Eccentric Flower:200911/Well

Columbina:

A somewhat less cynical perspective

From Sullivan:

Putting aside the very real and very good point about how the rules of the game have changed, I want to focus on the point about the Catholic campaign in Maine. Frankly, I would rather believe that the voters of Maine were convinced by an onslaught of Catholic propaganda, especially in the habitant parts of the state where voters still actually take seriously anything their priest advises them to do.

In short, I find it less cynical to believe the voters of Maine are merely gullible, rather than take Iain's explanation, which would imply that they are evil.

-- 16:05, 4 November 2009 (GMT)

Columbina:

Another interesting comment from Sullivan last night, not pertinent to the above, but about the various elections:

Shame they're directing their wrath at the wrong people. But then, who do they have to direct their wrath to? Even throwing out the people who were most apposite to the financial messes wouldn't have helped the base problem, which I spoke about yesterday but which you didn't read: The nature of our economy is fundamentally changing, and it ain't going back to what it was.

This is going to hurt, no matter who is nominally in charge, and it's going to hurt the already-battered and hugely embittered rust-belt type states more than anyone else.

-- 16:13, 4 November 2009 (GMT)

Thomas:

I hope you will get to posting about the Economist. As I would like to learn were the articles you found worth thinking about the same ones that interested me.

-- 16:46, 4 November 2009 (GMT)

Danima:

I couldn't even provoke rebukes from anyone yesterday.

I was laid out sick and away from home, and am just now catching up. So, er, for shame! I hope that tides you over.

-- 19:42, 4 November 2009 (GMT)

Iain:

which is possibly the most cynical statement that's been made anywhere in my little circle of friends and regulars in the last decade

I point out that I've been saying pretty much the same thing more or less since this all started. It cannot possibly have been a surprise to you that I repeated it.

In short, I find it less cynical to believe the voters of Maine are merely gullible, rather than take Iain's explanation, which would imply that they are evil.

I certainly didn't say that. Or even imply that.

The difference is, based on Iain's reading of Maine's collective personality, he finds the result wholly unsurprising, whereas I find it wholly surprising. We can't both be right.

Oh, it's not about Maine's collective personality. It's about the country's collective personality. On some things, the states really aren't that different from each other. I suspect the last time this country actually voted in a civil right for anyone was when women got the vote in national elections ... and that nearly failed. (As an indicator of how long things may take, it is perhaps worth noting that Louisiana didn't ratify the 19th Amendment until 1970, and Mississippi not until 1984. Not that it mattered, of course; they were subject to its rules in any event. But it is illustrative.)

And the stuff about Maine's Catholic personality won't fly. If 538's research is to be believed, Maine is the least religiously-observant state in the union. The Catholic Church may have a certain presence, but it does seem to be cordially ignored most of the time. I can't imagine that after ignoring it on birth control and other issues, Mainers suddenly said, "Wait! Omigawd! We're Catholics! How can we forget that? We hate the gays! Well, let's go vote all Catholic, then!" No. Sorry, they don't get to use that out. This was straight-up plain old primate bigotry, and they get to own that.

And I decline to count Washington state's chickens until they're fully hatched, thank you kindly. Granted, it's likely to just pass, at least for now. But the rural/urban divide on how it's passing is quite spectacular. And it's notable that it's a "no, this really isn't marriage, we promise you" resolution. And at that, it started as an attempt by We The People to reverse an act of the legislature.

It may just be that as some civil rights go, you have to go through the process of "Separate But Equal > Separate Is Not Equal > Actual Equality Thanks to Legislatures and Courts". Going from nothing to everything may be more of a jump than most people can allow others to make.

-- 21:50, 4 November 2009 (GMT)

Columbina:

I agree you did not say that people are evil. It is, however, to my mind at least, a natural corollary of what you did say. If this history never to vote in any expansion of human rights unless forced to is, as you say, a matter of "primate bigotry," then it speaks very poorly for most of us primates.

You'll notice that at no time have I said your assessment is wrong. I don't know that it's wrong. I do know that if it is true, it is exceedingly depressing.

-- 22:06, 4 November 2009 (GMT)

Columbina:

Funny thing, others are contemplating this too. Rod Dreher, who was a decent fellow in college before he lost his mind, says there's no way half the country is bigots. Any discussion which finds me even vaguely on the same side as Dreher is one where I immediately check my premises. Ta-Nehisi Coates replies to Dreher's thinking (Dreher's quote is included in that link):

Another really depressing view heard from!

And then it hit me (and I apologize for going there, but you'll see, I don't play this card unless I have a good reason):

Iain is an astute and sane observer. And is black. Coates is an astute and sane observer. And is also black.

Lest you think I am grasping, Coates himself makes it explicit further on in his comments:

Yes, I suppose that would give you a different perspective, wouldn't it?

So, having entered all of this into evidence, I am forced to conclude that Iain, and Coates, are right, Dreher and I are wrong (well, Dreher's always wrong, no surprise there), and that the majority of the people in this nation are indeed poorly-evolved, hateful, mouth-breathing, bigoted xenophobes (using xenophobe in the very broad sense of "fears anything that doesn't look like what they see in the mirror.")

Having conceded this, I am going to go hide under my bed now until the human race evolves.

-- 23:26, 4 November 2009 (GMT)

Bunny42:

Couple that with the "Nation of Sheep" theory, and it's a wonder anything has ever been accomplished in the direction you are addressing here. And, I'm afraid, you're gonna be under that bed for a long time...

-- 03:47, 5 November 2009 (GMT)

Columbina:

On the question of whether the people who vote other people's rights down are bigots, Nancy points out sensibly that it doesn't matter a bit:

-- 15:39, 5 November 2009 (GMT)

Ysabel:

So, having entered all of this into evidence, I am forced to conclude that Iain, and Coates, are right, Dreher and I are wrong (well, Dreher's always wrong, no surprise there), and that the majority of the people in this nation are indeed poorly-evolved, hateful, mouth-breathing, bigoted xenophobes (using xenophobe in the very broad sense of "fears anything that doesn't look like what they see in the mirror.")

Yes. Only you said it kinder than I would've.

(This won't surprise you.)

-- 23:32, 13 November 2009 (GMT)