methodical disassembly of the working and middle class.
I just read an article about the UAW negotiating with Delphi (the major supplier to GM) about a wage cut from $27 dollars an hour $12.50 in order to keep the business (and hence GM) from going under. And we hear stories like this and ones of major plant closings and layoffs every day. Here is the REAL problem for American workers … but it’s just a lot easier to blame undocumented workers and claim they undercut US wages … but as far as I know Delphi, GM, Ford or the myriad of other businesses that have layed off massive amouts of workers, cut pay or benifits, or jusy packed up and left for foriegn shores ever hired undocumented worker to save a few dollars and hour.
It’s a strawman … and needs to be debunked.
The complaints about illegal immigrants may be inaccurate, but they are a genuine sign that there is vulnerability among the right’s supporters in the working class. Any debunking of the myths about illegals should be accompanied by explanations about why those myths are spread. If we just paint ourselves as the defenders of illegal aliens, we consign ourselves to political exile. We must reach the bigot. We must let him know why he is being whipped into a frenzy. We don’t need to stop him from hating Mexicans. We just need him to not care so much about his hatred for Mexicans. If we can get him to value his job and his pension more than he values his bigotry, we can get him to vote for a progressive candidate.
There is great discontent in the working and lower middle class populations. This is why the “immigration problem” has had such great resonance not only amoungst right-wingers put many working class Dems as is evident by the diarists arguments.
The problem is that the immigration debate is a rouse. It’s a strawman perpetrated by the right-wing to harness this discontent and misdirect it onto the immigrant population. Until we can get working class American to realize this we’ll get nowhere.
The problem for American workers like those 24,000 UAW workers is not immigrants taking their jobs or working for pennies on the dollar, it’s the systematic disassembly of working class rights and privileges by conservatives. Reagan’s union busting and deregulation was only the beginning. Over the past forty years we have seen the destruction of the social safety net, healthcare system, pension system, union system, public education, small family farm, small business and progressive tax system … all in the name of the “free market” and trickle down economics. And workingclass Americans have eaten it up. It’s been fed to them with healthy doses of flag waving, racism, fear, hate and a “yearning for a simpler time”.
Now the chickens have come home to roost and the working class American is paying the price. This is why “Joe” is so pissed off. But once again the conservatives have the answer …misdirect, misdirect, misdirect … and that’s what the “immigration debate” is all about.
When I see working class Dems and so called progressives jump on the immigration bandwagon, it saddens me greatly. We don’t have to be a party of “defenders of illegal aliens” as you say. That’s the conservatives frame not ours. We are the defenders of ALL working people and that includes the undocumented also. And as I said in my original comment the liberal tendency to swap the “big business bogeyman” for “illegal aliens” in this debate is also a straw man. The problem is the conservative policies that have brought us to this point and until we take them on, all the ICE raids, or busting of small business owners is not going to change one damn thing.
When you want to kill a weed you must take it by the root. The immigration debate is just on unsightly dandelion flower … you can cut it off but the weed still exists.
I don’t believe any of us want to kick out the people already here.
And I am quite sure that Wal Mart is up to their greedy little eyes in this shit.
is my friend…” — well, not always; sometimes he’s just another form of enemy.
Sure, we can preach economic populism…but at what price? Do we throw human rights overboard for the sake of a few extra votes? Who are we going to sell down the river to get the “Joes” of this country to vote Democratic? And what’s going to guarantee that they’re not going to just hold their noses and vote for the “God, guns and gays” platform of the Republicans? You know that the more they threaten to stay home, the bigger target “Joe” and his buddies will be for Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly and the rest of the right-wing talking heads.
Personally, I’d rather that Joe and his folks just stay home and do whatever they do…then when the Democrats take control, they’ll see the positive changes in the country and realize that hell, we ain’t so bad after all…certainly not the demons that O’Reilly and Coulter keep spouting about…
i’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again.
WE DON’T HAVE TO COMPROMISE ON OUR SOCIAL ISSUES!
This guy has to pick a party to vote for: either for the GOP who shares his bigotry but robs him blind, or for (potentially) a Democratic Party that stands up for his wallet, but doesn’t share his bigotry.
I’ll take my chances that he comes to our side, or else stays home. We don’t have to compromise on a thing: we just have to preach populism.
Read my reply, below.
If Joe votes at all–and let’s hope he’s so digusted with the whole thing that he doesn’t vote at all–he’ll vote Republican.
Homophobia and racism are stronger than economic self-interest. If you haven’t read “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” by my fellow Kansas native* Thomas Frank, then you really should, because Frank explains it all in that book.
We can pull in independents and combine them with the existing Democratic plurality to build a progressive coalition–we don’t need right-wing, hard-core racists like “Joe”. We don’t have a chance of winning guys like “Joe” over, anyway…nor would I want to make the effort.
(By the way…if Joe likes shooting people so much, why doesn’t he enlist in the US Army? He sounds like a very patriotic person and goodness knows the military is having problems recruiting.)
(*I know, Mr. Frank was born in Kansas City, MISSOURI…but he grew up in Kansas so, like Texas-born Dwight Eisenhower, we Kansans get to claim Frank as one of us.)
i’ve read it–twice. Thomas Frank simply lists what has happened–but it’s because NO ONE talks about economic populism anymore.
NOT because it can’t work.
Well, I understood it after only one reading.
I didn’t say economic populism couldn’t work. It’s just that Frank does NOT endorse a version of economic populism that is also Nativism–that is, anti-immigrant, homophobic, xenophobic, racist populism.
There’s another version where all working class people stick together, from the exploited immigrant workers to the native-born Americans whose jobs are being “outsourced” or “downsized” in order to pay for bigger CEO salaries–in which people make common cause based on class interest.
My essential point is this: guys like “Joe” don’t get and never are going to “get it”. Their racism and homophobia are such strong forces in their lives that their prejudice blinds them to their economic self-interest…and always will.
I’m a lot older than you are, “thereisnospoon”, and I’ve been out and about the world long enough to know whose hearts are open to change and whose hearts are closed. I can’t change “Joe”–he has to do that himself. I do know that I don’t want him anywhere near a voting booth and I certainly don’t want him as one of my “allies” in the Democratic Party.
Let me state it plainly so that anybody can understand it on the first reading: No Democratic coalition can be formed, or survived, if it includes people who are racist or homophobic. There are too many people in the Democratic Party who feel too strongly about the issues of racism and homophobia to accommodate racists or homophobes.
Frank did NOT state that class interests can ALWAYS be made to trump bigotry on social issues. Some, perhaps many, people will ALWAYS vote against their economic self-interest if an appeal is made to their worst prejudices and fears.
I agree that the Democrats should be the champions of people who have to work for a living, but at the same time, they must embrace social justice. I’m willing to bet that “Joe” is against a woman’s right to control her own body, too.
There’s no place for “Joe” in the Democratic Party unless he abandons his racism and homophobia–and that’s something he has to do for himself.
Like Supersoling, I was also bothered by this “conversation”. Like Supersoling, I struggled to write a polite, respectful response…so I waited a couple of hours and ran a few miles to cool myself down before writing my reply.
Here’s a few of the many things that troubled me:
It appears that Joe’s problem with Bush and the Republican Congress is that they aren’t sufficiently xenophobic–in other words, they’re not as far right as he wants them to be. “Joe” proves my theory with his next remark:
Why do we need a “big fucking wall”?
That would be white guys like Joe.
Actually, Joe sounds like the so-called “Minutemen” vigilantes who are patrolling the Arizona and California borders with Mexico in an attempt to keep wetbacks–erm, I mean, Mexicans–from sneaking into this country and sleeping with white women…um, I mean, picking grapes for $3 an hour.
Well, hell, let’s wrap it up and call it a day! We’ve WON–we’ve got the vile racist vote IN THE BAG. Mission accomplished!
There are plenty of working class guys who are NOT racist and homophobic. If by “economic populism” you mean that I think progressives should campaign for a living wage for ALL Americans, and for a humanitarian reform of immigration policy that enables desperately poor immigrants a way to buy into the American Dream without ruining it for those of us fortunate enough to be born here, then yes, I’m all for it.
But I agree with the commentator elsewhere in this diary who wrote, if you’ve got Joe, you’ve lost me. I don’t want to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a vile racist. People like Joe don’t need to be embraced–they need to be discouraged from involvement in the political process. Joe doesn’t want to vote Republican? Good! Let’s hope he doesn’t vote Democratic, either. Let us hope that Joe does not vote at all, because people like Joe will never be satisfied with any political agenda that is not xenophobic and homophobic. That is why, despite his dissatisfaction with Bush, Joe will always vote, if he votes at all, for the Republicans.
Joe is not our friend and he is not our ally, and he never will be.
(And by the way, I think grown men playing video games–especially those that are extremely violent–is absolutely ridiculous for all sorts of reasons. I imagine that a lot of the people participating in this ultra-violent games, in which they can “kill” other people but are never at risk for real harm, are a lot like Joe. In fact, I work with teenagers and I can tell you that most of the gamers who are drawn to the ultra-violent “first person shooter” games have a lot of anger.)
Racists are not necessarily “vile”. In fact, many of them are human beings… if you can believe that. I know old guys who grew up during the bad old days of segregation, and they’re still coming around. But they are recovering from the racism they were indoctrinated with as children. So I am not prepared to give up on guys like Joe, not just yet.
I sense much anger in you young Skywalker. That path leads to the darkside.
I’m not young, sorry. I’m getting to be an old fart, actually.
Anger’s sometimes a good thing. It depends on where you focus it and how you express it.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, and Malcolm X were both angry men–angry at injustice. King’s greatness was that he was a man who had ample justification to turn to violence, and yet he rejected it. Righteous anger is a GOOD thing.
But pretending to shoot dozens or even hundreds of people in a violent video game? Now THAT’S the wrong way to express your anger. In fact, playing violent video games is NOT cathartic; rather, engaging in that sort of pretend violence only reinforces antisocial feelings, rather than ameliorating them.
When 900 years old, you are…
then, old will you be.
Your example of old-timers who were raised in a racist, segregated society is VERY different from the VERY young man that “thereisnospoon” has labeled “Joe”. I take it that Joe is in his early to mid 20s and was born at a time when American society had long ago officially rejected racism. What’s more, most people of Joe’s generation have also rejected homophobia–the younger an American is, the more likely he is to favor allowing gays to have equal rights (the right to marry, for example).
Know why I had to write two comments? Because I had a brain fart and forgot to write one big long one. That’s because I’m getting old.
I agree with you here. It is disturbing that US society is apparently becoming more… I guess nasty is the word.
The studies I’ve read indicate that, while cruelty and violence and generally hateful behavior are still considered awful by most Americans, a growing majority has come to embrace misanthropic attitudes.
I believe it said that 20% of Americans have attitudes which could be described as, well… sick. Whereas ten years ago that would’ve been more like 10%. Disturbing stuff.
As far as the video games go, I think it’s mostly hype. I don’t think Halo is going to destroy society. But I do think those games are lame, I never got into them. I’m a HUGE fan of snowboarding games and (giggles) Leisure Suit Larry. And Sims, too. Although I like to mistreat my Sims, which I guess is sadistic or something.
But whatever, Halo is retarded.
Where did y’all grow up – that whole moral conversion of America thing was a made-for-TV movie in much of the country.
….stays at Daily Kos.
Usually.
But since “thereisnospoon” cross-posted this diary at the Big Orange, I hopped over there and read the comments appended to his diary to gauge the reaction there.
It’s very different from here. Most of the comments at the Big Orange are salutory, while the reaction here is, erm, lukewarm.
A very interesting contrast in the mindset and culture of Booman Tribune and Daily Kos.
Wow. Yeah..
I gotta say, the Purity Patrol should read a little closer. I have to say the convo in the article above is an extremely ‘real’ one (despite being paraphrased). I’ve heard it or had it 100 times. It is not always time to provide a point-by-point dissection of the average Joe’s neolythic beliefs. Sometimes you just DO have to smile and and say things like ‘Well.. Maybe.’ just to keep the conversation going without tipping your hand or offending.
Purity Patrol begs to differ: ‘WE DON’T HAVE TO COMPROMISE ANYTHING! AAARGH! These folks SHOULD be reprimanded at every opportunity!’
Well, what if Joe is not your gaming buddy, but your prospective Father-in-Law? Does Joe Daddy get the treatment or an uncomfortable smile and a ‘Well.. Maybe.’?
I happen to think any successful political party’s relationship with all citizens has to have two archetypal aspects to gain and sustain legitimate power: The Authoritative Leader (author called him Moses), AND the Suitor (see Cicero’s description of MLK, Jr).
The Authoritative Leader stands in distinct contrast the Bush Administration’s Authoritarian style. The Authoritarian plays the role of ‘The Decider’ without giving his constituents the sense of being represented or having participated in the decision making process. The Authoritative Leader may make all the same decisions, but makes sure to provide his constituents at least the sense of participation. Authoritarian leaders are weakened because of real or perceived isolation from the will of his constituents. The Authoritative Leader endures because she can go against her base’s will repeatedly and get a lot this response : ‘Well, she heard all our arguments, but came down on a different side, we’ll have to respect that decision and the leadership she shows in making it’. It seems a bit simplistic, but that’s how it broke down in the Psychology labs at Berkeley during my stint there.
Then there is the Suitor. What is the stereotypical Suitor’s job? To convince his intended’s family not to kill him for what he has done/intends to do with their daughter. In politics, you must convince those who are naturally opposed to your intentions not to work against them when the time comes (elections, etc.). You have to convince people that something they hold truly dear is going to be be well treated by you, a member of an out-group. This is why your long-time girlfriend’s PawPaw breaks out the gun collection when you first visit on a family holiday: to let you know how seriously you need to consider the situation.
This is the same reason why Joe makes nasty comments and tells ugly jokes. It is all merely a statement of the strength of their feelings, not the depths or even true direction of their convictions. The Suitor needs to contain some of his impulses, hold his tongue on a few choice offenses, to get through all the bluster and achieve a greater long-term, institution-building goal rather than the self-satisfaction of correcting violators of his beloved dogma.
What I think the author was doing, albeit awkwardly, with his friend Joe: Smiling through the Gun Collection and some off-color jokes to let everyone get comfortable enough to have the REAL conversations that needed to be had. Can’t tell you how often I’ve had to do that sort of thing in life. If the author had jumped on Joe’s immigration comments, there would never have been the forthcoming revelations.
To lead, to look like a leader, one must show the patience that comes out of the type of Love that MLK showed white America that provided a safe avenue that could eventually be taken out of the social distortion of segregation and into sustainable rights. Illogical and unsustainable policies will persist as long as there is no safe road out for those who hold them most dear, hence there is no excessive compromise in doing what is necessary to build sustainable, sensible institutions.
But just like in-laws, a newly elected Progressive still has a responsibility, even a special one, to serve even citizens who actively despise her – just as if they were family.
I think the real compromise is made by those who want to directly enforce their (even correct) ideals on the nation, as opposed to focusing on creating a nimble system where the best policies, regardless of source, are appreciated enough to be implemented. They are compromising sustainability of Progressive institutions for the self-satisfaction of having engaged in political combat.
Being correct is a very good thing, but that alone is not a strategy.
WITHOUT* sacrificing principles…lol.
“Plenty of votes from Communists”?
Are there any Communists at all in the United States? According to the Communist Party USA, they only have about 50,000 members. Doesn’t sound like a substantial voting bloc to me. I live in a VERY liberal area of California and I can’t remember ever meeting anybody who described himself/herself as a “Communist”, nor expressed any sympathy for the Communist viewpoint. Communists were considered in the political mainstream in the 1920s and 1930s, but McCarthyism pretty much killed Communism as a political movement in the United States.
“Authoritarian lefties” is a phrase that puzzles me. Perhaps you’d like to define who these people are and give us some examples? I’ve never read that phrase except in far right-wing publications like The National Review (it’s a phrase worthy of Rush Limbaugh, to be sure) and it certainly is pejorative.
I do find it remarkable that you think that a substantial portion of the Democratic Party’s support comes from Communists and “pretty crazy authoritarian lefties”–but you can’t just throw around phrases like that without defining (a) who is included in your definition of an “authoritarian leftie” and (b) how influential you think such people are in the Democratic Party.
I didn’t post the comment, but I’d like to respond anyway.
Imagine the following scenario…
In the 2000 Election, Gore and Bush are tied (lets just pretend there is no Electoral College, just a straight popular vote) and there is only voter left in the country. It’s David Duke. For whatever reason, he votes for Gore. While doing so, he delivers the most hate filled, nasty speech imaginable trashing pretty much everything I care about. Who fucking cares? I’m gonna be too busy weeping tears of joy and relief that the US just dodged the worst President it would have ever seen.
I think that was the posters point. We don’t have to give any kind of winking approval to beliefs which we find repulsive. We just have to deliver what is a very honest and noble message…
We won’t let the GOP rob you blind while lying you into bullshit wars and out of your civil liberties. If we do that, people will suddenly remember that what Gay dudes do in Massachusetts really doesn’t have shit to do with them. I don’t think that because someone voted for the same guy I did that I’m in the same “club” as them. You’re in no way endorsing their POV unless you hint that racism or Communism or whatever is OK somehow.
No one here is advocating that. I’m damn sure not.
I want to know thereisnospoon’s definition of “authoritarian lefties” and where he’s finding all these Communists.
By the way, do you really think that when people vote for a politician, they don’t expect something in return? Racist, homophobic allies are going to demand something in return for their allegiance–and they’re going to be madder than hell at you if you turn around and say, “Hey, pal, sorry! We were just using you! Now go get bent!” You have to actually DELIVER something to voters or they won’t vote for you anymore. The real reason “Joe” is pissed at Bush is because Bush hasn’t rounded up all the illegal immigrants and chucked them over a Great Wall into Mexico. (By the way, if blue-eyed blonde women from Sweden comprised the bulk of the illegal immigrants, does anybody think that “Joe” would have a problem with illegal immigrants? Yeah, me neither.)
The time and money spent recruitin guys like “Joe” is a wasted effort–let the racists and xenophobes and other detritus gravitate to the Republicans. Democrats are better than that.
I’m bothered by the way you describe these people. As much as I disagree with their politics, they are human beings. It’s not as if they’re fugitive Nazi war criminals.
I could replace the word “racist” with “mexican” or “gays” or “arabs” and I’d think I was at LGF. That bothers me.
I disagree with them, in the strongest terms. But I don’t hate them, not all of them anyway.
As far payback is concerned, go ask the Christian Right how they’re doing with that Constitutional Marriage Amendment and overturning Roe vs. Wade after they gave the GOP almost complete control of the Government at every level for the past twenty years.
Besides, that’s a false argument. No one is suggesting we appeal to their racism. Just that we promise to give them fair pay and benefits. You know, the dignity thing.
They’ll get that and then some.
I notice we still don’t have a statement from “thereisnospoon” on how many Communists are in the Democratic Party, nor do we have a definition of what an “authoritarian leftie” is.
I await further explication on both topics with great eagerness.
People are never detritus. We are all in turn stupid, selfish, wrong…
When we think back to our first courtships, we may not remember all the flowers in the various buquets or the chocolates in the boxes, but you definitely remember everything about being abandoned or called Trash. It’s a lot more forgivable to send unwanted chocolates than to abandon someone. Prioritize financial resources, by all means, but I think you just can’t explicitly write anyone off.
Look people suck. Some much more than others. Especially mean ones, I hear. Bearing that in mind, you can’t truly think that someone is always better than another based on their professed beliefs. How did Jeffrey Dahmer vote? A politician that represents me would certainly be the type of leader who will, in fact, soften the hardest of hearts.
How did Jeffrey Dahmer vote??? I have no idea. What does that have to do with anything?
Of course you can tell what people are like from their beliefs. If somebody believes that Latinos are inferior to white people, for example, then what they’re saying is that Latinos are sub-human.
Human beings are defined by their beliefs. That doesn’t mean that people can’t change, but if somebody despises me because of who I am, I have no use for them, and I sure as hell don’t want to make common cause with them.
As far as substituting other words for “racist” and stating that I am a bigot because I despise racist people (and “Joe” is homophobic and racist according to his FRIEND, thereisnospoon!) is REALLY faulty “logic”.
There’s this guy I know who is a good old boy from a small Southern town. He recently got out of the Army and is now a cop. Back in May, I talked to him for the first time in almost three years. He said something I never thought I’d hear from him.
George Bush should be IMPEACHED! And he definitely meant it. He’s furious about the WMD bullshit lies and the Iraq War. He’s sick of how working class guys are getting fucked, Medicare, Big Oil et cetera.
I really doubt this guy will ever come to see homosexuality as anything but wrong and sinful, and there is no doubt that his socially conservative views have guided his voting habits in the past. But he’s not an evil guy. He doesn’t go around beating up Gay people or anything like that. He was raised to think being gay is wrong, and it fits his internal biases to go on thinking that.
I’d like to think that, if the Democratic Party stood up for Gay rights, and if such a movement gained traction (I think it already has) guys like this “Joe” could be shamed into renouncing their homophobia. I just think it will take time.
In the meantime, I wouldn’t mind if they voted for our guys. I think they will. When it comes down to it, whatever these guys may say, they don’t all really care about gays that much. They might get mad about gay marriage, but not enough to keep voting for a bunch of crooks who are intent on stealing their Social Security funds when there is a viable alternative.
The Gay marriage thing and much of their stances on social issues can be refuted by co-opting their own language and logic. It is both impossible (and therefore wasteful) and an undue government intrusion to legislate morality. If it doesn’t destroy value or damage property, it can’t be wrong. Regulation in a system distorts it.
Let the Christian Right vote 100% Repug if their ‘real’ Conservative Base stays home on election day.
Invite Joe to your next BBQ!
I’ve only got about two minutes to write:
The thing I see missing here (and I may have missed it, if so , I apologize), is this: It’s the opportunity to teach. Spoon’s fellow gamer talked to Spoon – with whom he has strongly disagreed in the past. He knows Spoon is not basically in agreement with him. (Those are my assumptions).
If we are to change this country, we do it one person at a time, by personal relations – as was noted above, in what you do with your father-in-law, the relative/coworker you can’t get away from, etc. Talk to him – not argue, but talk, about why you see walling people out as racist – that YOU would feel like a racist if you did those things, and why you would personally feel that way.
I doubt this person thinks of himself as a racist, though perhaps he does. It sounds like Spoon said much of what I think he should have. You can’t expect to bring people all the way in one conversation. but you plant seeds. Always plant seeds, if there is any positive spark of relationship. I’m not talking about making friends with skin-heads and klan members here, or with Karl Rove, either. But laying a few seeds with people that you know. Let the seeds grow or die, but don’t fail to listen and take the opportunity.
I’m not advocating any loss of purity here. But I am advocating trying to listen to why people hold the terrible bigoted views that they hold, and speaking to those issues, and calling them to their better natures. We can do that, and over time, change some people.
My time is up, I apologize.