Let Them Eat War

[otohara]

Why do the very Americans who have been hurt the most by George W. Bush's policies still support his presidency?

George W. Bush is sinking in the polls, but a few beats on the war drum could reverse that trend and re-elect him in 2004. Ironically, the sector of American society now poised to keep him in the White House is the one which stands to lose the most from virtually all of his policies -- blue-collar men. A full 49 percent of them -- and 38 percent of blue-collar women -- told a January 2003 Roper poll they would vote for Bush in 2004. 1

In fact, blue-collar workers were more pro-Bush than professionals and managers among whom only 40% of men and 32% of women, when polled, favor him; that is, people who reported to Roper such occupations as painter, furniture mover, waitress, and sewer repairman were more likely to be for our pro-big business president than people with occupations like doctor, attorney, CPA or property manager. High-school graduates and dropouts were more pro-Bush (41%) than people with graduate degrees (36%). And people with family incomes of $30,000 or less were no more opposed to Bush than those with incomes of $75,000 or more. 2

We should think about this. The blue-collar vote is huge. Skilled and semi-skilled manual jobs are on the decline, of course, but if we count as blue-collar those workers without a college degree, as Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers do in their book Why the White Working Class Still Matters, then blue-collar voters represent 55% of all voters. They are, the authors note, the real swing vote in America. "Their loyalties shift the most from election to election and in so doing determine the winners in American politics."3

This fact has not been lost on Republican strategists who are now targeting right-leaning blue-collar men, or as they call them, "Nascar Dads." These are, reporter Liz Clarke of the Washington Post tells us, "lower or middle-class men who once voted Democratic but who now favor Republicans."4 Nascar Dads, commentator Bill Decker adds, are likely to be racing-car fans, live in rural areas, and have voted for Bush in 2000. Bush is giving special attention to steelworkers, autoworkers, carpenters and other building-trades workers, according to Richard Dunham and Aaron Bernstein of Business Week, and finding common cause on such issues as placing tariffs on imported steel and offering tax breaks on pensions.

http://motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/10/we_558_01.html

[teryang]

1. This is a good analysis

The macho, white, self reliance thing is delusional. With age sometimes comes wisdom to a man. Experience over time and/or education can lift the delusions of white male independence. More older persons tend to vote democratic. More educated persons tend to vote democratic.

What do they think when they have a serious illness in the family and don't have health insurance? What about chronically unemployed or disabled and can't get assistance? Will they see the light when they start losing everything their family owns through no fault of their own? Will they blame their situation on welfare queens? What do they say when one of their loved ones is seriously injured by a hospital or other corporation and they can't get justice because of "tort reform." Then the light goes on for some of these less insightful voters. But usually they are just dumbfounded. They never had to put two and two together before and aren't all that comfortable with abstractions. Mostly they play follow the leader and repeat a few cliches they heard someone else say, either their parents or on tv.

Some don't have the insight to comprehend how their situation is even related to policy matters. Then, there is almost always somewhere for the able bodied male to fall down to. Many simply run away from their responsibilities leaving their spouses and children in extremis to fend for themselves when the going gets tough. These are the some of the same people who screw their kids out of child support.

Many of these voters are just too thick headed to understand the schemes to sabotage medicare and social security, or the necessity of these programs. Of the older working people who still don't see the light, many are grandfathered into union benefits, government pensions and so forth, and don't realize that these plans are not common anymore nor available to many of their children and grandchildren in the "free market." How many people who are not of retirement age will even bother to read or comprehend the so called "prescription drug benefit?"

[otohara]

2. Maybe The Dems Should Go After The NASCAR Moms

who are more concerned with thier children and their children's future, because the dads are clearly not seeing the big picture here.

[Bozvotros]

3. Racism, homophobia, misogyny, machismo

The Four Pillars of Republican success with this group. To court and encourage this thinking, Bush has taken a public stand against affirmative action, come out four square for the Defense of Marriage Act, and staunchly against a women's right to choose. He has postured mightily, affecting a pathetic imitation of Dirty Harry and playing on blue collar men's fears of being seen as weak. This fear makes them afraid to complain as Bush reams them savagely.

This is also why Wesley Clark's candidacy has power to persuade this group more than any other candidate. Regardless of whether he wins the primary races, Clark's military credentials can turn the tables on Bush, lend a cachet of masculine virtue to being a warrior for the down trodden and by comparison make Bush look like the cowardly pansy-assed crook that he is and by association anyone who supports him. We need to win the blue collar vote back to the Democratic fold. If we succeed, expect a landslide victory next November.

[The Magistrate]

4. This Is A Serious Political Problem

And one that is not well understood or appreciated on the left. There are two reasons for this. First, people on the left are by definition materialists of a sort, and are used to judging things by concepts such as class interest, and its personal reflections. Second, persons on the left also by definition have somewhat weaned themselves from such things as nationalism and patriotism and religiousity, and in general feel themselves to be somewhat outside the nations and cultures they are born into. This makes it somewhat difficult for persons on the left to understand people acting against their immediate material interests in response to the promptings of group identity based on familiar totems.

There are literally millions of people who routinely vote against their own immediate self-interest, in terms of economic or other material concerns, because they feel doing so is the right thing to do, in terms of patriotism or religious conviction. They do not do this because they are duped and unaware they are acting against their own immediate interests; they are aware of it, and get a positive thrill of virtue when they do so, because they feel they are thereby being loyal to something greater than themselves, and that is a thing they value above any mere material gain. They are doing what they feel to be best for the group they identify with, the nation, or the faith, and feel it only right to disregard themselves somewhat in serving that larger interest. It is not a sentiment to be sneered at; such sentiments are the basis of human society, even, perhaps especially, of any collective society.

People like this are the common run in the south and west of our country, where the incomes on average are the lowest, and where the reactionary right enjoys genuine mass support. These people gain a great portion of their own sense of self-worth from identification with the country, which they conceive to be the greatest thing in the world, and contemplation of their unity with it is a leading source of solace against their troubles. They gain this by sacrificing for it, just as anything of worth is obtained. They are particularly resistant to criticism of the country, for they perceive it as criticism of themselves, which is a thing few people take kindly to. It does no good to point out evils and flaws about the land to them; it only convinces them you are not one of them, not part of the country, and dangerous to it, which means dangerous to them. You are not a benefactor but a tempter, and to reject you is one more opportunity offered to cement even further their identification with the country they value so, since in many ways, their lives really are shabby and poor, and require that anodyn to be endured.

[Jim Sagle]

5. So what's the solution? (You make it seem hopeless.)

[Rob in B_more]

7. This article made it clear to me,

"it's good jobs, stupid"
(I am not calling anyone stupid, just referencing Clinton's first campaign). I would encourage every candidate to say something every time they open their mouth, about how to get better jobs happening.
If I am a Nascar dad, (I am not that far away, though I could care less about Nascar)and the best I can hope for is being Walmart Associate, then I don't care how well the stock markets doing or if Dick Chenny parrachuted into Pakistan and single handidly hogtied Osama Bin Ladden .
"I want to know if I can pay my bills, plan a decent vacation for my kids, get them an education, and have them taken care of if they get sick." For this demographic, solving these issues has always meant good jobs, any other way around it is tainted with government handouts. Regardless of what other policy or stratedgy is used in education or healthcare, this type of voter will think the real answer is in a better job, and they might be right.

[Jim Sagle]

11. I think The Magistrate is saying that good jobs wouldn't do the trick.

He's saying (I think) that they'd gladly toss those good jobs away for a chance to vote for a phony cowboy.

[bemildred]

12. You have to have schools that teach people to think

and to be independent, and you have to have a market for
ideas. The internet has restored to us the latter, but we
are still in trouble with the former. Back in the 50s and
60s we had fairly good schools as a result of the WWII and
GI bill and so on, but the experience of the 60s and VietNam
seemed to convince the ruling class that educating the masses
might not be such a good thing. The answer is clear enough,
but carrying it out requires political power and will over an
extended period, and that is not to be had at present.

Democracy requires an informed and active citizenry.

[otohara]

6. Ugh, I'm Depressed Now

Sheeple are the majority, we are doomed to lose - the GOP will rule the land

[The Magistrate]

8. Calling Them 'Sheeple', Ma'am

Will not endear you to them.

If you wish to bring someone to your view, the first step is to respect them as they are....

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Adding to that thought

The term sheeple reflects an attitude that is at once defeatist and elitist. It assumes that most people are too easily fooled and will not be persuaded to adopt better judgment when persented with facts and logic.

It is our duty to present the facts and logic. Bush is a liar. We must present the truth to the public. We must do so in the hope that the public will understand and listen to reason.

We must have faith in the democratic process. If we don't, we may as well just pack it up, go home and let the yuppie fascists have their way with us. If we can present our case, we will win.

The first thing we can do to better present our case is to lose that ugly term sheeple.

[otohara]

13. Hard To Respect

change the minds, nor endear those who continue to get the bulk of their news and information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill Safire, FOX News, MSNBC and the other wingnuts who dominate the media.

I use the term sheeple to describe people who rely heavily on those horrible people in the media to do their thinking for them. Sir...

[Martin Eden]

14. Irony and Contradiction

Just because the left votes for the economic interests of the poor and the middle class doesn't make us materialistic. There are many wealthy liberals who benefit financially from the Bush tax cuts, but are in favor of progressive taxation because they feel it is best for the country.

Ironically, it is the right that reaps enormous material benefit from Republican policy -- not the NASCAR dads who vote Republican, but the Republican elite who create those policies and the public perception that it is somehow good for the country.

The gulf between the rich and everyone else is growing, and the children of the working class will no longer be better off than their parents. This is not good for the country, and is contrary to the principles upon which our Republic was founded. Yet when we argue against the ploicies that are driving these wedges of class between Americans, we are accused of being the ones who are waging class warfare.

More irony applies to the patriotism of those who support the current crop of the Republican right wing. The bedrock principles of our democracy include the informed consent of the governed, freedom of speech, and the Bill of Rights -- all of which are suffering under this Republican president and his allies in the corporate media.

When it comes the most patriotic endeavor a nation undertakes -- sending troops into war -- this administration is breaking its most sacred trust when our citizen-soldiers are making the ultimate sacrifice not in defense of our nation and its vital interests, but in service to corporate profit and the hegemonic ambitions of a small coterie of neoconservatives whose radical agenda has been masked by lies and jingoism.

Sure, we on the left are more likely to think of ourselves as part of a global community, but we are also passionate about our country, its ideals, and the positive force we want it to be in the lives of its citizens and in the world. When we see our beloved country straying from this course -- when we see its democracy being subverted, its economy and its security being threatened by mushrooming debt and war being waged under false pretenses -- we recognize that something is dreadfully wrong and we pour our hearts and our efforts into making things right.

America -- Love it and make it Better.

Those who see these efforts as criticism of their country -- and by extension a criticism of themselves -- are ultimately contributing to the destruction of that which they profess to love.

The genius of the corporate elite that drives the policies of the Republican Party is their ability to make a large segment of the population not only vote against their own economic interests, but to associate those policies (and their political front men) with the country itself.

Yes, this is a serious political problem. The challenge is to demonstrate that the good of the country is not synonymous with the policies of the Republic Party, and the Bush administration in particular.

The difficulty is in not triggering the defense mechanism whereby the NASCAR dad automatically rejects anything that challenges the belief system so carefully cultivated by the right's propaganda machine.

Fortunately, we have some things in our favor:

Massive deficits threaten the economic future of the country, and are contrary to traditional conservative principles.

Bush environmental policy threatens the health of all Americans.

This administration has major conflicts of interest -- from appointing industry lobbyists to federal agencies that watchdog those industries to war profiteering (and price-gouging) by Bush corporate cronies.

Bush and his foreign policy team have demonstrably lied to Congress and to the American people in matters of war, and committed a felony by exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

We need to vigorously expose that which we can back up with facts and with arguments that will be very convincing to anyone who honestly pays attention.

And we have to do so in a manner that is respectful to our fellow citizens who love America whom we need to help us make it better.

If our efforts are characterized by anger -- and contempt for those who do not yet see things as we do -- the only attention we will get is the derision heaped upon us by right wing that imperils us all.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Not dissimilar from what the Saudi royal family does.

Take all the oil profits, keep the people down, blame the Great Satan.
Bingo..... Terra-ists!