Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1
The way I see it, if they cast votes for candidates that legislate discrimination, like it or not, they're discriminators because their votes led to discrimination. It's that simple. Without those votes, the discriminator wouldn't be in office. Look at the women's issues like reproductive healthcare and abortion which Republicans - especially through the south - are legislating against. It's sexist. I know Republicans who swear they aren't sexist and don't support that stuff, but they vote for the politicians who cause it, which means their votes empower it, which means they are to blame for legalized sexism.
Too many people don't take voting seriously. They're too quick to vote for a letter, a D or an R (usually an R), rather than looking at the issues and asking "Am I OK with empowering racism, sexism, bigotry and hate?" We have less of that here in Oregon, and our vote by mail system is the reason. I've lived in many states before settling in Oregon, but I've never lived somewhere where the voters are as educated on the issues. Granted, even here, we can do better in that regard... but we're on the right track.
|
I'm from the south, and would be considered a radical socialist Obamabot back in Alabama, while being considered one of the oblivious suburban corporate consumer sheeple here. I'm a part of the problem wherever I live, evidently.
Human nature is pretty consistent wherever you go. Once a status quo reached, it tends to reinforce itself. I think PDX is pretty comfortably liberal, and many things can be said casually here, like 'Teabaggers' or 'Vantucky', with little to no social consequences. So in that way, I feel scleeb's pain.
(As an aside, the "n-word" can still be tossed around pretty casually in some public places back home - again with little or no public consequences.)
In particular during the gun debates of the past year, I've found liberals to be just as nasty, dismissive, contemptuous and sanctimonious as any conservative back home discussing social welfare programs or immigration. A key difference between them is that liberals consistently place themselves on a higher secular moral plane than their adversaries and use public shaming to score their rhetorical points. Their mission is to FIX others. To SAVE others from their own ignorance.
Conversely, the average conservative's mission is to be LEFT ALONE. A typical family from rural Montana has not much desire to culturally evangelize a couple from San Francisco and tell them why they need guns in their home.
But if the same couple from the bay reads an article on huffpost, salon, slate or jezebel about fracking in Montana, a mixture of pity and maternal superiority will flash through their minds. "They should STOP that, NOW! Don't their little brains understand what they're doing to the planet?!?! Tsk, tsk , tsk."
Hence, when cities inevitably expand, and new ideas inevitably spring forth from those metropolitan areas, friction will erupt. For people with traditional values form smaller towns, the change is jarring. Gay couples with adopted children next door, a hispanic family down the street that plays salsa or cumbia far into the night, light rail tracks being put in ten minutes away. It's too much change to process at once.
The knee-jerk reaction is to support political candidates that share their concerns. This isn't unique to America, or even the 21st century. Cultural context is always changing. People are always worried about one thing or the other.
So I don't think it's accurate or fair to say that people that voted for a candidate that happens to support misogynist policies is, by proxy, also misogynist. Voters in red states are as clever as people in blue states, and they consciously choose the lesser of the two evils, just like folks in blue states.
It's not like an Obama voter consciously wanted to deny people a public option in medical care, or eagerly wanted NO PROGRESS at all on the regulation of CO2 emissions. Someone who voted for Obama didn't by default want someone occupying the Oval Office with astonishingly bad negotiating skills. The average Obama voter did not want to directly kill 4,000 Muslims via drone strikes, and the blood isn't necessarily on their hands. I think it's a specious argument to make. Obama voters chose the one of two people who they though best represented their interests and values, just like Romney voters, or even Todd Akin voters.
So in sum, I give credence to the point slceeb made, but I also feel that the preposterous SHOULD be openly ridiculed. And that goes for both sides of the aisle. I can cast scorn upon the SEIU for filing a lawsuit against PAW due to lack or affordable housing, and I can also ridicule the Clackamas County Board for their petulant and misguided efforts to undermine the Orange line MAX.
Prev
For those who have taken the time to write a post regarding this particular topic(s) I find their viewpoints extremely interesting and enlightening. Since moving from Seattle to this small town I find it too easy to get caught up in "ones own" view of the world without taking the time, or energy, to hear another viewpoint in an unbiased manner that may, or may not, challenge my comfort level. Thanks... (I hope I made sense...I tend to ramble..)
Linear Mode
