David Brooks, the nice, genial, self-hating New Yorker, and vicious conservative, is probably right. I sense that for much of America, at least the Red states, see most of the Democratic candidates as effete (if they used such language) and totally out of touch. Certainly a condescending lot. The more Democrats claim to want to raise taxes on the rich to make things more equitable for "regular folk," the more selfsame folk resent it.
If you need evidence of this condescension, you need go no further than this Mother Jones column. Looking at "NASCAR dads" through the prism of a Margaret Mead-like anthropologist's microscope, the column makes the common misperception among liberals that if we could only educate these poor boobs that, in fact, Bush is the worse thing that could happen to them, and that Bush cares for the rich, not the blue collar worker, they'd come over to our side.
It simply won't work. Since the sixties, the Republican party has effectively convinced the south and middle America that they're for 1.) state's rights (i.e., southern separatism), 2.) the silent majority (i.e., white men), and 3.) rugged individualism (i.e, lower taxes for some, while driving more and more subsidies back to...the south and middle America in the form of farm subsidies and FEMA grants when the trailer park blows away). Not to sound too condescending myself.
Gore ran on a platform of fighting for the little guy. Who wants to be thought of as a little guy?
If you want proof of this, take a look at the governor's race in Mississippi. Haley Barbour, the fat cat insider actually has a good chance to beat Ronnie Musgrove, a real-live former blue collar worker. Barbour, a legitimate piece of sleaze, hasn't lived in the state for years and runs a lobbying firm that has been about as effective as any other organization in making sure that manufacturing firms leave the state, oil prices stay high, and contaminated sites go uncleaned, somehow is perceived as a man of the people (some people, anyway).
"Before his candidacy, Barbour said that he viewed politics as 'a game' and, according to Charles Lewis, that 'if the terms and conditions are right, I don't have anything that isn't for sale except my wife and children.' ...One of his contradictions is how such a congenial [there's that word again] man can be so blithely capable of behavior that others consider unethical. When he began the job as party chairman, Barbour promisded to divest himself of his lobbying concerns, but never did. As a gubernatorial candidate, he has again not severed his financial ties. 'You can be sure that everyone in town knows it's still haley's firm, and sitting lobbyists making millions of dollars influencing government should not be simultaneously running for office,' Lewis says.
"Recent disclosures that Barbour's lobbying partners, Griffith and Rogers, are two of the principals in New Bridge Strategies, a company that somewhat impatiently describes itself as brokering 'areas of opportunity' for American businessmen in postwar Iraq, has led Barbour to disclaim any real connection to the outfit. Yet, New Bridge Strategies shares an address with Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and Barbour previously served on the advisory boards of two New Bridges affiliate companies."
"...And what route does a man with a cartographer's knowledge of the Washington political geography take when he ventures outside the Beltway? During an appearance at a DeSoto County Catholic school, in a somewaht cryptic attempt to express his support for Head Start programs, which help poor children, Barbour said: 'Head Start is a godsend for Mississippi. Some of those kids in it would be better off sittingup on a piano bench at a whorehouse than where they are now.'"
Fascinating. Head Start has a way of screwing with the heads of people who claim to support it while simultaneously trying to kill it.
The race in Mississippi is important, as the article concludes:
"At the moment, the Mississippi's governor's race is too close to call. Should Barbour win, his many connections could well be beneficial to a small, impoverished state [I doubt that]. But would this be good for American politics? After all, it was Walt Whitman who described lobbyists as 'crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combings and born freedom sellers of the earth.' And just 11 years ago, Ross Perot received 19 percent of the popular presidential vote as an outsider inveighing against lobbyists and special interests. That now, Haley Barbour, the consummate Washington insider, merits reasonable electoral consideration for state office is surely an indication of how doominant the roles of money and influence have become in American politics. And Barbour may be only the beginning. If he prevails in November, Alan Simpson says that other lobbyists will soon follow. 'They see he can win,' Simpson says, 'a lot of those other guys will say, 'I'm gonna give it a try.'"
Meanwhile, the blogosphere is torn by Gregg Easterbrook's column regarding the influence -- and responsibility -- of Jews in Hollywood. The remarks were anti-semitic, quit defending him!
I don't believe ESNP should have fired him, though. His column was great and he didn't give his sermon on filmic violence (I can't wait to see Kill Bill Part 1) on ESPN's web site, and it had nothing to do with football. But I suspect it has more to do with their fear that they would be seen as having a double standard if they were seen as forcing Rush out, but letting Gregg get a bye (yes, yes, Limbaugh resigned, as King Kaufman notes, but it was pretty clear there was significant pressure from within ESPN), than with the fact that ESPN is owned by Eisner's Disney.
What sport does Mahathir write about? Or Bill Boykin? Boykin should be fired, though. Generals are not supposed to give political speeches. And intelligence chiefs are not supposed to be stoopid. Oh, I forgot, he's intelligence chief for the pentagon, and we now know how intelligent those guys are.
*****
Allan Barra is correct, New York Yankee fans are smarter than other baseball fans. They just know when to keep their hands to themselves...and when not to.
I was at the game on Saturday night (a losing effort for a Yankee team still exhausted from Game 7's ending Friday morning). Sitting in the front row next to the left field foul poll, the Marlin's Mike Lowell hit a high fly ball that went deep to left. Me, and everyone else sitting in the area, knew that we had to let Matsui have a chance to catch it. I looked around after he did, and there was a look of relief on the faces of everyone, that no one stuck their hand out to grab it.
If you need evidence of this condescension, you need go no further than this Mother Jones column. Looking at "NASCAR dads" through the prism of a Margaret Mead-like anthropologist's microscope, the column makes the common misperception among liberals that if we could only educate these poor boobs that, in fact, Bush is the worse thing that could happen to them, and that Bush cares for the rich, not the blue collar worker, they'd come over to our side.
It simply won't work. Since the sixties, the Republican party has effectively convinced the south and middle America that they're for 1.) state's rights (i.e., southern separatism), 2.) the silent majority (i.e., white men), and 3.) rugged individualism (i.e, lower taxes for some, while driving more and more subsidies back to...the south and middle America in the form of farm subsidies and FEMA grants when the trailer park blows away). Not to sound too condescending myself.
Gore ran on a platform of fighting for the little guy. Who wants to be thought of as a little guy?
If you want proof of this, take a look at the governor's race in Mississippi. Haley Barbour, the fat cat insider actually has a good chance to beat Ronnie Musgrove, a real-live former blue collar worker. Barbour, a legitimate piece of sleaze, hasn't lived in the state for years and runs a lobbying firm that has been about as effective as any other organization in making sure that manufacturing firms leave the state, oil prices stay high, and contaminated sites go uncleaned, somehow is perceived as a man of the people (some people, anyway).
"Before his candidacy, Barbour said that he viewed politics as 'a game' and, according to Charles Lewis, that 'if the terms and conditions are right, I don't have anything that isn't for sale except my wife and children.' ...One of his contradictions is how such a congenial [there's that word again] man can be so blithely capable of behavior that others consider unethical. When he began the job as party chairman, Barbour promisded to divest himself of his lobbying concerns, but never did. As a gubernatorial candidate, he has again not severed his financial ties. 'You can be sure that everyone in town knows it's still haley's firm, and sitting lobbyists making millions of dollars influencing government should not be simultaneously running for office,' Lewis says.
"Recent disclosures that Barbour's lobbying partners, Griffith and Rogers, are two of the principals in New Bridge Strategies, a company that somewhat impatiently describes itself as brokering 'areas of opportunity' for American businessmen in postwar Iraq, has led Barbour to disclaim any real connection to the outfit. Yet, New Bridge Strategies shares an address with Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and Barbour previously served on the advisory boards of two New Bridges affiliate companies."
"...And what route does a man with a cartographer's knowledge of the Washington political geography take when he ventures outside the Beltway? During an appearance at a DeSoto County Catholic school, in a somewaht cryptic attempt to express his support for Head Start programs, which help poor children, Barbour said: 'Head Start is a godsend for Mississippi. Some of those kids in it would be better off sittingup on a piano bench at a whorehouse than where they are now.'"
Fascinating. Head Start has a way of screwing with the heads of people who claim to support it while simultaneously trying to kill it.
The race in Mississippi is important, as the article concludes:
"At the moment, the Mississippi's governor's race is too close to call. Should Barbour win, his many connections could well be beneficial to a small, impoverished state [I doubt that]. But would this be good for American politics? After all, it was Walt Whitman who described lobbyists as 'crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combings and born freedom sellers of the earth.' And just 11 years ago, Ross Perot received 19 percent of the popular presidential vote as an outsider inveighing against lobbyists and special interests. That now, Haley Barbour, the consummate Washington insider, merits reasonable electoral consideration for state office is surely an indication of how doominant the roles of money and influence have become in American politics. And Barbour may be only the beginning. If he prevails in November, Alan Simpson says that other lobbyists will soon follow. 'They see he can win,' Simpson says, 'a lot of those other guys will say, 'I'm gonna give it a try.'"
Meanwhile, the blogosphere is torn by Gregg Easterbrook's column regarding the influence -- and responsibility -- of Jews in Hollywood. The remarks were anti-semitic, quit defending him!
I don't believe ESNP should have fired him, though. His column was great and he didn't give his sermon on filmic violence (I can't wait to see Kill Bill Part 1) on ESPN's web site, and it had nothing to do with football. But I suspect it has more to do with their fear that they would be seen as having a double standard if they were seen as forcing Rush out, but letting Gregg get a bye (yes, yes, Limbaugh resigned, as King Kaufman notes, but it was pretty clear there was significant pressure from within ESPN), than with the fact that ESPN is owned by Eisner's Disney.
What sport does Mahathir write about? Or Bill Boykin? Boykin should be fired, though. Generals are not supposed to give political speeches. And intelligence chiefs are not supposed to be stoopid. Oh, I forgot, he's intelligence chief for the pentagon, and we now know how intelligent those guys are.
*****
Allan Barra is correct, New York Yankee fans are smarter than other baseball fans. They just know when to keep their hands to themselves...and when not to.
I was at the game on Saturday night (a losing effort for a Yankee team still exhausted from Game 7's ending Friday morning). Sitting in the front row next to the left field foul poll, the Marlin's Mike Lowell hit a high fly ball that went deep to left. Me, and everyone else sitting in the area, knew that we had to let Matsui have a chance to catch it. I looked around after he did, and there was a look of relief on the faces of everyone, that no one stuck their hand out to grab it.
posted by John at 11:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home