Letters to the Editor
-
Re: "show some interest in how to make life better for these people"
Drop the condescenion. Show some civility. Show some interest in how to make life better for these people. It's not as emotionally gratifying as maybe indulging in moral outrage at our "stupidity" but it may get you where you want to go.
The problem is that, in my experience, it's showing interest in how to make life better for the less well-off that gets me labelled as condescending in the first place.
As a reasonably well-off Democrat (I'm not wealthy but I make a good salary) I've spent most of my life voting against my own narrow economic interest. And many of those who, unlike me, would not benefit from the GOP's laser-like focus on comforting the comfortable nevertheless vote for them. They do it for the same reasons they are voting for Hillary now, because she and her campaign have adopted the tactics of the right-wing, labelling Obama as an effete elitist, posing as a populist and even questioning his masculinity. And in a minority (but a significant minority) of cases, because they are racists.
-
Little Blue Dot's response didn't really answer anything for me.
Thanks for the clarification that you're referring to Democrats in general, as opposed to Obama, with your claim that we need to show more of an interest in bettering the lives of the rural poor, but that clarification doesn't really answer my criticism.
After two campaigns in a row where Appalachians and rural midwesterners have bitten the hand that feeds them and blown off the party that offers policies with their economic interests at heart, what more do you want us to do policywise and where is your evidence that it will help to do something different than what our candidates have already proposed?
Democrats have shown interest in the working urban and rural poor with their social policies, but the voters from our neck of the woods have been more persuaded by the fact that John Kerry windsurfs; George Bush does a nice fake hick accent; Dick Cheney goes duck hunting; Al Gore doesn't look very natural in a flannel shirt and jeans; going farther back, Michael Dukasis looked silly sitting in a military tank; Democrats want to limit unfettered access to firearms; and Democrats want to give people who have gay sex equal civil rights.
I think it's okay for us to feel a little miffed and frustrated and blow off a little steam about it on the pages of our "elite" online publications, even though some letter writers inevtiably go too far (and those are the guys Joan Walsh chooses to focus upon rather than admitting that the rest of us have a point).
Why isn't it okay for us to be ticked off that so many of our voters apparently intend to vote against their own interests mainly because of the color of Mr. Obama's skin and the false rumors about his connection to a perfectly valid religion?
The question of what Obama and the Democrats need to do to win the hearts and minds of these voters is much harder than you make it out to be, and perhaps the answer lies more in giving in to the fakery that the Republicans are so good at, unfortunately, given what seems to matter to rural voters lately. Do you really think that the Republicans have had more success with these voters because they have more inherent respect for them and demonstrate that they have the interests of the working poor at heart with their policies?
-
@ easmachine
"And for the guy who made a crack about people of the Shenandoah Valley not having Affirmitive Action, I've got news for you."
The Shenandoah Valley was known as the Breadbasket of the Confederacy. It is a rich agricultural area, and my comment never implied anyone there needs affirmative action. I said there is no affirmative action for poor whites. There shouldn't be, either. I have no problem with the program nor do many of the people in rural Appalachia. It doesn't effect their reality. But for those of you who wonder why they don't just go onto a good college, it is because they are competing with many other whites from wealthy backgrounds or who have better social connections. There are only so many scholarships and awards. Most of these people just work straight out of school, and they don't complain. Calling them, as you did, "crybillies" is inappropriate.
-
@ Pain_In_The_Agnostic
Before the 2000 presidential election, West Virginia had been won by the Democratic nominee every time since 1932 (except for the Republican landslides of 1956, 1972, and 1984.) Since 2000, the Republicans have gained seven net seats in both the West Virginia Senate and the West Virginia House of Delegates. However, the Democrats hold 60% of the seats in the Senate and 68% of the seats in the House.
There are Democratic party leaders like Robert Byrd who have done much for the state. How many roads, bridges and schools have been named for him is anybody's guess. But they understand the office of the Presidency affects the entire nation, so while they vote in their own self-interest, they vote their conscience, as well. As you pointed out, they voted for Bush twice. It cost them in 2001 when the Republican-controlled Congress rewrote the Clean Water Act of 2001 that lowered environmental standards and allowed unprecedented strip mining. Bush passed that legislation handily. However, given Obama's record in his own state of IL and his voting for the 2005 Energy Bill, a case could be made that he is just as beholden to special interests in the energy industry as Bush was.
When it comes to the Presidency, most of these values voters care about their taxes and whether a candidate has the nation's best interests at heart. The group that you're referring to is the evangelical voters, and they only make up 20% of the electorate. Most people in Appalachia keep guns for hunting and self-defense. If people in the cities have problems with crime, they should beef up their police force... but leave the second amendment alone!
As for abortion, conservatives feel the federal government oversteps its authority by defining when life begins. However, when they hear about Obama's BAIPA opposition, they recoil in horror at the moral laxity of a "liberal" who would allow babies to suffocate on supply closet shelves. That person may not likely represent their values when it comes to leading "the greatest nation on earth."
These issues are called wedge issues, because when both of the candidates are making promises, and the voters can't really decide who to pick, they trust the one who relates to them best. Thomas Frank's "What's Wrong With Kansas" loses elections year after year. God, guns, gay marriage, abortion and equality are not at the forefront of most voters' concerns. If you can't demonstrate that you understand their way of life, though, they don't trust your campaign promises.
WV sided with the north. That was the whole point of statehood. That is why it isn't VA (which voted for Obama.) No one owned slaves in WV since there's no agriculture in most of the state. When you talk about "forefather's memories" and so forth, you are making a completely irrelevant charge. There is racism in WV, but no more or less than anywhere else. Personally, I think the Obama campaign has set race relations back 20 years. Maybe there needed to be a national dialogue on the subject, but it's been more of a nuisance than a help, especially all the scrutiny of the "bitter whites." It's a non-issue.