Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Republicans: the Party of the Poor (relatively) and Fertile

The Economist reports that “people worth $1m-10m supported Mr. Bush by a 63-37% margin, whereas those worth more than $10m favoured Mr. Kerry 59-41%.” It also reports that “Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation points out that the fertility rate in the Kerry states is 12% lower than in the Bush states. Vermont, the home of Howard Dean and perhaps the most left-wing state in the country, produces an annual average of 49 children for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age; in Utah, where 71% of the population voted for Mr. Bush, the figure is 91. In deep-blue cities such as San Francisco and Seattle you find more dogs than children.”

Discussions - 13 Comments

Poor and fertile people trust Bush - how sad.

Kirby "Nobush"??


Yeah, I guess the heedless UN-loving rich w/ no kids are such founts of wisdom . . . who are these impoverished red-state breeders to doubt their betters, anyway?

/sarcasm off/

...and of course the right-wing NEVER spoke in a derogatory fashion of the deluded sheep in the heartland who voted for Clinton in ’92 and ’96, right???? The right merely responded with a "well, fair’s fair - I guess those folks know what they’re doing." - right??? Such a short memory.
Are we really supposed to believe that Republicans/(the right-wing) are devoid of any trace of arrogance??

It’s pretty standard for those supporting the loser in an election to doubt the mental functions of those who supported the winner. The real question is, who has the better arguments that a sector of the voters has cast ballots against their own interests (and the interests of their offspring)?

The real question is, who has the better arguments that a sector of the voters has cast ballots against their own interests (and the interests of their offspring)?

Good thing Bradley/Kirby is around to tell us all what’s in our best interests.

It was Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, who nailed Clinton most memorably when Kerrey in 1996 called Clinton "an unusually good liar--unusually good." Kerrey’s is a view that impresses with its prescience, given what came to light during Clinton’s second term.

Brad is a prime example of elite arrogance. And that attitude will keep the Democratic party a minority party for years to come. But hey keep it up. Anything to reduce your seats in congress

Mr. Moser quoted me and then said "Good thing Bradley/Kirby is around to tell us all what’s in our best interests." I didn’t atually DO that. I simply stated that, since both the left and right make claims as to which candidate is the best choice (for the entire population, or for different segments, depending on the analysis), what matters is the quality of the arguments. Everyone engaged in politics and political debate believe that they know what’s best for voters (in other words, which choice is in the voters’ best interests). If simply having an opinion on which candidate (or which political program) would better serve the country (and, by extension, the citizens therein), then I suspect we all are guilty of "arrogance." Again, did most of the right/Republicans respond to Clinton’s election with "well, that’s whom the voters wanted, so Clinton MUST be in their best interest."??

Ooooh, Bradley, so everyone’s arrogant? Thanks for the cogent analysis, man! Where would we be without you? We all tremble before your logical brilliance--you are one in a billion, really.

No, my point was definitely NOT that "everyone’s arrogant." I have no delusions of grandeur about my viewpoints, rouge etat. We’re posting comments on a blog, for god’s sake (apparently a very insular one). If you have some logical brilliance of your own to share, by all means, have at it. Your sarcastic disdain hardly seems necessary, though.

Bradley Streng I: "I suspect we all are guilty of ’arrogance.’"

Bradley Streng II: "No, my point was definitely NOT that ’everyone’s arrogant.’"

Will the real Bradley Streng please stand up?

On second thought, never mind--it’s just not that important. Obviously, you’re like Walt Whitman and you contain multitudes. Plus, you’re exempt from the arrogance charge, while those of us who hold contrary opinions presumably are not. How special for you!

BTW, thanks for letting us all know that we’re posting something called "comments" on something called a "blog." Otherwise the meaning of the "Comments" label above this portion of the webpage might have escaped us. Again, your insight is amazing, and I can’t tell you how grateful I for one feel that you have deigned to spend your precious time enlightening us insular, pathetically arrogant right-wing morons with your bons mots and pearls of wisdom. Be sure to stop by and grace us again with your pellucid thoughts real soon!

My conditional statement:

"If simply having an opinion on which candidate (or which political program) would better serve the country (and, by extension, the citizens therein), then I suspect we all are guilty of ’arrogance.’"

MEANT (as indicated by the quotation marks around arrogance) that I questioned what I see as (much of) the right’s new definition of arrogance. I could have stated it better by saying more explicitly "If simply having an opinion on which candidate would better serve the country IS A TELL-TALE SIGN OF ARROGANCE then I suspect we all are guilty of ’arrogance’" I’m sure you don’t agree, but that should be clear (err...pellucid) enough. Also, despite the straw man that you lobbed, I never said that those "who hold contrary opinions" from mine are arrogant. I simply would not paint everyone on the left OR the right as being arrogant.

I guess I was mistaken to presume that the readers/contributors to this blog would be willing to have a polite exchange. I thought it would be something beyond a Yahoo forum, where civil discourse is all but unheard of. But it seems that overblown sarcasm and juvenile sniping are more likely.

So, enjoy your echo chamber.

Brad, w/ all due respect, can you come up w/ any actual examples of Pubbies in 92 or 96 indulging in irrational diatribes comparable to Moby contemplating secession by the blue states, Nicholson Baker and a UK Guardian columnist meditating in print on the merits of assassination, Michael Moore talking as if people would want to kill themselves over Bush’s win, the UK Mirror asking why 59 million Americans are "so wrong," Lawrence O’Donnell losing it publicly for like the 4th time and ranting abt Bush or John O’Neill, the "humorist" Garrison Keillor "joking" {w/ a straight face and to an approving Chicago audience) that born-again Christians shd not be banned from voting by constitutional amendment, stories about blue-staters seeking psychiatric help to deal w/ the events of Nov 2, Greg Palast screaming fraud in FL (where Bush won by 400K votes), and so on?

I’m assuming that you, as a reasonable liberal interested in dialogue with the other side, would agree that all these well-known stories bespeak over-the-top reactions on the part of at least some Dems and lefties.

And sure, let’s stipulate that lots of Pubbies weren’t thrilled abt Clinton & some even grumbled that he had hoodwinked people (and again, let’s recall that as Comment #6 pointed out, it was Democrat Bob Kerrey who most powerfully underlined Clinton’s remarkable skill at misleading people BEFORE the man’s deceit-riddled 2nd term began). But I must say that I honestly don’t recall Republicans--high-profile or otherwise--descending to anything like the level of crazy and hate-filled discourse that we’ve seen from some prominent Dems & libs lately, w/ their talk of conspiracies, exile, secession, psychotherapy, taking away voting rights, or other loony-bin stuff like that.

Let’s just take one of the episodes I cited. Is there any example of a well-known Republican from 92 or 96 saying anything even remotely like what Keillor said, however "jokingly"? And here’s a thought experiment for you, Brad: Substitute "blacks" or "homosexuals" for "born-again Christians" in Keillor’s "joke" and see if you can work up a sense of just how ugly the remark is. "Juvenile sniping" ain’t in it.

So if you can come up w/ even one instance of a Republican in 92 or 96 musing publicly abt using the Constitution to take the vote away from a whole group of Americans b/c that Republican didn’t like the election result, let’s have the evidence by all means.

Sorry, there is a typo in the 1st paragraph of my post just above.

I meant to write: "’humorist’ Garrison Keillor ’joking’ . . . that born-again Christians SHOULD BE BANNED from voting by constitutional amendment"

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2004/11/republicans-the-party-of-the-poor-relatively-and-fertile.php on line 760

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2004/11/republicans-the-party-of-the-poor-relatively-and-fertile.php on line 760