A "BrokeBack" Backlash? The Political Fallout from The Oscars

[Yavin4]

In a sane world, American politics would be focused on complex life and death issues like the Iraq occupation, the healthcare crisis, the Katrina clean-up, and potential terrorist attacks. However, we don't live in a sane world. We live in a world where the MSM is literally controlled by Karl Rove, and with that said, I can see major political points being made about how liberals are out of touch with American values because they bestowed the best picture award on a story about two men in love.

Rove and the Republicans will use the film and its award as a wedge issue to get White, working class Christians to once again vote against their economic interest and vote for protecting their values from the Hollywood liberal elite. That's right. Forget about the port deal with Dubai. Forget about the 25,000 American casualties in Iraq and the impending civil war. Forget about losing your healthcare. Forget about the environment. Forget about the Katrina disaster. Forget about all of that. You should vote to stop two men from having sex.

[givemebackmycountry]

1. I got a better idea....

How about we only prevent Republicans from having sex?

[fishwax]

8. hey, now, i never would have been born

:rofl:

[Selatius]

2. You know the Republicans are weak when they do this.

They have shit for answers on health care, public education, the war in Iraq, the environment, the Katrina disaster, etc. They resort to gay marriage, abortion, evolution, and other wedge issues as a result.

[daleanime]

3. Actually I'm hoping for....

"Good night and good luck" to pull out the dark horse win.

[BattyDem]

4. "Brokeback Mountain" has made $78,906,000 in the US

Obviously, it's not just "Hollywood Liberals" who saw this movie. In fact, those profits suggest that "middle America" isn't as worried about gay people as the Fundies want people to believe. If anything, it exposes the RW lie - they DON'T represent the values of America. :evilgrin:


Box Office source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=brokebackmountain.htm

[Skittles]

5. I resented being told that "mainstream folk" would not see this movie

I'm a middle-aged straight gal and I loved this movie; I live in Texas and I can tell you the theater audience was VERY diverse

[MuseRider]

7. It took a while to get to my city

but it has been here for weeks now. That is not usual for a movie that actually challenges RW ideology. It was the same with Syriana, I think it is still here and it opened on December 9th. I can't say what the crowds are like because I went during the Super Bowl so there were not many there. But, since it is still here it must be bringing in the crowds in the backyard of Fred Phelps.

[JackBeck]

10. And the budget for the film was only $14 million.

[populistdriven]

6. They will EXPLOIT the hell outta this

During 04 a coulter look alike fundie was creeping door to door in my hood with flyers claiming that Kerry supported Gay Boy Scout Troop Leaders

We can expect tons of distortions and lies that exploit the emotionally vulnerable people, they ALWAYS do it

We should do the same with Gannon but keep it honest

I don't care what it takes to Impeach GW Bush.

If Impeaching GW takes standing in an intersection in my underwear holding a Gannon sign for 8 hours I will do it.

[malaise]

9. In case you don't realize

Bush and Rove no longer represent mainstream America -100% - 36% = 64% who don't give a rat's ass what they think. I can't wait to see John Stewart laughing at them later. Tonight is the first time in ages I'm looking forward to the Oscars.

By the way Crash or Good Night and Good Luck could win Best Picture tonight. The way I see it, there are no movies this year that help Bushco
http://www.oscars.com/nominees/list.html

Remembr Bushco has lost the plot.

[davidinalameda]

11. so it's up to our candidates to get the real issues back to the forefront

and educate the voters on what really matters

[Mabus]

12. Gay marriage referenda actually benefitted Kerry

I'm slowly making my way through Franken's The Truth with Jokes and he mentioned a study by Stephen Ansolabehere and Charles Stewart III, two MIT professors, whose analysis of the 2004 presidential election concluded that the gay marriage initiative actually benefitted Kerry with a backlash vote. As I understand it the gay marriage issue has as much support as Bush's mandate - it is how the GOP is spinning it not reality.

Truth in Numbers

Moral values and the gay-marriage backlash did not help Bush

Stephen Ansolabehere and Charles Stewart III

8 The 2004 presidential election has been termed the “values election.” In one widely discussed exit poll, the plurality of voters (22 percent) ranked “moral values” at the top of their list of concerns, and of that group 80 percent voted for George Bush. In addition, 11 states passed ballot questions that wrote bans on gay marriage into state constitutions. These referenda, according to some analysts, galvanized the Christian right, mobilizing voters who might otherwise have stayed at home. They came to the polls to strike a blow for traditional values, and they cast their ballots for George Bush while they were at it. Were this line of reasoning correct, John Kerry’s defeat could be laid directly at the feet of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who authored the court’s decision legalizing gay marriage in the state.

***

Consider the case of Ohio: John Kerry lost Ohio, a state with a ballot initiative and substantial efforts by the Christian right to mobilize voters. But Kerry won a greater percentage of the vote than Gore had (48.9 percent rather than 48.2 percent). Indeed, Bush lost vote share in each of the three battleground states with gay-marriage bans on the ballot, falling from 49.7 percent of the overall two-party vote in these states in 2000 to 49.6 percent in 2004. In contrast, Bush gained vote share in the battleground states that did not vote on gay marriage: in Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Bush’s combined 50.4 percent of the vote represented a one-percentage-point increase since 2000.

At the state level, then, marriage referenda seem not to have worked to Bush’s advantage. If we move down to the county level, we find even firmer support for this conclusion. In states with gay marriage on the ballot, Bush gained additional support in the counties he carried in 2000. But in these same states he also lost votes in Democratic counties generally and—perhaps more surprisingly—in evenly divided counties. The overall result is that the polarization of the electorate over gay marriage aided Kerry, not Bush.

***

The interpretation of Bush’s 2004 victory will surely shape the agenda of his second term. Many commentators have described the election as a triumph of the Christian right, which rallied around “moral values” using the threat of gay marriage as a catalyst. This interpretation, if it takes hold, will embolden those on the right within the Bush administration. It will also lead Democrats in the wrong direction as they respond to their loss. John Kerry’s running mate, Senator John Edwards, has already commented that “voters have to believe that our values—my values and the values of other Democratic leaders—are the same values they believe in.” The evidence shows that the Republican victory rests more on fear of terrorism and an election-year uptick in the economy than on the activism of the party’s right wing. Responding to the tangible worries of the vast middle of the political spectrum rather than a polarizing moral agenda should be the basis of Democratic strategy over the next four years.

Stephen Ansolabehere is a professor of political science at MIT and the co-author of The Media Game and Going Negative.

Charles Stewart III is a professor of political science at MIT and the author of Budget Reform Politics.

Originally published in the February/March 2005 issue of Boston Review

source: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/ansolastewart.html

[fujiyama]

15. I don't completely buy the analysis

Bush increased his overall vote share in every state where gay marriage amendments were on the ballot. The only two he didn't win were MI and OR (though OH is questionable).

Tolerance of gay people is likely higher now than it was in years past, but that doesn't mean we should delude ourselves into believing that homophobia and fear of gay marriage is not an effective wedge issue. It is and Rove and the repukes were successful in expoiting it.

The analysis looks at the two party vote share but I don't believe that is very useful. It is especially important to not neglect the lack of Nader in MN and OR, two of Nader's stronger states.

[Mabus]

16. You brought up some really interesting ideas - thank you

One of the reasons I love DU is the discourse and exchange of ideas, your post is an example of this. I like it when someone makes me stop and question why I have cited something. As I said, I found the article I cited because I just finished that portion of Franken's book so it was still fresh in my mind. But I digress, your questions made me look a bit further. What I was looking at were things like who are these people, who paid for the study, what was the purpose of their study, what else have they done - you know, the type of questions I should ask whenever someone cites a study in support of their argument. Anyway, one of the first hits I found was an paper called "Purple America" written by Stephen Ansolabehere, Jonathan Rodden and James M. Snyder, Jr. (all of MIT). It is a 40 page study in *.pdf format and can be found here: http://web.mit.edu/jrodden/www/materials/purplefinal.pdf

I'm reading through this study to get an idea of where at least one of these guys is coming from and to see if there is a hidden agenda by any of the study's sponsors (once I figure out stuff like why the study was done and see if I can sense any political biases of the authors - the latter is obviously subjective) If I find anything that is pertient to the points you brought up I will let you know. Otherwise, this is a pretty interesting read. Although, right now, I find myself watching the Academy Awards for the first time in close to thirty years - I've been to a few of the local watch parties but never actually watched. :eyes:

Thanks for making me educate myself more. Again, I'll let you know if I find anything relevant in my search. :hi:

[fujiyama]

17. It was an interesting analysis

even though I don't completely share the same conclusions. It was a good read though and thanks for the link. His numbers are not what I have a problem with, so we should not give the Christian right too much credit. Their victory has definetely been exagerrated and overblown. But it's important to remain vigilant against these amendments and not underestimate the appeal they have to many (including many Dems unfortunately).

One thing that must be noted is that in the case of FL, there may not have been a gay marriage amendment on the ballot - but there was another 'wedge' issue thrown in - parental notification for abortion for minors. This likely brought some fundies out of the woodwork. The analysis showed that Bush's main advantage was increasing his vote share in Bush friendly counties, which actually was Rove's plan all along.

Ultimately "values" likely were not the only thing to "win" Bush this election (if we are to completely believe the numbers in the first place). The pukes through the media were able to define Dems as being weak on terrorism. I also think the Swift Liars were effective as well and not responded to properly.

[Mabus]

18. I concur

I see the GOP giving credit to the Christian Right for the election as valid as Bush declaring a mandate. To me, the funny thing is, they are using the Christian Right. They're using the Christians as the wedge. They are attempting to wage their own little holy war both here and abroad. Additionally, their use of Christianity has helped their "war" in Iraq by subliminally perpetuating their "US vs. Them" (btw, that can be read as "us" or "U.S.") theme for a long time and has now come back to bite them with the Dubai deal.

I also think that you're correct on your second point. Finally, I think the bottom line is economic issues and not values. I live in college town and I hear students at the local hang-outs and parties (yes, I'm old but I still go to parties that college kids go to) who are talking about moving home after graduation because of the job market. I was in college in the days of signing bonuses for even C students because jobs were so plentiful. The days of wining and dining college grads has really slowed down, at least around here.

I was a delegate at the National Convention and I was put off by the conformity and orchestration of it. When you compare the two conventions ours was too focused on being optimistic while the GOP went right for the throat. Unfortunately for the world fear won out with too many who are too busy to take notice of the truth.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

13. The one movie theater in my town didn't show the movie. I asked the owner

why he wasn't airing it and he said, "I don't believe in that stuff." I said to him, "That's just silly. It's the number one movie in the country and will probably win the Oscar. But no big deal, I'll just drive to Miami to see it." Then the guy said, "Actually, we couldn't get it." But that was just bs because we get all the big films. He's a major jerk anyway. When King Kong was playing he brought his two kids to see it (I was sitting in the row right behind them) and then he left. They looked to be about four and five years old, and they were TERRIFIED when the zombie people came on, and started crying. This man wants to control what I watch at the movies, but abuses his children by making them sit through a movie that terrifies them.
:rant:

[stopbush]

14. I don't care what Rove et al do or think. It's inconsequential.

Progressive ideas will be advanced a lot faster if we minimize the importance of
such knuckle-dragging strategeries to both ourselves and the rest of the world.

Who cares what they think?