Everybody's Got One
A blog. An opinion. An elimination orifice. A dream. An agenda. A past. A hidden talent. A conceptual filter. A cross. A charism (often the same). A task. A wound. A destiny. A lost love. A blind spot. A bad habit. A secret. A passion. A soul ... okay, maybe not everybody ...
Friday, January 30, 2004

 

From a recent Creative Loafing Atlanta story on why Southern whites stubbornly refuse to vote their obvious Democratic interests:
"Part of the problem that any political party would have ... is: Do you take the political world as you find it or do you try to change the electorate?" says Emory University political scientist Merle Black.
The answer for progressives and populists is the latter if they intend to solve the riddle of their dwindling support ...
Why the latter? Because taking the world as you find it requires seeing it clearly rather than through rigid ideological filters, which the left seems increasingly incapable of doing. They don't want to solve the riddle; they want it to vanish.

The fundamental cluelessness here is thick enough to cut with a chainsaw.

The writer interviews the last Democratic officeholder in Florida's Polk County, who
still can't put her finger on the "why" three years after the election that knocked her out of politics.

"At this point, the Republican Party is certainly seen as the party of wealth and influence and power and the country clubbers [seen by whom, exactly? Themselves? Or by Democrats?], all of those things that the poor working schmucks strive to be," Young says. "It's almost a wannabe mentality. And, I mean, nobody dares admit they're a Democrat, even if they are."
And why might that astonishing thing be, that people are ashamed to be thought Democrats? Perhaps because Democrats are seen (by others) as the party of blacks, gays, and welfare mothers?

Here’s the way the logic is supposed to work: All B’s are A’s, but not all A’s are B’s. All (non-Hollywood) rich people are Republicans, but not all Republicans are rich or deluded wannabes. All blacks/gays/welfare mothers are Democrats, but not all Democrats are ... you follow? (The logic is obvious when it concerns something you know anything at all about.) It's almost automatic to dismiss someone who stereotypes Democrats like this as an ignorant racist. Why isn't it equally appropriate to reject an equal stereotyper as an ignorant classist? And why isn't talking this way consistently challenged in polite company?

posted by Kelly | 11:55 AM link
archives
email
links