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 2)

TaBooTenente

on Nov 20, 2004

Nadeon: I agree.

TB: I think I'm with you on about 2/3 of your post. D.D. was an inaccurate example. Will using Pat Buchanon, or Oral Roberts sit more comfortably with you? Nevertheless, David Duke may not be recognized by the Republican Party, but he represents a human being who has taken rightist ideology further into the continuum (useful word). Whether liberals want to accept it or not, Stalin is just one leftist down the line, and HItler is one rightist down the other. Do not misunderstand me, please. I think it is an absurd, hyperbolic slur to compare Bush to Hitler. That wasn't my point. The important idea here is to remember that any political way of thinking that has a slight imbalance leads left or right. And every thinker should be aware where each ideology leads. The left leads to revolutionary thought, while the right leads to reactionary thought. Neither is very productive, or attractive, and both are destructive.

However, I think it's pure partisan sophistry when the conservative party labels the DNC as "duplicitous". It is not duplicitous to support a concept like "No Child Left Behind" and then to change one's mind when you see how its implementation is a disaster. It's okay to admit you were wrong. Kerry's problem, like many of us liberals, is that he wants to label Bush as WRONG, rather than vocalizing more clearly what he believes is right.

And as much as Fahreinheit 9/11 frustrated me, as did much of MM's antics as the election approached, I would never think of MM, Kerry, or Gore as the fringe left. Look, Kerry is about as middle-of-the-road as liberals get, and Gore's not far off that stride, either...or why do you think Nader keeps surfacing? Ralph Nader also is not ultra-fringe like many think; however, he's much further down the revolutionary ideology than most liberals are comfortable with. MM was obnoxious, arrogant, offensive, and unfortunately loud. I forgive him--and though you may say "Of course you would, you're a liberal" but the truth is (as I see it) that he is a good person. If you have seen all of his movies, especially the ones before his name grew bigger than his body, I think you would have a hard time believing he isn't a huge-hearted guy. Obnoxious? Arrogant? Oh yeah. Do I wish He'd kept his last movie to himself? OH YEAH! But he's a good guy.

And if you or any one of us likes to believe we are independent, free to change our minds, we're going to have to stop labeling MM as fringe-left bad guy (which he's not) and Bush as Hitler (which he is not). Bush was very careful to avoid labeling Dems this round (except for a few "liberal" epithets, here and there) while Kerry and the DNC were labeling junkies.

There it is. There's the problem.

Thanks for your thoughts.

TBT

whoman69

on Nov 20, 2004

And if you or any one of us likes to believe we are independent, free to change our minds, we're going to have to stop labeling MM as fringe-left bad guy (which he's not) and Bush as Hitler (which he is not). Bush was very careful to avoid labeling Dems this round (except for a few "liberal" epithets, here and there) while Kerry and the DNC were labeling junkies.

Revisionist history. Bush ran one of the most negative campaigns ever. We heard nothing of his plans for a 2nd term except the platitudes of "staying the course", "prosperity is just around the corner", "don't change horse in midstream" and "you know where I stand". There wasn't a position of Kerry he couldn't skew to the left.

Draginol

on Nov 20, 2004

I'm sorry but Michael Moore absolutely IS a fringe left wing kook. And until the Democrats distance themselves from people like that they'll keep losing elections.

It is telling that when you look to the right for its kooks you really have to dig. David Duke? Man, he's been a fossil for 10+ years. Pat Robertson has been a nobody for 14 years. The kooky right wingers these days are people like Ann Coulter who is just an author and about as right wing as Al Franken is left wing. There is no Michael Moore of teh right. There's no Sean Penn of the right. There's no nasty, hatefilled violent protesters on teh right. To find that you have to go way back to the KKK (an organization founded by Democrats btw).

If the Republicans had invited David Duke to its convention to be seated in a place of honor then it would deserve to lose. Similarly, the Democrats invited Michael Moore and seated him next to Jimmy Carter. They embraced their kooks. And it cost them.

TaBooTenente

on Nov 20, 2004

Maybe I am being unclear:

As far as ideologies go, MM is not a fringe-leftist. His politics are not ultra-left. They ARE liberal, certainly, and they are not moderate. But there is a large gap between MM politics, and revolutionary politics. If you are refering to his beliefs regarding the need for a change in CAPITALISM, then he definitely falls left of center, and left of most Democrats.

And my take on David Dukes, Pat Buchanons, is not intended to saddle the conservative party with these, but to demonstrate where rightist ideolgy goes when it reaches the fringes. Perhaps someone like Ann Coultier, Ann Rand, makes more sense to you. Again, I'm not listing GOP banner-wavers. I'm talking about rightist ideology. And we both know that both the Dem and Rep parties have shifted and re-established themselves over the years. The titles have little to do with permanent ideologies.

David Duke is an example of extreme rightist ideology.
MM is not an example of extreme leftist ideology. Marx is an example of extreme leftist ideology.

MM is an example of what happens when a simple guy gets too much fame, too quickly. He starts to believe that he might actually be a simple, good guy who has to make himself heard. And he becomes, unfortunately, arrogant.

Hamster 311

on Nov 20, 2004

Wow, excellent article and great responses! I pretty much agree with you across the board.

What gets me about all of this is that the entire country seems to be operating from a place of personal defensiveness, as if striking out after having their feelings hurt. Is it so difficult to imagine that to the extent that conservatives feel their value system threatened by obnoxious liberal spouting, so are liberals threatened by the ever-strengthening right? Not to negate the fact that there are very real feelings involoved, on both sides, but the whole country has to stop behaving like children and learn to talk to each other again. This is bigger, or smaller, than just politics.

Do we have to repeat the rules, again? Name-calling is BAD, remember that, kids. Also remember, nobody likes to have someone else's ideology crammed down their throat. Nobody. Nobody likes to have someone get in their face, figuratively or literally. That's not the way we have useful dialogue.

Actually THIS is the way, or one way. Through the reading of this article and its responses, I DID come to understand the other side's position a little better. Thanks, Draginol, for some reason through your reiterating what you've essentially said before elsewhere, made me able grasp your perspective in a way I hadn't been able to before.

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.

-- I agree with this statement completely, but it now seems to me that even as I voted not for Kerry, but against Bush, in a defensive sort of voting stance, so apparently was the mindset of a considerable number of that 51% - except they, of course were going the other way, in defense against the whole liberal package. Or - as much as I don't want a (perceived) bunch of crooked, right-wing, good-ole-boy religious fanatics mandating how I will live my life, so does the other side fear the (perceived) amoral, loudmouthed, pseudo-intellectual, condescending sinners mandating theirs. We have to make better presentations of ourselves, on both sides.

Now, can liberal America understand that actors, while they are wealthy, have resourses, and do have views, do NOT, however, make the most impressive or credible political spokespeople? And as for MM...

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

What journalism? Doesn't anybody know this was a MOVIE presented in a journalistic-looking form? While I must say that I did enjoy the MOVIE, I found this aspect of the film oh so irritating. There is already enough drivel that passes for legitimate journalism or news, do we really need to blur the lines even futher?

drmiler

on Nov 20, 2004

Reply #22 By: whoman69 - 11/20/2004 5:16:07 PM
And if you or any one of us likes to believe we are independent, free to change our minds, we're going to have to stop labeling MM as fringe-left bad guy (which he's not) and Bush as Hitler (which he is not). Bush was very careful to avoid labeling Dems this round (except for a few "liberal" epithets, here and there) while Kerry and the DNC were labeling junkies.

Revisionist history. Bush ran one of the most negative campaigns ever. We heard nothing of his plans for a 2nd term except the platitudes of "staying the course", "prosperity is just around the corner", "don't change horse in midstream" and "you know where I stand". There wasn't a position of Kerry he couldn't skew to the left.

Sorry but Kerry put forth no plan that anyone could see. All he could say was he had a better way.

whoman69

on Nov 20, 2004

Sorry but Kerry put forth no plan that anyone could see. All he could say was he had a better way.

That's exactly the view if you get your information about Kerry only from the opposition. He set out several things he would do to be able to win in Iraq. He told how he would attempt to stop outsourcing while Bush did not even admit that it was a concern or in fact was good for the economy. But Cheney and Bush took all his plans with a short phrase out of context like "sensitive war on terrorism" or "global test". Kerry put forth a plan for covering the millions of Americans without insurance while Bush and Co. simply called it socialized medicine without having any sort of plan to even significantly lower costs, only to make lawyers a scapegoat for higher costs.

drmiler

on Nov 20, 2004

Reply #27 By: whoman69 - 11/20/2004 7:17:00 PM
Sorry but Kerry put forth no plan that anyone could see. All he could say was he had a better way.

That's exactly the view if you get your information about Kerry only from the opposition. He set out several things he would do to be able to win in Iraq. He told how he would attempt to stop outsourcing while Bush did not even admit that it was a concern or in fact was good for the economy. But Cheney and Bush took all his plans with a short phrase out of context like "sensitive war on terrorism" or "global test". Kerry put forth a plan for covering the millions of Americans without insurance while Bush and Co. simply called it socialized medicine without having any sort of plan to even significantly lower costs, only to make lawyers a scapegoat for higher costs.

Sorry but I got my information right out of Kerry's mouth during the debates. Yes he put forth a plan to *cover* Americans without health care but nowhere did he come up with were he was going to get the money to pay for it. His fiscal plans fell short of the mark.

TaBooTenente

on Nov 20, 2004

You're both right, I think.

If you take what these guys said literally during the debates, and make their statements a platform for what you think the country needs, you're going to have a fairly vague perspective. Neither spent more than 50% of their limelight doing anything but posturing or dancing. Bush looked exactly like the Dems labeled him: an unswerving thug. Kerry looked exactly like the Reps labeled him: a wiffle-waffling, arrogant liberal debater.

Kerry put forth a plan for covering the millions of Americans without insurance while Bush and Co. simply called it socialized medicine without having any sort of plan to even significantly lower costs, only to make lawyers a scapegoat for higher costs.

Kerry directed us to his web site, and liberal though I am, I have to say his healthcare plan was vague, at best.

Sorry but I got my information right out of Kerry's mouth during the debates

I find this a hard statement to swallow. I am not sure what reassurance Bush spoke about that made you clear on his position. He's been busy since the election ended, though, and I'm not sure everyone knew how intense the 2nd administration would be.

And if Kerry had been elected, I'm sure his programs would find a way of differing from his debating platform.

I guess all I am trying to say is that we're listening too intently to what our own party's spinners are saying. Most of it is just SPIN. Dems have forgotten how to listen, and how to express our thoughts. The more caustically we continue to speak, the more people we are going to alienate. Honestly. Passion is good. Tunnel-vision is bad.

Or something like that.

drmiler

on Nov 20, 2004

Reply #29 By: TaBooTenente - 11/20/2004 7:54:27 PM
Sorry but I got my information right out of Kerry's mouth during the debates

I find this a hard statement to swallow. I am not sure what reassurance Bush spoke about that made you clear on his position. He's been busy since the election ended, though, and I'm not sure everyone knew how intense the 2nd administration would be.

I never said Bush was clear on his plans either. There was more to me voting for Bush besides Kerry's vauge plans.

T B

on Nov 20, 2004

And every thinker should be aware where each ideology leads

Agreed, actually I am thankful for respectful reasoned opposition to the "right", it is what keeps the pendulum from swinging too far.

It is not duplicitous to support a concept like "No Child Left Behind" and then to change one's mind when you see how its implementation is a disaster

My point was that the left (Ted Kennedy) had a HUGE part in the implementation and design, then they blamed Bush when it didn't work as intended, which I consider duplicitous, including "under funding" when in actuality there was MORE money budgeted than they were able to spend. NCLB is a prime example of why I oppose (most) government programs, they almost never work the way they are intended to and it takes years to fix them.

I would never think of MM, Kerry, or Gore as the fringe left.

I used to consider Gore as a moderate Dem, but the speech he gave made me think he either had a drastic shift or lost his marbles. Likely it was just election year grandstanding, but he went WAY too far. On MM and Kerry, they look pretty far left to me (Kerry was often in the super minority on Senate votes).

If you have seen all of his movies, especially the ones before his name grew bigger than his body, I think you would have a hard time believing he isn't a huge-hearted guy

The only film I saw by Moore (actually only about 10 minutes worth, because that's all it took to seriously offend me) was Bowling for Columbine, it was on HBO. I don't know if he's a big hearted guy, but if he is, you'd think he'd be giving something to charity (which I can't seem to find any indication of, if he is).

Kerry and the DNC were labeling junkies

I think that this was the single biggest problem for the Dems this go round and it is my opinion that Terry McAuliffe is the reason, not the candidate, or even the "liberal" view of things, it was the face McAuliffe put on the party.

whoman69

on Nov 20, 2004

The debates you have either a minute and a half or two minutes to put forth information. Certainly not enough time to go into specifics. He did put forth some salient points about what he would be doing different than Bush and asked those who wanted more details to check his website. He went into more detail on the campaign trail, but the details are too boring for entertainment driven media. They gloss over the details and Bush and his campaign used that to paint the candidate Kerry as something that he was not, something they knew could not be palpable to the American public. Their sound bites were better for the evening news.

T B

on Nov 20, 2004

We heard nothing of his plans for a 2nd term except the platitudes of "staying the course", "prosperity is just around the corner", "don't change horse in midstream" and "you know where I stand".

One thing Bush doesn't do well is articulate policy, however, there was PLENTY of pretty detailed offerings about his plans if you wanted to see them (I had no trouble getting dozens of pages of documented plan specifics).

Kerry's plan was basically socialized medicine, there were several indpendent non-partisan analyses of his plan as well as Bush's plan. Your statement about Bush's plan is patently FALSE. I read hundreds of pages of analyses on the health plans of both camps. All the analyses credited the Kerry plan with being significantly more VAGUE than Bush's. In addition, Kerry's "plan" was mostly adding 22 million to Medicaid (about 80%+ of the unisured he claimed he would insure).

drmiler

on Nov 20, 2004

Reply #30 By: drmiler - 11/20/2004 8:39:46 PM
There was more to me voting for Bush besides Kerry's vauge plans.

Reply #32 By: whoman69 - 11/20/2004 9:23:56 PM
Sorry but I got my information right out of Kerry's mouth during the debates. Yes he put forth a plan to *cover* Americans without health care but nowhere did he come up with were he was going to get the money to pay for it. His fiscal plans fell short of the mark.

The debates you have either a minute and a half or two minutes to put forth information. Certainly not enough time to go into specifics. He did put forth some salient points about what he would be doing different than Bush and asked those who wanted more details to check his website. He went into more detail on the campaign trail, but the details are too boring for entertainment driven media. They gloss over the details and Bush and his campaign used that to paint the candidate Kerry as something that he was not, something they knew could not be palpable to the American public. Their sound bites were better for the evening new

Let me put this to rest for you. The reason I didn't vote for John Kerry is that I consider him to be a traitor! If it was up to me the man wouldn't be allowed to be a dog catcher

kingbee

on Nov 20, 2004

The reason I didn't vote for John Kerry is that I consider him to be a traitor!

i hope you didnt vote for nixon for the same reason. after all, 20000 of our troops died in the years following the nixon campaign's successful sabotage of the paris peace talks in 1968 by advising the north vietnamese more favorable terms would be offered should he be elected.

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!