[John Ross]

The Jane Smiley piece that's received a lot of media attention "Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue," subtitled "The unteachable ignorance of the red states" is at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

My comments on this piece are at
http://www.john-ross.net/smiley.htm There's an amusing surprise in it.

Post comments here if you want about Smiley's piece, or my take on it, but don't mention the surprise on the board, okay? Send a private message if you want to comment about that, and let's let everyone get a chuckle out of it.

And this IS The High Road, remember. Keep that in mind when posting comments.

JR

[RavenVT100]

Your comments were definitely worth reading. I'm going to forward this piece to a few people who should read it. I am hoping that the Democrats among them will keep an open mind, given that most of them have realized that the Democratic party needs to revamp its platforms in light of the inevitable. The PATRIOT Act and most of the stuff you hear the young crowd going on about WRT the GOP's "erosion" of our civil rights is relatively recent. Gun control, in its present form, has been around much longer. I agree that a little bit of perspective is needed here.

And who knew that Darth Vader would turn out to be Luke's father! /Homer

[Shanghai McCoy]

Mr Ross,as usual your reply to this women's commentary was clear,logical and interesting to read.The women's comments tended to be a tad shrill,condesending,mean spirited and whiney.I am not surprised to see that she lives in California and I say that as a native Californian who has lived in the Midwest for many years now.
Anyway,great reply and glad to see that Ross in Range is back.Oh,thanks for signing my book.Best regards...

[mountainclmbr]

A very good read. I also recommend the articles written on auto racing on the John Ross web site. I want to go racing before the government decides that it does not benefit the state. I have read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross, twice now and recommend it highly. I have been mountainclimbing all over the world; an activity that arguably does not benefit anyone. But I am a free person and can do as I like, period. I pity the "progressive" liberal that tries to take control over my life for their enlightened benefit.

[tyme]

I greatly respect your writing; however, I have several issues with both pieces. I think you're overly sympathetic with the conservative view of gay marriage, for one. What if you give those same allowances to liberals, and assume that they also are not clearly articulating what they believe?

That's about all I can say on the issues raised in your piece unless someone moves this thread to the Round Table.

I have not yet found any universal paradigm that is internally consistent without relying on faith, which is itself logically vulnerable; if your cousin's objective is to find a position that is unassailable, I fear he will be unsuccessful. As a result, I have to question the wisdom of immediately repudiating one's views when logical cracks appear.

[Standing Wolf]

I was with you most of the way, but...

Your party is reeling right now. It is as ripe as it's ever been for being taken over by the Libertarian Party.

...made me grimace and cock an eye brow skeptically. I'd love to see that happen, of course, but representatives of the Democratic (sic) party and their supporters are statists through and through.

[geekWithA.45]

Interesting, that last bit about the Dems being ripe for a Libertarian takeover. A buddy of mine and I were discussing that last night.

My assessment is that the values and policies of the current incarnation of the Democratic party are completely incompatible with libertarianism, whereas the values of policies of the Republicans aren't majorly out of sync ("boot on your neck party" moonbat rhetoric notwithstanding) which is why you find liberty minded folks split between the Republicans and the Libertarians.

IMHO, those who want to be gadflies hand with the big L, those who want to make stuff happen hang with the big R.

I've never even HEARD of a libertarian Democrat, except for maybe some of the old timers.

[AZRickD]

From Jane's article...
When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862—Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children.Um, the pro-slavery folks were the Democrats. The Republicans were the Abolitionists.

Rick

[Art Eatman]

Since the majority of liberal democrats are statist by nature, I see no way that Libertarian thought could be welcomed. Certainly, not at the national level.

I used to be active in Dem Party politics in a precinct adjacent to the University of Texas. In varous neighborhood discussions, one thing I learned was that "tradition" is, at times, anathema to them. If anything, the very word indicates a need for change! So, "Marriage is a religious ceremony with long traditions..." is itself a red flag for some.

Rural-area people to a great extent have fairly long family histories of residence there. Our mobile society has resulted in many people in cities being relative newbies. They have neither local history nor local tradition to give them any sense of direction or belonging. They are thus fairly easy to persuade to give loyalty to a political party rather than to a place and its traditions. This, to me, is part of why the "blue/red" thing is also a rural/city thing.

enuf fer now,

Art

[trapshooter]

One small item I notice frequently. The liberals are now calling themselves 'progressives'. The propaganda value should be obvious.

[Don Gwinn]

I thought the "surprise" was going to be that you're a Democrat. I wasn't ready for the real surprise! :D


I admit I didn't read her entire piece. I did notice the part where Bush voters voted for Bush to make Kansas a slave state, at which I will admit to some puzzlement . . . . . I found it interesting, also, that only people "on the frontier" (but not California or Oregon, which were apparently not on the frontier) used to watch bareknuckle NHB fights back in the bad old days. Guess that never happened in enlightened Chicago or New York, right? :rolleyes:

[ClonaKilty]

Great stuff John. As someone who had lived in St Louis for a couple years (grad school over there at "Warsh U"), I cannot understand how someone from STL can claim that Missourians:

...know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence.

To hear her speak of the area you'd think it was a gargantuan Jim Jones-type cult of violence and "true believerhood." I never, ever saw anything like this in my time there.

Her screed makes me think she has literally been brainwashed by a cult. One of the tactics cults use to obtain complete power over you (and your mind) is to separate you from your family, your actual memories, and implant false ones that support the assertion that the cult is the "real" family.

And it frightens me that someone with such talent can be so completely taken in by the cult of the Left.

[beerslurpy]

Wow I read your articles on abortion too and they were really interesting. The complications to do with actually enforcing a ban on abortion have bothered me for a while as well, and I dont that most pro-lifers have actually thought it through that far.

About the Republicans vs Libertarian thing, my attitude is to vote for whichever major party candidate has the possibilty of promoting an agenda that is even a little libertarian, or merely just pro-gun. When both candidates suck I vote Libertarian on principle so I dont have a bad taste in my mouth from feeling I helped elect the next John Kerry or George Bush.

This year we had a clear pro-gun rep (Brown-Waite, A rated) and a pretty pro-gun Senator (Mel Martinez, B rated, replacing F- Graham). Both represent a step in the right direction for gun rights, so I voted for both of them.

Bush on the other hand has done jack ???? for gun owners and I find his trampling on human rights and the incomptetance of his minions sad. On the other hand, Kerry might be less incompetant, but I dont want his agenda in the white house. So I voted badnarik. I didnt want the blame for either of those ????heads being elected.

If bush gets us some pro-gun supremes I will be genuinely surprised. I really think he is going to ???? us the first chance he gets.

[bg]

delete

[mcneill]

Great article, John. If you get a response from Miss Smiley, hope you will post it here.

Particularly liked your position of being a "one-issue voter" - that issue being Freedom. Have to remember to use that one. :)

Jim

[jimpeel]

John,

For such an esteemed author, she certainly doesn't seem to know the difference between a dialogue and a diatribe.

[jimpeel]

I cross-posted the thread header links to the MSN Groups and someone posted this.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/purcell/s_272391.html
Religious-right straw men

By Tom Purcell
Sunday, November 14, 2004

Our intellectual class would call a fellow I know a member of the "religious right." He's 62, married to the same woman for 39 years and a devout Christian. He's a millionaire who volunteered to help Bush win re-election.

The left alleges that such greedy, anti-gay fellows are the reason Bush won. Karl Rove exploited their ignorance and narrow-mindedness, you see, and that is how he secured a Bush win.

But this "straw man" stereotype falls to pieces when you learn more about the fellow I know.

He came of age during the JFK era. Like many at that time, he believed in the power of government to do good. He studied liberal arts, then went on for a master's degree in sociology. His dream was to run a government housing project to help the poor, and for a few years he did.

But he had to quit that job. He had met a lovely girl during sophomore year in college. She went on to become a social worker, too. They married and soon had their first of two children. They decided it best for their family that she stay home with their daughter. He would have to find a job that offered better pay.

He tried his hand as a stockbroker and discovered he had a knack for numbers and making deals. Eventually he started his own business. He helped others successfully invest in oil, gas and real estate. By the time he was 40, he was a millionaire.

And then he hit a wall. His family faced some difficult challenges. His wealth was not filling him up. There had to be more to this life, and there was. He had a spiritual experience and has been a devout Christian ever since.

For the last 20 years, he and his wife had done extensive volunteer work. They deliver meals to the elderly, tutor inner-city kids and support a number of volunteer organizations. He's embarrassed to share all these details, which is why he didn't want me to reveal his name.

Now he's taking on one of his biggest projects -- a charter school. In his city, only 20 percent of minority kids are reading at grade level. He knows that education is their only hope. So he found a dilapidated building in the heart of a struggling area and he is bringing people together to make the school a reality. He goes to that old building every day and he prays.

If you met this fellow, you'd have no idea he was a rich, Christian, Republican conservative. He drives a 12-year-old car with 200,000 miles on the odometer. He dresses more like an off-duty welder than a country club member.

If you had to guess, you'd think he voted for Clinton. And he did. You'd think he is a spirited, fun-loving fellow who is tolerant of the way people live. And he is. He has friends from every political ideology, friends from different religions, friends from the inner city, friends who are gay.

He'll be the first to tell you that Republicans have some extremist fringes in their party, some of them religious. He cringes when Jerry Falwell talks and says most Christians feel the same way. But despite what the left believes, this fringe is just that -- a fringe.

He'll also tell you there are extremist elements in the Democratic Party, and right now they are running the show. The image of Whoopi Goldberg cussing up a storm while John Kerry and his wife laughed was profound. The image of Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter during the Democrat convention was also telling.

That's why he voted for Bush instead of Kerry. Like Bush or hate him, he says what he's going to do, then he does it, and that is why Bush won.

Our intellectual class finds it easier to create religious-right straw men, then blame their stereotypical creation for all their woes.

It's a lot easier than thinking.

Tom Purcell, a Pittsburgh native, is a free-lance writer living in Alexandria, Va. E-mail him at TomPurcell@aol.com. You can also visit him on the Web at www.TomPurcell.com

[io333]

Your party is reeling right now. It is as ripe as it's ever been for being taken over by the Libertarian Party.


I've been tossing this idea around in my head for about a year. I think it is the only long term solution. We all know that the Republicans take us for granted and would stick us in the back in a second if they knew they could get away with it. As a person who runs around in mostly Democrat circles, I can tell you that it many Democrats are not that far from a Libertarian line of thinking. The primaries is where it can happen.

To take the party however, the old guard has to be voted out. That would be Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, Waxman, Boxer, Clinton. If all the libertarians nationwide worked on running viable, winnible candidates in the primaries against them, it could work. If Daschel can be taken down, I don't see how the others can't be equally vulnerable.

Wouldn't it be neat if the Republicans had to *compete* for our votes.

[BigG]

The Libertarian Party should take over or more likely be absorbed into the Demo Party. From the posts I read here, they are more similar than different. That will give the Dems .000001% more of a power base and some more angry members to wave their arms around and spray spittle. ;)

[Art Eatman]

Cool it, BigG. That's not a High Road way to phrase things...

Nuff sed.

Art

[The_Antibubba]

Hell, the Libertarians can't even run their OWN party. :rolleyes:

It's like herding cats.

[shermacman]

I read Smiley's 'article' the day it came out. I have read John Ross before. I am a flyover Redneck in Massachusetts. All I can say is...I will not give away the secret. :cool: My only observation is that Libertarians and DemocRATs are oil and water. Socialism, Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Liberals and Leftists are all about increased control by the State. They all want the Nanny to take care of us. I don't see how Libertarians are going to join up with that crowd. The hatred on the Left is blinding. Good writing, Mr. Ross!

[Trisha]

Not bad, not bad at all - but one question, if I may?

To you, are the words (and their connotations) 'Freedom,' and 'Liberty' interchangeable? They seem to be for some people. I ask only because you made such a point of choosing 'Freedom.'

A good article - and I'd just bet she'd love tickets to the next 'Trekkie' convention in her neck of the woods, um, concrete jungle. . .

Trisha

[Art Eatman]

"Freedom" and "Liberty" have been used interchangeably for longer than I've been around.

"Liberty" is really more in terms of freedom from government interference in one's daily life. "Freedom" is more in that arena that can descend into "License". :) Most Hollyweirdos can't distinguish between the latter...

Art

[Yowza]

My favorite line from the Smiley piece...The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. Just makes me go :confused:. So in order to become informed and knowledgeable, we have to accept being told what to do by head-in-the-clouds idealists? Whatever.

Rick

[CaesarI]

yeah, I noticed that right off the bat too Yowza.
The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

She hit up on some real truth in the first part, the rest of it translates as: our propaganda does not work on them.

I've given thought to the idea of a Libertarian takeover of the Dems since I first read Ross' articles on abortion. I am hopeful, but not optimistic. On the other hand, if anyone can pull it off, Ross can.

As it stands, I believe, like many, that the Repubicans are closer to Libertarians than the Dems. I base this not just on party platforms, but on individual Dems and Reps I've talked to and been friends with. I've talked many Reps into a more Lib position, I have not successfully done so with Dems. There are more than a few Reps in the party who are sympathetic to some sort of moderate form of Libertarianism. Regretably, the Neo-Con/Bush wing, is not. In Colorado, Pete Coors (who only just barely lost) was a prime example of this breed.

-Morgan