Rubes of Hicksville: Welcome to My Arrogance BBQ

We're Roasting Rednecks and Bleeding Hearts Tonight

Published on November 20, 2004 By TaBooTenente In Politics

I've read your articles regularly as you post them. I think in general, it's fair to say I disagree, on a political level, with your opinions almost unilaterally.

Nevertheless, Draginol is completely correct, concerning his recent article, "My problem with the American Left".

1)There's no two ways about it: Democrats are embarrassed that GWB was re-elected.
2)We cannot believe that a majority of the country supports the direction our nation is headed.
3)I apologize.

We're just blogging, here, okay? If we cannot blog with honesty, then what's the point? We write because we like to write, because we have something to say, and because we want to be understood.

I apologize to the rest of the world that GWB has four more years.
I apologize to conservatives for my arrogant attitude.

Both are open-hearted, honest statements. I am raising my right hand as we speak, so to speak.

Conservatives: If you care at all about unifying the political divide, if you are honestly concerned about the level of partisanship, you need to understand this: it may be arrogance, it may be tunnel vision, but Democrats do not understand why people voted for George Bush. And we are in disarray. We do not know what to do. Yes: it is arrogance, plain and simple; but that does not make it any easier to correct our position.

Liberals: If we still believe in our position, if we still believe that a crucial element of morality in this country is eroding, then we need a new voice. Consider this: John Kerry, like every other liberal (not necessarily party Democrats), wrote off the entire south, along with the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma....

We wrote them off, as in, did not try to pick up those votes. Why? If you believe the answer is something other than arrogance, let me know. When a conservative says thay he/she is sick of the label "religious right-wing", or "Rube from Hicksville" or "Redneck" or "Ignorant" or whatever the hell, what do we immediately think as a response?

No need to spell it out. Whether or not our political position is correct, our voice is wrong, and our humanity is sorely lacking. If half the country believes something different from you, we need an answer other than whiny incredulity. Okay? If you take Mississippi, I'll head off to South Dakota. Let's start talking. VP candidates can dally in California and New York if they so choose; but whomever we nominate as a Democratic candidate for president has to join us in the south, and in the midwest, and in rural, suburban, and urban America. We can't stand around consoling 49% of the population and expect the other 51% to experience a collective epiphany. Let's open our ears, and when we speak, let's try to hit the lower registers as well as the shrill ones we've already mastered.

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments (Page 1)

iamheather

on Nov 20, 2004

Great post TaBoo Tenente! You get it! Please help others in your party get it too. I am a staunch conservative, but I can definitely agree with you and understand your passion in your beliefs. Have a passion for ideology does not however give you the superiority to judge those that disagree.

Thank you for your honesty.

kingbee

on Nov 20, 2004

We wrote them off, as in, did not try to pick up those votes

i realize your statement refers to kerry and the southern/middle plains states.

both parties/sides of the politcal spectrum spent much of the last century busily smelting their respective sand castles into stunningly similar glass residences and both would be wise to remember adding cobalt oxide or gold chloride may produce distinctive blue or red walls,but color dont mean shit to a rock. redistricting the place so one glass house appears situated in arrogance heights while the other barely inside the arrogance city limits dont either.

ascribing arrogance to another is itself an act of arrogance no? isnt that what's known as being 'holier than thou?"

your observation reminded me of something: neither side can claim the arrogance moral high ground until its candidate visits the 15 states both avoided this time around.

hope youre plannin on servin crow and humble pie to this crowd LOL

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 20, 2004

"Have a passion for ideology does not however give you the superiority to judge those that disagree."

Agreed. Nor does it give the ideological far right a mandate to impose their percieved "superior morality" on the 78% of Americans who do not agree with the 22% who want to do just that. Open mindedness has to be a two-way street. If the ideological far right is not open to compromising their positions while seeking to impose them on the majority, how can their even be a discussion at all? Their efforts to purge the GOP of those who do not ideologically agree with them is a perfect example of how their intollerance and rigidity is dangerous to both the GOP and to our nation. It sends a message that "if you disagree with our agenda AT ALL, you will be targeted, maligned, and attacked." There has to be room for compromise and negotiation from all sides or else our democratic republican form of government will cease to exist. That is where the far left has failed and it is where the far right will fail. We have to be able to talk to each other with out intimidating, maligning, stereotyping, and using the media to do our dirty work for us while they go off laughing all the way to the bank.

kingbee

on Nov 20, 2004

'rubes of hicksville' could very easily be configured into a parody of 'werewolves of london'

Moderateman

on Nov 20, 2004

Would be nice IF the democrats while crying in there beer about "george" having to unify the "divide" would stop pounding on george and his policies 24/7 even now on24 hour news they just keep saying he is wrong wrong, we have a better plan {what is the better plan by the way}.Unitication must come from the LOSERS too>

I was nice this one time and did not call the democrats my usual name for them . So while NOT agreeing with OUR president, {and thats a good thing} supporting him is a must in these times.

TaBooTenente

on Nov 20, 2004

Everybody: thank you for your responses.

I have been thinking about the "arrogance" issue for awhile. I assume, because bi-partisan politics tends to establish this polar arrangement of beliefs, that both parties have always accused the other side of arrogance.

Nevertheless, as Little_Whip mentioned somewhere in this chain, for whatever reason, our (liberal) arrogance surfaced much more strongly than usual, and in a much more offensive way than usual.

So here's my question, directed especially toward conservatives, but liberals should likewise consider:

When did you first start feeling the effect of this attitude, this arrogance? For conservatives, I'm asking at what point you felt the liberal perspective shifted from simply partisan to obnoxious? For liberals, I'm asking at what point do you feel that GWB was not merely a president you disagreed with, but that GWB was a concept that you morally opposed?

It seems to me that at some point (and again, my liberal perspective has taken a solid drubbing--it's not easy to look around and accept the problem, right now) we felt that we needed to crusade here, rather than wait for the election to come around. And we never really cared who our candidate was--at least I didn't. I was in the PHO airport when Dean went bonkers on television, and I remember thinking to myself, "Okay, check him off...who's next?" We became so passionate that it didn't matter who won, as long as it wasn't GWB.

Not only did our attitude offend some of our likely voters, ignore other likely voters, and alienate a slice of our party who by the end decided that voting for Nader was more palatable than joining the arrogant tide of our party. Now we don't know what to do. We can't believe life might go on, and might not be the disaster we imagined.

whoman69

on Nov 20, 2004

I can't agree that it hurts to write off some areas of the country. You add up all the electoral votes for the upper mountain states except Colorado, the great plains and you don't equal up to what Texas has as far as EC votes. The population is so spread out in those areas that to try to get to enough people would be time consuming. To advertise in those areas would be fairly inexpensive, but the returns are not great because their media centers are so small.
Kerry did try to reach some areas of the South, but it became clear he could not catch up. He made efforts in NC, VA, AR, LA but came up short. If you're starting from a disadvantage, its hard to catch up. I think it would be better for a Democrat to try to get some of the South, keep their advantage in the Northeast and West Coast, but concentrate on sweeping the Big Ten states from PA to IA.

TaBooTenente

on Nov 20, 2004

I agree that a candidate has to make choices, to make the best use of campaigning time.

My problem is the attitude. A Democratic candidate who decides he/she cannot make up votes in the south or the sparce populations of the mountain/ plain states is not just losing votes in those locations. The whole nation sees the attitude, at the media mirrors and amplifies the attitude. Soon, you've not only alienated those sections, those states, but an entire population demographic--thisdemographic doesn't just live in these places. They live everywhere. And when a party disenfranchises a collection of people such as this one you've not only become arrogant (we don't need that kind of voter...we don't have time to cater to that kind of voter) but you're bound to alienate other possible voters. Playing catch-up, like Kerry did in a few places, is almost as offensive as ignoring them.

On the other hand, if, from the beginning of his campaign, Kerry had established himself as someone not only bent on destroying Bush's career, but as someone who cares about people in all places, then this little effort might spread, until people everywhere might actually have liked Kerry.

Take a look at ourselves, here. I'm a liberal. And while I don't think Kerry was as bad of a candidate as other liberals seem to feel, my vote was based on the fact, like other liberals, that I was afraid what four more years would do to the country and to the world. Time will tell on that one, and I hope that my perspective WAS arrogant, and narrow, and that 51% not only saw something I did not, but that they were right. What else can we hope for now? But what if Kerry had showed a little respect at the beginning of the race, and demonstrated that he cared? He would be our president right now, I guarantee you that, and the Democratic party would not have to deal with the new derrogatory label that's sticking: arrogance. The fact that "liberal" is used in the same tone of voice as "redneck" is a problem for "liberals" and "rednecks" alike. We're becoming disenfranchised. That's why everyone is a damn moderate these days!

Draginol

on Nov 20, 2004

When did you first start feeling the effect of this attitude, this arrogance? For conservatives, I'm asking at what point you felt the liberal perspective shifted from simply partisan to obnoxious?

There were some brewings of it before the Iraq war. Sean Penn going to Iraq and getting a ridiculous amount of coverage as if he were somehow more knowledgeable than us non-movie-star types was when my attena first went up. The whole "It's for the OIIILLL" crowd got on my nerves. But those were just preludes.

The point where I think partisanship (for me) moved into being obnoxious from the left was the Janet Jackson superbowl half-time incident.

For years, the liberals had told us red-state parents that we need to quit complaining about what's on TV and watch our own kids. I agreed with the liberals on that issue. I don't expect TV to be sanatized for lazy parents. And so cable and prime time TV slowly went into the gutter (ever watch an episode of "Friends" which used to show at 8pm from the perspective of a red-stater?). But anyway, I agreed that it's up to us to watch our kids.

So then there's the Superbowl half-time show that was pretty smutty before Janet Jackson had made her appearance. I'm there watching it with my son. It's the superbowl. It's SUPPOSED to be something my kid can watch. I'm doing what the left had demanded - I keep an eye on what my kids watch. And so the Janet Jackson thing happened. I was irritated but I didn't get that upset until the day after.

The day after, liberal after liberal both on TV and here on JoeUser.com showed utter contempt for our values. The whole "You've never seen a boobie?" and "Get over it!" and "Tough, deal with it you puritans!" finally marked where the left seemed to be set collectively loose. It was as if the left finally decided they no longer had to care about our values and views on things.

It was then that the left made it clear that they weren't interested in compromise. They did not want to take our concerns into account at all. The whole "Watch your own kids!" thing was just BS. It was just the left's way of placating the right while they took over much of the airwaves and the Janet Jackson thing was a signal that "Hey, too bad, we're going to put OUR values on 24/7 if we can and if you don't like it, we'll ridicule you!"

Shortly after that we got Fahreinheit 9/11 which began being parroted by quasi-intellectuals as being "the truth" even though it was largely full of crap. The same people who would call us "morons" and Bush an "idiot" were completely oblivious at how gullible and stupid they looked for buying into the propaganda in that film.

That was then followed up with Kerry having a rally with a bunch of Hollywood celebrities in which Whoopie Goldberg made crude sexual jokes about Bush using his last name and the other various Hollywood stars made crass jokes about Bush and conservatives. Kerry then said "These people are the heart and soul of America!"

The incident where I decided I was going to vote for Bush though was the RNC. During Bush's speech, no less than 3 militant Kerry supporters had snuck in and tried to interupt the speech (And effectively did since the news cameras zoomed in on them). The left's message to me was "OUR right of free speech is more important than your right of free speech." Disagree with the President all you want but he has a right to give his message just as John Kerry did. Those left wing lunatics - who aren't representative of the Democrats but Kerry and other Democrats did NOTHING to distance themselves from them - in New York that week probably cost Kerry the election.

During that whole time we would see on-line over and over posts from Kerry supporters arguing how stupid and moronic Bush and his supporters were. I even had a friend - TRYING TO DEFEND this view equate voting for Bush like someone starting smoking. They couldn't understand whys omeone would vote for Bush just like they can't understand someone starting to smoke. He didn't think that made someone necessarily dumb but it sure struck him as a dumb thing to do.

I don't think the left is going to learn its lesson. Michael Moore has another movie coming out and the hollywood celebrities think that they just didn't "get their message out" enough. No, they and other left wingers got their message out. And it caused them to lose.

Like LW said, I was unimpressed with Bush to the point where I was not planning to vote for him. The left-wingers attacks on ME motivated me to make sure they didn't win the election.

TaBooTenente

on Nov 20, 2004

I like it...I like it...

Oh, I almost forgot to ask: what do we believe in? And what animal becomes our logo?

TBT

whoman69

on Nov 20, 2004

TaBoo, I wasn't paying much attention to Clinton's campaigning techniques at the time, I do not seem to recall him attacking anybody? I can be wrong,but it seems to be a smooth operator will win every time. lol

Like Bush

Don't tell this to Karl Rove. He's going to make the attack ad a staple of the Republicans for the next generation.

TaBooTenente

on Nov 20, 2004

Draginol,

I feel like I could have written most of your response. I agree with you completely...or nearly.

--I chewed on my heart everytime the press went out of its way to cover Sean Penn. Great actor. Terrible strategist.

--Fahreinheit 9/11: I really like MM, you know why? Because he always takes it back to Flint. I think he really cares, has a big heart. But now he's famous, and instead of making movies and being an all-around good guy he wants to be a journalist and a campaigner. That's fine too, but I chewed some more heart when I saw the movie. I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish, but I think it was a disaster. I understand the liberal perspective, I understand the need to vent: as such, the movie was a collective release for us, like an exhalation of pent up frustration. But the journalism was shoddy to say the least, the editing was offensive even to me, and I would agree that the movie represents the epitome of liberal arrogance. I was ashamed when I left the theater.

--I'm not sure I agree with your J Jackson take. I watch next-to-no television these days, mainly because I find all of the reality shows condescending and boring. I did, however, watch the superbowl, and (un)fortunately I went for the bean dip during the split second JJackson intentionally blundered. How stupid! That kind of thing makes my blood curdle. But honestly, a flash of nipple does seem less scarring to me than the murders, killing, and, frankly (though here's some of my ingrained arrogance emerging), I think two hours of "The Swan( that'sthe one where they physically remake someone, right?)" is worse for a child than all of the rest put together.

One other thing: while I'm willing to accept the left-loonies on my own bill, I'm finding that conservatives tend to disassociate themselves with the right-wing extremists. It creates an unfair balance. MM offends you (me too, as I've said) into a conservative stance, but I'm supposed to view David Duke as an abnormality?

The problem is that it is a continuum. I DO have to deal with aspects of sympathizing with the left, that my beliefs unchecked and untempered with reason lead to beliefs I'm not prepared to accept. Unfortunately, that's how ideology works. Those left-loonies are distant echoes of where my own beliefs could take me, if I'm not careful. It's the same on the right. I would never claim that you support the KKK, that you want your religion practiced in my home, that you, Draginol, want to pre-emptively strike into every country that's ever flipped us the bird. But I DO expect you to take some time to understand that your ideology leads somewhere too, the farther right you look. It's essential to realize what LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE mean, should we become too polarized, too extreme.

Very thoughtful response, Draginol. Thank you.

TBT

T B

on Nov 20, 2004

For conservatives, I'm asking at what point you felt the liberal perspective shifted from simply partisan to obnoxious?

First off, I'm more conservative than not, though I break with the "conservatives" on some issues. I was NOT in GW's camp firmly in March, but by the middle of August I was trending more and more that way. The more I saw Terry McAuliffe, the angrier I got. The more I heard "Wrong war, Wrong time" and "Keep your eye on the ball" the more duplicitous I found the Dems to be. I watched each of the Democratic primary debates and was appalled at the Kerry transformation, after Dean's showings, on the Iraq war for political expediency, as well as the neglect given to Joe Lieberman. The attacks on No Child Left Behind (which Kennedy had a HUGE hand in) served to further my perception of a duplicitous DNC. Michael Moore sitting next to Carter at the Dems Convention served to solidify my belief that the fringe left had hijacked the party.

But mostly, it was the personal attacks on GW. The 7 minutes he spent in a Florida classroom on 9/11, the regurgitation and legitimization of Moore's vitriole, the claim's that GW knew about 9/11 prior and let it happen, Al Gore and the Brown Shirts speech asserting Bush supporters were like Nazi's, Heinz-Kerry and the assertion that people that didn't agree with her husband on health care were idiots and, in general, the attempt to paint Bush as a lying, hateful, moronic, blundering individual bent on world domination. All served to make me become a STAUNCH Bush supporter.

I felt like my senses were insulted, my beliefs challenged and a good man attacked by a group of fringe left wackos. I don't know that any particular point was a trigger, more like a continuum that served to continuously push me to further support the Administration (from being lukewarm at best).

T B

on Nov 20, 2004

MM offends you (me too, as I've said) into a conservative stance, but I'm supposed to view David Duke as an abnormality?

Absolutley!! David Duke was not legitimized by the party whereas MM was, at least what I saw, embraced.

Nadeon

on Nov 20, 2004

The word(s) you all seem to be looking for is R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Mutual respect, pure and simple. That seems to be something in short supply on both sides.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!