White evangelicals, Republicans and wanting to ‘take our country back’

Linda Harvey of the “Christian radio” program Mission America chimes in with her own version of Michael L. Brown’s awful “why have black people betrayed Christianity?” riff following the 2012 election. Harvey says:

Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?

“Some people,” white evangelical radio host Linda Harvey says, “are swayed by race.”

Harvey can’t imagine any reason that black Christians would vote for President Barack Obama other than because he’s black. (I suppose that’s also why Obama won over three-fourths of Asian-American voters and a large majority of women voters — because Obama is an Asian-American woman.)

Harvey goes on to claim, falsely, that Obama’s re-election means “that people of faith should be forced to pay for other people’s abortion-causing drugs … drugs that kill unborn babies.”

And then she speculates sadly on the cause of this tragedy, in which most African Americans have chosen to be Satanic baby-killers rather than real, true Christians:

Some people are swayed by race, giving him the benefit of the doubt; some find it impossible to accept the jaw-dropping reality about his actions though. He has insulted our Lord, our values and our faith in ways too numerous to mention. But folks decide which camp they want to be in: the cool camp, the one with the hip president who likes big government programs and nods at sexual sin, even if great harm comes to children as a result. No, for some people, first they choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it.

There’s just something about Obama that, for Harvey, is an insult to “our Lord, our values and our faith.” Whatever could that certain, ineffable something be? And what do you mean “our,” Kemosabe?

Whenever white evangelicals like Harvey speak of “our Lord, our values and our faith” or of “our country,” it’s always done in a way that excludes — to use Harvey’s phrase there — “some people.”

Just like Michael L. Brown and most of the other white evangelical leaders of white evangelicalism, Linda Harvey would insist that she favors diversity, in principle, and that she would be very pleased to see “our” church become more inclusive. In theory, people like Brown and Harvey can nod along with Alvin Sanders as he outlines his “Mission Lessons From Election Night“:

For 20 years I have beat the drum telling evangelicals that they need to get their institutional house in order because diversity is coming. That line no longer is accurate. Ladies and gentlemen, diversity is here.

And as demonstrated [Election] night, the organizations that figure out how to express their values, attitudes, and beliefs in a diverse manner will be the ones that come out on top. The ones that don’t will slowly and steadily lose their impact.

Here are the facts. Our country is browner, is more female, and is well on its way to becoming an ethnic minority/majority country. If we can’t figure out how to speak to this reality evangelical institutions will be completely marginalized.

The white evangelical leaders of white evangelicalism can murmur approvingly when conservative columnist Anthony Bradley writes:

And here’s a valuable lesson for conservative evangelicals from last Tuesday’s election results: If your church, college, seminary, denominational annual meeting, etc., looks like Romney’s concession speech audience, you likely will be unable to transform, influence, or engage America. To do so, you’ll need to start including minorities and women as executive leaders and thought leaders who will help chart institutional direction.

Michael Brown and Linda Harvey and other white evangelicals are fine with that. And they’d be perfectly comfortable tapping “minorities and women as executive leaders and thought leaders” just as long as those folks share all the exact same opinions, perspectives and priorities as those of the white evangelical establishment. They’re all for diversity, but only in the sense that they like the optics of a diverse-looking crowd all pledging unquestioning allegiance to the pure white evangelical agenda in lockstep conformity.

Matt Taibbi was writing about politics, not about the church, when he wrote the following. But I think Taibbi’s comments here on the Republican Party as a whole apply just as much to that party’s subgroup of the white evangelical church. Symbolic attempts at “outreach” to women, Latinos, African Americans, etc., won’t work, Taibbi says, because the real problem isn’t symbolic, it’s the resentful, indignant, self-righteous heart and soul of the Republican/white evangelical ideology:

But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they’re surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average “illegal,” as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can’t win votes when you’re calling people lazy, stoned moochers.

You can’t win votes by insulting potential voters. And you can’t win over everybody else when you’re convinced you’re better than everybody else — because they’re all a bunch of evil, depraved, Satanic baby-killers.

Anthea Butler gets at the heart of white evangelicals’ “take our country back” rhetoric and the assumptions underlying it:

After four years of hearing the refrain “Let’s take our country back,” it is clear that 2012 is not only, as Sarah Posner writes, a religious realignment, but also a moral realignment.

Fake God talk doesn’t cut it with Americans. Everyone sees through it. For Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and a host of others, the last four years have been a confidence game, a careful calculation that if they could just promote themselves, their god, their America, and Obama as a socialist just enough, the tide would turn their way and the money would flow. It didn’t. Many Americans want gay people to have the right to marry, recognize that rape is rape, and view women’s reproductive rights as important.

Americans are tired of racist remarks and the denigration of the office of the President of the United States simply because an African American with a dual heritage and a white mother cracked and decoded the American dream.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

OotGOism: 'Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it ...'
Things I Have Learned Due to My Google News Alert for the Word 'Satanic'
White evangelicals and 'the social upheaval of the '60s'
The Revolution is just a T-shirt away
  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino
  • Hypocee

     http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com

  • Antigone10

    He has insulted our Lord, our values and our faith in ways too numerous to mention. But folks decide which camp they want to be in: the cool camp, the one with the hip president who likes big government programs and nods at sexual sin, even if great harm comes to children as a result. No, for some people, first they choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it.

    Your values are terrible, your Lord is a bully, and “big government programs” means people get to eat and have a job.  What you call “sexual sins” I call “ethical fun”*.  I can’t seem to get a lot of conservatives to understand one fundamental points- I didn’t adopt your value structure and then rebel from it in some hedonistic orgy**- I rejected your value structure and adopted one of my own.  A better one, in my opinion, if you actually care about flourishing human lives.   But one that is completely outside of your moral boxes.  

    *With the exception that some of the things they call “sexual sins” are actually unethical- rape, sexual assault, incest.  But normally they are talking about “homosexuality and non-procreative sex”.
    ** Though I probably would participate in one.  Maybe.

  • Carstonio

    If we can’t figure out how to speak to this reality evangelical institutions will be completely marginalized.

    Notice how Sanders defines evangelical as white and male. The only thing I can add to Taibbi’s excellent analysis is this – fiscal conservatism and small government have historically been about keeping government too weak to interfere with corporate exploitation. So when it began the Southern Strategy, the GOP was already offering nothing for groups on the low end of the power imbalance. The strategy was simply an expansion of the party’s mission, keeping government too weak to interfere with discrimination.

  • esmerelda_ogg

    Notice how Sanders defines evangelical as white and male.

    One of the things that startled me a bit, reading the post-election tantrums from the right wing, was discovering that I’m not white. Apparently I’m one of those Ebil Voting Block People like blacks, hispanics, and “young people” (who also aren’t white, none of ’em). Nope, to be really truly white you have to be old and male.

    Who knew?

  • Amaryllis

    You know,  all my life I’ve waited to vote for a woman for President. And then, in a be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment, I read the Letter to the Editor proposing a Palin/Brewer ticket for 2016.

    These people can’t be serious.

  • hagsrus

     Remember Mrs Thatcher…

  • http://profiles.google.com/fader2011 Alex Harman

    There’s a good chance that Hillary Clinton will run in 2016, and if she chooses not to, we might see a run by Kirsten Gillibrand or Elizabeth Warren (all the more plausible as a candidate since Obama proved that it’s possible for a first-term senator with a national profile to be nominated and elected).

    Whoever runs would do well to consider a Latino running mate, I think; Ken Salazar probably has the highest profile of any Latino Democratic polician, as a former senator and current cabinet secretary.  He’s not as progressive as I might like, but when the goal is winning a general election that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

  • Sarah Jane

    “They’re all for diversity, but only in the sense that they like the
    optics of a diverse-looking crowd all pledging unquestioning allegiance
    to the pure white evangelical agenda in lockstep conformity.”

    I worked for a Christian school that often wondered why it couldn’t attract a more diverse student body — you know, as long as the students were willing to follow the school’s very strict “Christian standards” that included rules like no dancing, no long hair on men, no R-rated movies, no lottery tickets. They just couldn’t understand WHY their prospective students were almost exclusively middle-class white kids.

    It astonished me that these otherwise intelligent and educated folks recognized “diversity” solely in terms of skin color, and were oblivious to the fact that a more diverse student body would almost certainly bring with it more diverse experiences, values, and ways of practicing the Christian faith. I’m not sure where that idea comes from (kinda hoping it’s a generational thing that will fade out with time?) but my experience is that it’s a fairly universal notion of “diversity” within the leadership of the evangelical church.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    [S]ome people […] choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it.

    Translation: It’s not fair! We’ve spent all these decades using divisive code words and dog whistles to get white evangelicals to vote against their economic interests. And now suddenly your votes matter too? That’s some catch, that Catch-22.

  • Michael Pullmann

    Lady, I DID choose my candidate based on the content of his character.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Albright/100001047690991 Michael Albright

    More than that, what content does Mitt’s character have? The Republicans will keep flailing in national elections if they can’t admit that Mitt was a crap candidate.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    I have yet to read the whole post, I have read almost none of it.  Here’s what stopped me:

    Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?

    Since the whole Southern Strategy thing, haven’t the vast, vast, vast majority of African Americans voted for Democrats?  Isn’t that sort of how these things work?

    I, as a white American from a middle class family who has a back yard, am (if we’re talking demographics) statistically much less likely to vote for a Democrat than a randomly selected African American voter.  That’s how it works.  I voted for Obama.  I voted for him because he’s a Democrat and I happen to agree in large part with Democratic ideals (though I wish they’d fight for them harder and if Elizabeth Warren had been an option I’d vote for her over Obama if I thought she had a chance of taking the election).  People like me make up a certain percentage of the Democratic share of the white vote.  For every percentage point there is of people like me in the white vote, there should be many more percentage points of Democratic voters in the Black vote.

    Where the fuck does the candidate’s skin color fit into this?  The candidate could be purple with pink swirls and if he or she is a Democrat running against a Republican I’m betting that the majority of voting African Americans will vote for him or her by a sizable margin because it seems to me that this isn’t about candidate, it’s about party, and how the party has treated certain groups.  One of those groups being African Americans.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    On the other hand, maybe I voted for Obama because he’s white.  Have you seen his mother?  His maternal grandparents?  Guy’s white.  Not as white as me, but I’m only a few shades short of albino.

    Perhaps it is identity politics all the way after all.

  • esmerelda_ogg

     Darn Disqus. Won’t let me give this comment ten or twenty likes the way it deserves.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Albright/100001047690991 Michael Albright

    So… Obama is C. Thomas Howell?

  • Carstonio

    I voted for him because he’s a Democrat and I happen to agree in large
    part with Democratic ideals (though I wish they’d fight for them harder
    and if Elizabeth Warren had been an option I’d vote for her over Obama
    if I thought she had a chance of taking the election).

    That describes me as well even though I don’t belong to a party. From my reading of the election results, the percentage of whites voting Democratic in the presidential race hasn’t changed much in the past 20 years. What has changed the percentage of whites in the electorate.

    The evangelicals that Fred quotes here remind me of the downunders in Harlan Ellison’s “A Boy and His Dog.” No coincidence – Ellison was inspired by the reaction to Kent State, where the local burghers declared that the National Guard should have shot all the protesters.

  • Lori

    From my reading of the election results, the percentage of whites voting Democratic in the presidential race hasn’t changed much in the
    past 20 years. What has changed the percentage of whites in the electorate.   

    This is Ann Colter’s reading as well—we now have way too many Hispanics, not enough Americans (who are obviously by definition white & Republican).

    Liberals brag about having won the hearts and minds of America, as if, through logic and argument, they’ve persuaded people to accept their bankrupt European socialist ideas. Democrats haven’t changed anyone’s mind. They changed the people. More white people voted for Mitt Romney this year than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Barack Obama lost white voters by 20 points — the widest margin since 1984. But in 1980, whites were 88 percent of the electorate. In 2012, they were 72 percent of the electorate. Not only that, but the non-white electorate is far more Democratic than it was in 1980. If the same country that voted in 1980 had voted in 2012, Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did. [snip] The only hope is to run another appealing Republican candidate in four years — when we’re not up against an incumbent president — and return
    our immigration policy to one that helps America and not just the Welfare Party.

    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/11/ann-coulter-there-are-too-many-hispanics.html

    (I don’t want to give Colter & Townhall page views, so the link it to a post at Joe.My.God where Joe quotes Colter. The usual rules about Joe.My.God apply—the post is totally SFW, the sidebar ads may not be.)

  • Tricksterson

    If it cheers you Warren is already being talked up for 2016

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    If it cheers you Warren is already being talked up for 2016

    Calling it now: Biden/Warren 2016. :D

  • Tricksterson

    Isn’t Biden a bit old?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ronald Reagan was 70 when he became President. And McCain ran for President at a pretty advanced age, too.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Maybe Clinton/Warren? I like the idea of following up the first black president with the first all-women ticket. 

    I’m a little concerned about Warren’s career being quite a lot of ‘falling upwards’ — she definitely deserves it, but it really seems like a lot of lucky breaks and having enemies self-destruct of their own accord — A lot of Brown’s appeal was seeming like a pretty nice guy. Then he goes on this ‘fake Indian’ tangent that did nothing but make him look like a screaming asshole. It’s like he wanted to lose.  In that respect Warren’s career is kind of like Obama’s, come to think of it.

  • Lori

    I suspect there are very few successful who don’t have essentially the same issue. That’s part of the reason that the just world fallacy is a fallacy—there’s a fair bit of luck at the core of most epic success (and most epic failure). That doesn’t diminish Warren, or other successful people. As the old saying goes success is luck + preparation. There’s skill & hard work in being able to seize the luck when it comes your way.

    Also, the fact that Brown’s “nice guy” image fell apart wasn’t really luck at all. The image was never more than an illusion and it fell apart because Warren was a strong enough candidate, running a strong enough campaign to push Brown hard enough to crack his facade. Warren earned every vote she picked up because Brown melted down.

    Incidently, it appears that Brown agrees with me that he lost because Warren was too strong an opponent, as opposed to him being a fundamentally weak candidate. The scuttlebutt is that if Kerry gets a cabinet post* Brown intends to run for his seat and fully expects to win. That would indicate that he thinks his likely opponents in that race would be easier to beat than Warren.

    *I wish Kerry would just stay in the Senate. The Dems don’t seem to have anyone lined up to hold his seat, having Brown in the Senate would be even worse than having him in the House and the Dems are facing a tough enough fight to hang onto the Senate in ’14, without adding to the workload. At the same time, Kerry has had a long career and if he really wants to cap it off with a cabinet post for which he is well qualified I’m not sure it’s my place to tell him he shouldn’t have it.

  • LoneWolf343

     I want Clinton never to be president. How can anyone see “Bush-Clinton-Bush-…-Clinton” and be okay with that?

  • Lori

    Honestly, this was the single biggest reason I didn’t vote for her. “Bush-Clinton-Bush-…-Clinton” really shouldn’t be a thing and frankly “Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama…-Clinton” isn’t much better and I’d rather it not happen. That pains me on several levels, but it’s true.

    I also don’t want any more people named Bush or Kennedy running for president. At least not for a very, very long time. Inherited position and wealth, and the enormous difficulty of getting those things without inheriting them, are at the heart of what’s wrong with our country right now. I would rather not see the presidency become a position that gets handed off that way.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    How about Adams, Harrison or Roosevelt?

  • EllieMurasaki

    I want Clinton never to be president. How can anyone see “Bush-Clinton-Bush-…-Clinton” and be okay with that?

    I think Hillary Clinton would be a fine president, but among the reasons I voted Obama in the primaries was we really do not want anyone thinking our first female president got the job because her husband’s a former president, and we also do not want anyone thinking Hillary’s first term is a smokescreen for Bill’s third. And isn’t she retiring as SecState? I don’t think she wants the presidency.

  • Lori

    I think Hillary Clinton would be a fine president, but among the reasons
    I voted Obama in the primaries was we really do not want anyone
    thinking our first female president got the job because her husband’s a
    former president, and we also do not want anyone thinking Hillary’s
    first term is a smokescreen for Bill’s third.  

    Exactly.

    And isn’t she retiring as SecState? I don’t think she wants the presidency.

    Yes, she’s stepping down from her position at State. If that says anything about her thoughts on trying again for the presidency it would weigh more on the side that she is interested, than that she’s not. It would be all but impossible to make another run for the White House while serving as Sec of State, so she’d have to step down to run. The transition between the two terms is a good time to leave the job without creating hard feelings, or at least the appearance of hard feelings, that could hurt her. I hope she has something else in mind for her next act, but it will probably be a bit before we really know.

  • Daughter

     From what I know of  her, I think she might be interested in doing work around women’s rights internationally, but that’s speculation on my part.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Some have suggested that she’s retiring as Secretary of State so that she’ll be able to distance herself from the previous administration in 2016.

    Of course, she’d be close to 70 when she took office in that case, which would make her older than any president since Reagan. I’m not sure the presidency is how I’d like to spend my seventies.

  • Lori

    Given the infamous aging properties of the presidency spending one’s 70s doing the job would seem to be a good way to avoid having to figure out what to do with one’s 80s. I’m pretty sure the only reason it didn’t kill Reagan outright is that he lived in such a fantasy world even before the Alzheimer’s set in, that he wasn’t subject to the same stress as most presidents are.

  • Turcano

    Hell, it even hit Bush, and he spent over a third of his two terms on vacation.

  • Turcano

    (Double post; ignore this space.)

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     It’s a mistake to look at messages like this as a sign of confusion or an attempt to sort something out.

    They aren’t “earnestly looking to understand” why black voters would “forsake christianity”.

    The purpose of Linda Harvey’s rant, or Bill O’Reilly’s rant, or any of the other isn’t because they’re confused how african americans could have possibly voted against the wishes of evangelicals.

    The purpose is to shout “THis is all the fault of the n—–s, the c—-s, the d—s, the f–s, the s—s!” without giving up the ability to be shocked, shocked and offended if anyone calls them racist for it.

    They’re venting their impotent racist rage.  A few of them lost control enough to do it forthrightly.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    OK, I can’t figure out half of those bowdlerised words. But then, I was mystified about what “the t word” could be when I heard that Palin had been called it.

  • Lori

    Do you actually want to know? Because (for obvious reasons) I’m not going to type them out, but I could give hints if you tell me which ones are mystifying you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    For my part, I’m pretty sure about 3/5 of them, I have a dubious guess at “d—s” but don’t see why Italians would be involved, and no idea at all about “c—-s”.  And I would like to know.

  • Lori

    For the d one I’m pretty sure that Ross meant a term for lesbians which is generally fine within the queer community, but a nasty insult coming from outside it. (It goes so nicely with the f one.  /sarcasm)

    Now that I look at it again I’m not sure about the c one. It has one more – than I thought it did and now I’m a little confused. (I originally assumed he meant the c word that can refer either to a woman’s lady bits (fine with me, in an appropriate context) or to the woman herself (not fine, not fine at all, we will throw down if you call me that).

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Ah, that ‘d’ word makes a lot more sense.  And, I had the same confusion about the ‘c’ word, so it’s not just you.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Not Italians, but women in sensible shoes. No clue about the other. 

  • Tricksterson

    Italian would be dagos

  • Tricksterson

    twat?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Really? Fox news freaked their shit out about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a twat?

  • Dan Audy

    Frankly, I’m actually in (relative) agreement with Fox on that one, though notably not for the same reasons.  Sexualized insults towards women often come from misogamy rather than thought through issues with their positions.  I’d like a world where the issue with the Palin is that she was/is a lying ignoramus who supports horrific policies and affects a completely different persona to the actual life she leads.  There is a lot to dislike about Palin but the fact she is a woman, what she wears, or that the conservatives treat her as some sort of (creepily IMO) sex symbol isn’t a good reason or an ethical place to oppose her. I’d like to push the sexual judgments on female politicians out of acceptable mainstream discussion because it hurts the legitimacy of OUR candidates when the news review of their debate focuses what little time they get on their outfit/appearance rather than policy which hurts the best female candidates disproportionately.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    OK, I can’t figure out half of those bowdlerised words. But then, I was mystified about what “the t word” could be when I heard that Palin had been called it.

    In order, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, lesbians, homosexual men, and women who enjoy nonmarital sex.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Ah, I see. I got the first; was momentarily thrown by the anti-gay ones cos of the reference to racism but figured them out; and had no idea about the second and last.

    The only thing I’ve ever heard called “the s word” was “shit” in primary school (or “shut up” in infants school). As an adult only two swear words get bowdlerised, and with the racists slurs you’re either someone who uses them or you’re not. I’ve never had (or heard) occasion to refer to a racist slur in coded terms (here, that is; the US-based ones are well known).

  • PatBannon

    Maybe we can get them to compromise. They could say something like, “All right, we’ll take the African-Americans and the Asian-Americans…but we *don’t want* the Irish!”

  • Hilary

    Blazing Sadles!

  • Carstonio

    Hmm…a subset of voters whose opposition to Obama is grounded in his race (and his education) assumes that another subset of voters uses race as a reason to support Obama. Anyone here not see this as projection?

  • Sarah Jane

    I am guessing if a person can’t see past Obama’s race to recognize him as a particular individual, then it’s going to be nigh on impossible for that person to imagine that anyone else is seeing Obama as a particular individual, either. I don’t know if it’s a projection so much as a universal failure at imagination and empathy.

  • Barry_D

     One has to sort through a lot of right-wing talk before finding something which is *not* straight up Freudian projection.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

    As I’ve said for many years now, I am of the opinion that the vast majority of right wing Christians actually worship Mammon but delude themselves into thinking that Mammon is Christ because they’re afraid to acknowledge that they are no different than the rich young ruler who turned his back on Christ rather than sell all his possessions and whom Christ, in response, implied was going to hell. The overwhelming evangelical support for Mormon plutocrat Mitt Romney and nominally Catholic Rand-cultist Paul Ryan prove this. If the Antichrist ever did rise to power in our lifetime, he would be a Republican President, he would be a conservative Christian, and he would win the votes of the overwhelming majority of white evangelical Christians.

  • Kadh2000

     There is evidence (I’d have to ask my pastor for the details) that said rich man did eventually sell his possessions and become a Christian.

  • http://profiles.google.com/fader2011 Alex Harman

    Ayn Rand was the prophet of the Cult of Mammon, and John Galt is a vision of that cult’s Anti-Christ, come to impose their demonic dystopia upon a world ruined by their sabotage.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    And, making my way through the post:

    “Our country […] is more female”

    Um… I doubt that.  I realize that childbirth was a lot more dangerous in the past, but then we do seem to have had a larger proportion of the male population dying in conflicts in the past and statistically speaking women live longer so…

    I’m kind of thinking our country is probably round about as female as it’s ever been, and I expect that proportion to hold roughly steady as the years move on.  If you mean the voting population is more female, no idea.  But that wouldn’t be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination (more people legally voting == good) unless you’re allied with people who have done things to piss off those who happen to be female.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    According to a book I read some 10 or 15 years ago about epidemiology (and the name of which currently escapes me), men had longer life expectancies than women up until the advent of treatments (sanitation, vaccinations and then antibiotics) for contagious diseases. Women were more vulnerable to tuberculosis than men, for example, according to the author. The life expectancy for both men and women increased as contagious diseases were brought under control, but women’s life expectancy increased more than men’s. So the current sex ratio hasn’t been the case forever and ever, but it has held for most of the time that women have had the vote.

    I wish I could remember the name of that book, or at least the author.

  • hagsrus

    Not what you’re looking for, but this still leaves me gobsmacked:

    ” A hundred a year would make them all perfectly comfortable.”

    His wife hesitated a little, however, in giving her consent to this plan.

    “To be sure,” said she, “it is better than parting with fifteen hundred pounds at once. But, then, if Mrs. Dashwood should live fifteen years, we shall be completely taken in.”

    “Fifteen years! my dear Fanny; her life cannot be worth half that purchase.”

    “Certainly not; but if you observe, people always live for ever when there is an annuity to be paid them; and she is very stout and healthy, and hardly forty…”

    (Sense and Sensibility)

  • AnonymousSam

    It isn’t that there are more women, it’s that the women are getting more and more politically active and are starting to show their resentment toward elderly white men who tell them what their bodies are really like by, I dunno, voting against them :p

  • Madhabmatics

     Freep has absolutely melted down and has a ton of angry dudes shaking their fists, declaring that women’s suffrage inevitably leads to communism In The Year Of Our Lord 2012.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Wow. (O_O) Universal adult suffrage has been around for – what – 100 years? That’s a long-ass time for women to help vote in the Commies.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    Since most states that allowed women to vote before the Suffrage Amendment passed, and since the Republican Party supported women’s suffrage, women largely voted Republican up until the time that the Republican Party abandoned its support for the Equal Rights Amendment.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    That was supposed to be, “Since most states that allowed women to vote before the Suffrage Amendment passed were Republican”.

  • Daughter

    Do you have any citations for that? Because it seems like during the FDR era when a majority of Americans were voting Democratic, that would have included women, too.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    http://publications.socialstudies.org/se/5905/590505.html

    The women’s history of the 1950s is often seen simply as the era of motherhood, large families, and suburban development. The decade was, however, an important time of expansion in the participation of women in the labor force. By 1960, twice as many women were employed as in 1940 (Chafe 1972, 218). The decade was not a dramatic period for women’s involvement in politics. The election of 1952 brought the first sign of a “gender gap” in voting, as women voted particularly strongly to put Dwight David Eisenhower into the White House (Baxter and Lansing 1980, 61-62). Roper survey data before and after the election indicated that 58 percent of all women, across all social groups, voted for Eisenhower, while only 52 percent of all men did. Since 1920, women had favored the Republicans, but the difference in 1952 was particularly great. In 1954, Louis Harris looked back on the election and commented: “It raises the real possibility that in the future there will be a ‘woman’s vote’ quite separate from the men’s” (quoted in Baxter and Lansing 1980, 62).

    There was a lot of stuff I read about the history of women’s suffrage back in the 70’s, but I did find this summary online. Plus I lived through the ERA fight and had an older friend who was a member of the National Women’s Party and knew Alice Paul.

  • cjmr

    No, we still have 7 years to go before it is 100 years.

  • http://nwrickert.wordpress.com/ Neil Rickert

    Perhaps she should have asked “Why has American Evangelical Christianity abandoned black people?”

  • MikeJ

    If Romney had promised gay stoned abortions for everyone along with a 10% tax cut, gay stoned abortions would be the most important thing in the world to evangelicals.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    Ok, finished the post, and it is a good post Fred.

    This is something that lingers with me “our country” it is our country.  All of us.  (Note that I’m not addressing this to all the commenters, just all other US citizens.)

    It’s my country for multiple reasons.  I was born here*, my mother was an American at the time of my birth, my father was an American at the time of my birth (they both still are, but that’s not in the criteria.)  Any one of those three things would make the US my country.  So I can rightly speak of “our country”.  But if I’m going to be accurate about ownership of the country, I also have to include people like Linda Harvey in the mix, because it’s her country too.

    And I have to include theft and conquest in how that ownership came to be.  Not to mention various efforts (some more successful than others) at genocide.

    There’s no reason that I have to include all of the other people who can claim ownership when I say “Our country,” any subset will do.  So excluding me from “Our country” isn’t factually wrong.  But when people talk about taking, “Our country back,” rarely are they talking about doing it from an invading force of whoever is invading in the new Red Dawn movie (I’m going to guess the Chinese or some coalition because I don’t think France** can pull it off on their own), it’s always from people who can lay equal claim to the words “our country.”

    So it comes out meaning, “We have to take our country back from the will of the majority of the people in our country,” which is just weird.  You don’t take something like that back, you persuade it back.  And through that persuasion you, perhaps, take back (in their eyes) the Senate and the Presidency or (in my eyes) the House and maybe the Supreme Court.

    But you can’t take your country back from the people whose country it is unless you’re going to do away with democracy and that would be treason.

    * I almost wasn’t because my mother’s doctor apparently couldn’t count and had my due date set a month later than it should have been and my mother, not expecting my not-premature birth for another month, had just come back from a trip to Canada.

    ** Yes, I did pick our oldest ally for no good reason whatsoever.  I wanted a random country, France popped into my head.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    I’m going to guess the Chinese or some coalition

    North Korea. Anything plausible would exclude a very large movie-buying market.

  • Kadh2000

     The Chinese were intended to be the villains.  They protested.  The North Koreans, having less clout, moved up the ladder to take their place.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I think France would put up a better fight against America than North Korea, which is who the new Red Dawn guys picked.

  • Jenny Islander

    I am a middle-class white Christian homeschooling stay-at-home mom.  (I work part time, but it’s small enough to be the little woman’s little job that pays for her little things; only a serious patriarch would find it threatening.)  I am precisely that group on whose behalf the Republicans want to take back the country, except for my lack of a penis.  I am not registered with any party.  I voted for President Obama because Romney didn’t need people trash talking his background in order to lose.  No spin whatever was required.  How did people convince me to vote for Obama over Romney?   By quoting Romney’s exact words, at length, with citations leading me back to proof that he had in fact said those things.  He damned his campaign with his own tongue.

    The people who wanted to take my country back on my behalf offered as candidate a man who called eating a privilege.  

    If you had put a man like that into a novel, I would have said that it was way over the top, a bad imitation of Dickens.  But here we are, and here he is, the man who wanted to take my country back on my behalf by condemning people to starve for lack of money.  So much for the Constitutional right to life.

  • http://www.facebook.com/karen.davis.9256 Karen Davis

    ” For Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and a host of others, the last
    four years have been a confidence game, a careful calculation that if
    they could just promote themselves, their god, their America, and Obama
    as a socialist just enough, the tide would turn their way and the money
    would flow.”

    And if you convince people that Obama is a socialist, all most of them are going to do is say “Hey, that’s socialism? That’s not so bad.” Because not only isn’t he, but you can’t actually define it, not if you think he is.

  • Frank from Canada

    Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?

    It’s because over 80% of African-Americans are liberal democrates. In 1992, 83% of African-Americans voted for Clinton, 10% for Bush and 7% for Perrot. In 1996, 84% of African-Americans voted again for Clinton, with the rest evenly split between Dole and Perrot. A lot of people at the time said that Clinton was America’s first black president, which is kind of a stupid thing to say, but in league with what is being said now about that community.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    In 1992, 83% of African-Americans voted for Clinton[…]. In 1996, 84% of African-Americans voted again for Clinton.

    You can take this back even further. If the GOP and the religious right were bemoaning this trend in good faith, they’d have noticed their problem by at least 1984. This was the second biggest landslide in electoral history, with St Ronnie pulling in nearly 60% of the vote. Yet African-American voters supported Mondale by a 91%-9% margin. Given the overall spread, you can argue that this was a much greater thrashing than Romney took from African-American voters. And I’m pretty sure Walter Mondale was a white guy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Does anyone else remember the Reagan Rap?  I think Garry Trudeau was involved, as I recall?  “I’ll settle for just ten percent!”  That’s the part I’m remembering right now.

  • Jenny Islander

    And, yes, I know that Romney didn’t actually want to “take America back;” he thought he was interviewing for a job in middle management, after which he would conduct business as usual, that is, dismembering the parts of his new department that didn’t directly line his bosses’ pockets and liquidating as much of it as possible.  But they presented this shiny-toothed flat-eyed pointy-haired underboss with rhetoric about making America better for the likes of me.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     You know I recently found out that everyone got moved over a peg in the actual Dilbert strip? The pointy-haired boss is now a hair more sympathetic since they’re giving screen time to *his* boss, a cone-headed CEO.

  • Lori

    No, for some people, first they choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it.  

    The massive lack of self-awareness required for Betty Bowers, American’s Best Christian*, to say this is truly astounding. It’s right up there with Bill O’Reilly talking about how there are whole media organizations devoted to promoting ideology and what a problem that is**.

    *http://www.bettybowers.com/  

    see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Bowers

    **http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162359/-Great-moments-in-obliviousness-Fox-News-edition?showAll=yes

  • hagsrus

    I looked at the Betty Bowers site – poe. The quote seems to come from Linda Harvey.

  • Lori

     You are indeed missing the point, which I guess I didn’t make quite
    clear enough. Betty is satire (that’s why I included the 2nd link to the
    wikipedia page that says that she’s fictional), but Linda Harvey is
    widely considered to have provided much of the inspiration for Betty.

  • Tricksterson

    “He has insulted our Lord, ourvalues and our faith in ways too numerous to mention”

    So lets not mention them shall we?  Because then I might have to give concrete, disprovable examples.

  • Kiba

    Just like Michael L. Brown and most of the other white evangelical leaders of white evangelicalism, Linda Harvey would insist that she favors diversity, in principle, and that she would be very pleased to see “our” church become more inclusive.

    Yeah, too bad diversity means you sit down, shut up, and do what they tell you to do. But, hey, at least they allowed all those other folk in the front door, right? That’s inclusive, right? 

    He has insulted our Lord, our values and our faith in ways too numerous to mention. 

    Too numerous to mention because I got nothing and how dare you ask me for specifics.

  • ReverendRef

    These people on the evangelical/conservative right are whining about the election like it’s the end of the world.  And, for them, it really is.  The gospel for today was from Mark 13:1-8, part of the “little apocalypse,” so I’ve had end-of-the-world stuff on my brain for a week.

    From my sermon today:

    The biggest threat to the world is
    equality.  Peasant revolts, the Civil
    War, women’s rights and the Civil Rights movements in the U.S. and the end of
    apartheid in South Africa were formed around the idea of equality.  The world is built on the oppression of
    others and those in power fear the equality of the oppressed.  And when the dominant or ruling class is
    required to share equally, or to live with equal rights for all, then that
    time, for all practical purposes, becomes the end of the world as they know it.

     In some respects, I can’t blame them for running around like the world is ending, because it is.  But it’s ending in a good way.  And if equality is a problem for you, well, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.  Because, really, it’s about damn time we started treating people with dignity and respect.

    And it’s 1:30 on Sunday afternoon — I need to quit preaching, go home and find a football game.

  • Albanaeon

    “Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character? ”

    Ms. Harvey, many of use don’t pronounce the words “skin-color” starting with a “ch/k” sound…

  • Mira

    Any time you hear an ill-defined “we” (as in “we Americans,” “we in modern society,” “we Christians) opposed to minorities, foreigners, women, poor people, etc…even when it’s well-meaning, that’s where the problem is. The “we.”

    Sorry, “they” are already here among “us.” It’s only in your imagination that “we” do not include “them.”

  • Hilary

    Yes, what you said! Like!

    Hilary

  • Hilary

    Esmerelda

    “One of the things that startled me a bit, reading the post-election tantrums from the right wing, was discovering that I’m not white. Apparently I’m one of those Ebil Voting Block People like blacks, hispanics, and “young people” (who also aren’t white, none of ’em). Nope, to be really truly white you have to be old and, above all else, male.”

    Me too.  I mean I knew I wasn’t realy ‘white’ white, what with being a dyke Jew, but still.  (Glances at hands on keybord) I’m not talking about an excess of melanin here. 

    But here’s what I’ve decided: If they can talk about ‘taking their country back’ I’m gonna take ‘white’ back.  I’m white.  I’m a white American.  I’m a white American voter.  And you, my dear right wing Christian Republican ‘real America’ quote unquote, you DO NOT own me, you DO NOT define me, and you CAN NOT buy me, with money or fear. You can shove your racist dog whistles up your ass – I’m a cat lover, anyway. 

    As much hand wringing as we’re hearing about black votes and hispanic votes and women votes (aren’t white women really white? what else do you call XX chromasomes of European heritage?) I don’t think they’ve even touched on their deepest fear, that they can not be the gatekeepers and definers of ‘white’ much longer. The more “white voter” becomes short hand code for conservative straight Christian Republican, the more people of European heritage in this country who voted for Obama are going to distance themselves from that racial identity.  Or like me they might take back being white only to turn it into a proud label of defiance that ‘white’ is nobodies monolithic group to be manipulated like a marrienette.  What do you mean ‘we’, white man?  What exactly are you calling ‘our’ country? 

    I said this before on another thread here, but if 4 out of 10 white people voted for Obama, that is a lot of Euro-Americans going for him.  That’s almost half the white population.  Given the age demographics of his white voters, 12-24 years out that would probably be half or just past half of the white population.  And that is something the Republicans are going to have to face.  I think that might be even harder to face then their need to somehow connect with brown voters.   

  • Jeff Weskamp

    I think that “c—-s” is a reference to the plural form of a common pejorative term for Chinese people.

  • Lori

    Oh, that makes sense. Obama got even more of the Asian vote than he got of the hispanic vote and everyone knows those people all look alike*. (In defense of my slowness, I’ve heard the s word which makes reference to their eyes much, much more than I’ve heard the c word that technically only applies to the Chinese.)

    *They really don’t. My ex used to joke by saying that I was really good at telling them apart…for a white girl. Yes, even in the 2000s there is still enough prejudice that an  inter-racial couple, even of a fairly broadly accepted sort, occasionally has to resort to bad jokes in order to deal with other people’s BS.

  • MikeJ

    I thought the purpose of language was communication. If you want to say something, just fucking say it.  As long as you aren’t using it to degrade somebody, nobody is going to be shocked to learn that other people use bad words.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You’d be surprised…I share your opinion, but “bad” words being bad is still very much ingrained in the collective mind. 

    It’s likely another case of Intent Isn’t Magic. No, bad words aren’t really bad, it’s how the person uses them that’s bad. But words can still be triggers for the bad things people have used them to mean even when people are using them “innocently.”

  • Lori

    At least for me it’s not so much a matter of avoiding shocking people as it is avoiding calling the trolls. Certain words seem to bring a particularly low sort of troll out of the woodwork, so I reflexively avoid typing them in full.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I’ve reached the point where my response to “liberals make us pay for procedures that kill babies!” is “conservatives make us pay for procedures that kill adults, which is so evil, disgusting and reprehensible that no decent person should have any truck with it.”

    Which isn’t true, I know. The reality is that decent people sometimes make decisions that mean a life that might otherwise have lasted longer doesn’t. The real world is full of tradeoffs, and longer life is not the only moral good.

    But either trading longer lives for other moral goods is morally acceptable or it isn’t. I think it is, but I could be wrong. I’ll participate in conversations that assume either standard, but I’ll apply that standard across the board.

  • Morilore

    Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?

    oh for fuck’s sake

    martin luther king would be on my side smug smug smug SMUG SMUG SMUG SMUG SMUG

    – TRANSLATED

  • Daughter

    Of course, Harvey defines character and faith purely in terms of the litmus tests of not supporting abortion and marriage equality. Oh, and “penalizing success” by which I assume she means taxes. So that’s what Christian faith comes down to, in her view.

    Nothing on loving others, helping the poor, all those things that Jesus spent most of his time talking about. It doesn’t occur to her that African-American Christians, having suffered slavery, discrimination and poverty, might prioritize non-discrimination and a social safety net as important moral issues.

    And, btw, it is interesting that no one questioned black Christian’s Christianity when they voted overwhelmingly for pro-choice Democratic presidents and candidates in the past. Why does only their vote for Obama call their faith into question?

  • Daughter

    Or to be more explicit, it doesn’t occur to Harvey that many Obama voters find Romney and the GOP in general, with their racism, greed, lying and fuck the poor attitude, to be the ones who are immoral, un-Christian (for those who are Christian) and lacking in character.

  • http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

     And, btw, it is interesting that no one questioned black Christian’s
    Christianity when they voted overwhelmingly for pro-choice Democratic
    presidents and candidates in the past. Why does only their vote for
    Obama call their faith into question?

    If Obama had been white, it’s possible that his outright explicit support for marriage equality and his role in obliging all insurance companies to cover contraception may yet have been a dealbreaker for them.

    But it can’t exactly soothe their insecurities that he’s “not really American” and “a secret Muslim,” which is to say, black. And if he’d been white they wouldn’t be able to holler that black voters only voted for him because he was black.

    (And, seriously, complaining that black voters overwhelmingly voted for the very first black candidate for president ever in the history of the US demonstrates a rather stunning willful ignorance of CONTEXT. Up until Obama, no voter, white OR black, ever voted for a non-white presidential candidate, so whats their effin’ point?)

  • Jeff Weskamp

    Because the Conservative Christians have, during this year’s election, literally demonized Obama worse than any other candidate I can remember.  Some of them have accused him of being the Antichrist.  They’ve accused him of doing everything except drinking the blood of Christian children.  After that much hyperbole, how can they possibly accept any self-described Christian voting for such a monster?  Many of these folks truly feel that voting for Obama is the same as extending both middle fingers up to the sky and screaming, “&#$@ you, God!”

  • Demonhype

     I guess that’s what happens when you make decisions based on what other people tell you to believe rather than using your own judgment.

  • stardreamer42

    From the last election cycle: http://www.shakesville.com/2009/05/loud-and-clear.html?dsq=9379187
    The problem isn’t that minorities aren’t listening to what Republicans have to say. It’s that they ARE, and have been for the last hundred years. (And so are an increasing percentage of white people.)

    Coleslaw: Historically, the single largest factor affecting women’s life expectancy is the likelihood of dying in childbirth. Once that was no longer a major factor, it turned out that women had a slightly longer life expectancy than men. This is borne out by the gender ratio among senior citizens.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    Coleslaw: Historically, the single largest factor affecting women’s life expectancy is the likelihood of dying in childbirth. Once that was no longer a major factor, it turned out that women had a slightly longer life expectancy than men. This is borne out by the gender ratio among senior citizens.

    I really wish I could remember the title of that book, because the author said it wasn’t just childbirth, women had higher death rates in their teens before they began bearing children. He may have been wrong, for all I know.

  • Lorehead

    This made me curious: what was the President of the United States one hundred years ago saying about minorities?  That was William Howard Taft.

    The admission of Asiatic immigrants who cannot be amalgamated with our population has been made the subject either of prohibitory clauses in our treaties and statutes or of strict administrative regulation secured by diplomatic negotiation. I sincerely hope that we may continue to minimize the evils likely to arise from such immigration without unnecessary friction [….]

    Well then.  What about black people?

    Hence it is clear to all that the domination of an ignorant, irresponsible element can be prevented by constitutional laws which shall exclude from voting both negroes and whites not having education or other qualifications thought to be necessary for a proper electorate. The danger of the control of an ignorant electorate has therefore passed. With this change, the interest which many of the Southern white citizens take in the welfare of the negroes has increased. The colored men must base their hope on the results of their own industry, self-restraint, thrift, and business success, as well as upon the aid and comfort and sympathy which they may receive from their white neighbors of the South.  There was a time when Northerners who sympathized with the negro in his necessary struggle for better conditions sought to give him the suffrage as a protection to enforce its exercise against the prevailing sentiment of the South. The movement proved to be a failure. […] [I]t is not the disposition or within the province of the Federal Government to interfere with the regulation by Southern States of their domestic affairs. There is in the South a stronger feeling than ever among the intelligent well-to-do, and influential element in favor of the industrial education of the negro and the encouragement of the race to make themselves useful members of the community. The progress which the negro has made in the last fifty years, from slavery, when its statistics are reviewed, is marvelous, and it furnishes every reason to hope that in the next twenty-five years a still greater improvement in his condition as a productive member of society, on the farm, and in the shop, and in other occupations may come.

    Well then.

    But it may well admit of doubt whether, in the case of any race, an appointment of one of their number to a local office in a community in which the race feeling is so widespread and acute as to interfere with the ease and facility with which the local government business can be done by the appointee is of sufficient benefit by way of encouragement to the race to outweigh the recurrence and increase of race feeling which such an appointment is likely to engender. Therefore the Executive, in recognizing the negro race by appointments, must exercise a careful discretion not thereby to do it more harm than good. On the other hand, we must be careful not to encourage the mere pretense of race feeling manufactured in the interest of individual political ambition. Personally, I have not the slightest race prejudice or feeling, and recognition of its existence only awakens in my heart a deeper sympathy for those who have to bear it or suffer from it, and I question the wisdom of a policy which is likely to increase it. Meantime, if nothing is done to prevent it, a better feeling between the negroes and the whites in the South will continue to grow, and more and more of the white people will come to realize that the future of the South is to be much benefited by the industrial and intellectual progress of the negro.

    Well then.

  • Daughter

    Ta-Nehisi Coates has documented the fact that throughout American history, some white people have denied their racism all the while they are spouting all kinds of racist nonsense. Denial of racism is nothing new, and is certainly not a result of a modern backlash against “unfounded” charges of racism, as some people claim.

  • Hilary

    I was talking to my wife Penny about white identity and this last election. She’s even whiter then I am – red hair, blue eyes, freckles, and burns in five minutes.  She pointed something rather terrifying out to me – that most, almost all, of Obama’s supporters would be Holocaust victoms 70 years ago in Germany.  I’m not saying this to Godwin the discussion, I am not calling Romney Hitler, I am not saying his supporters are Nazi’s.  But it is an interesting observation.

    Gays, non-Europeans, non-Aryan Europeans, Gypsies/Roma, handicapped/disabled, *politcal dissidents* Poles, Catholics, it’s a long list beyond Jews.

    How many of these people are us, how many would be part of the 47%?  Again, I AM NOT CALLING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NAZI’S.  I’m just noticing an overlap in demographics.  Romney himself might have been a victim, I don’t think Mormon’s would have been safe.

    But maybe the real racial identity conversation amoung us whitefolks is white v. Aryan?  As in, all Aryans and WASPs are white, but not all white people are Aryan, or a WASP. 

    I don’t know what to think about this.  Any ideas? 

    Hilary

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I think it’s because all through the last 500 years, the people who’ve historically been on the top of the social and economic pyramid have been male, white, wealthy people. As such they were considered superior in a lot of racial paradigms, not just the Nazi one.

    It’s historically been non-white people who have formed a preponderance of the dispossessed and who’ve been the unfortunate punching bags for angry white people looking for someone to blame.

  • esmerelda_ogg

    most, almost all, of Obama’s supporters would be Holocaust victoms 70 years ago in Germany

    Um, not so sure this is correct. In my case, my traceable ancestors came from Germany a few centuries back. So did my husband’s. It’s entirely possible to be very white (and perhaps even meet the Nazi scumbags’ definition of the meaningless term “Aryan” – there’s an embarrassing status for you), and as Christian as you can manage to be, and also be unable to stomach the modern Republican party.

  • Hilary

    Thanks.  Like I said, I just just thinking out loud in a thread with interesting people who also think about this stuff.  I’m not accusing anybody of being anything, just . . . thinking about it.

    Hilary

  • esmerelda_ogg

     Oh, no offense here – just offering a counterexample to help you think it through.

  • Wednesday

     Also worth noting that some Romney supporters are folks who would’ve wound up in the camps. My Republican-for-the-money-who-thinks-paying-taxes-when-democrats-are-in-office-is-like-Haiti-being-impovereshed-by-reparations-to-France uncle (Jewish), my likewise-Republican aunt (race traitor), and of course  our own local Jewish Romney-fan here on Slacktivist.

  • Turcano

     “Political dissidents” makes the argument a tautology, as it’s defined as “voting/campaigning for someone or something I don’t like.”

  • Katie

    I don’t think that Hillary Clinton will run for President.  She’s had a good run as Secretary of State, and she’s getting old enough that her age (as well as her gender) would be a factor in the next election.  Also,  given her husband’s health, I’m not sure that *he* is up to the rigors of a election, or to the duties of the First Gentleman. 

  • Keulan

    If we’re going by just race and sex, I don’t fit with the demographics of many Obama voters, since I’m a white male. But I’m also in my twenties, and an atheist, while the Republican party is full of old, bigoted theocrats. I vote for candidates who are more likely to support equality and separation of church and state. I haven’t heard of many Republicans who value both of those things, in actions as well as words.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    On the demographics, I checked out the US stats and apparently there have been more women than men of voting age since around 1940.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Weik/1594008197 Bruce Weik

    Isn’t that Linda Harvey just a sweetheart? I hope these “evangelicals” keep speaking out. That way, progressives, liberals, Democrats, are assured of victory in the Presidential race for years to come. Most these right-wing mouth-pieces don’t have a clue. They would last about a half-hour in a room full of Christians before they would be asked to leave. As for Christ, I doubt He would have anything to do with them. In fact, He would be working the street against them.

  • AnonaMiss

    As in, all Aryans and WASPs are white, but not all white people are Aryan, or a WASP.
    Just wanted to sign my name as another ‘Aryan’ WASP-grown (since deconverted, otherwise still WASP) Obama supporter.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Madwriter Danny Adams

    Glenn Beck lost it for me when he said that “Social Justice Christian” was a code word for socialist / liberal / Big Government etc. As if Christ hadn’t said a word about social justice. As if Paul hadn’t. As if a big part of the founding of the sect I belong to, the Methodists, didn’t come into existence to fight for social justice (in that case pro-education and anti-slavery).

     I’m more willing to trust a Social Justice Christian to be a real Christian than I am someone who thinks the whole definition of the faith is Sunday services, telling other people what to do, and listening to your guys on the political radio shows.

  • Tricksterson

    You would think that Beck, a member of a group (Mormons)  whom many Christians deny are themselves Christian would be a little shyer about casting stones on the subject of who is or is not a “real” Christian.  Oh wait, that would require empathy and or a sense of perspective, never mind.

  • AnonaMiss

    I was thinking earlier (unusual for me!) and I think the Republicans’ best chance in the near future would be to peel off some of the white women vote by reframing men who support abortion as potential deadbeat dads, with a dollop of racist dogwhistle on top to sever them from the rest of the Democratic base. Thus:

    “Not only is the life of an unborn child of concern, but the ability of single mothers to support their children. Once the abortion issue is settled, the next item on the the deadbeat dad agenda is to gut the child support system. After all, if a woman can choose to stop being a mother to her baby, why shouldn’t a man have the same legal right? That’s why we stand against abortion: we believe both the mother and the father should take responsibility for their child.”

    Obviously this wouldn’t do anything to sway me, as not only is it bullshit, but also I have an intense fear of childbirth; but it could help to sway the single woman vote in the way that Republicans are most skilled: through the politics of resentment.

  • EllieMurasaki

    For that to work, Republicans would have to show that they are in favor of stronger child support systems and Democrats are against same.

  • AnonaMiss

    For that to work *on rational actors, the Republicans would have to show they are in favor of child support etc. But playing on resentment and fear has a way of short-circuiting reason circuits. I don’t think the current Democratic coalition is immune to those kind of appeals.

    They’d get a much bigger influx if they could come out in favor of government child support etc., but then they’d lose a substantial part of their base, too. Best to just condemn, rather than promise. They only need to flip a relatively small portion of the electorate, in the short term anyway – might not even need that, if they can find a charismatic candidate who doesn’t put their foot in their mouth.

  • Demonhype

     Which isn’t even close to being true, as the Repubs seem to have a lot of sympathy for rapists and want to define rape to the point of being non-existent in practice, and they see access to contraception for women as “paying for sluttery”, but access to viagra for men as acceptable and important health-care rights.  I can’t imagine those misogynistic monsters ever being able to bring their mouths into a shape to say “we’re going after deadbeat dads next”, much less actually do it, much less convince anyone that they’re serious.  Besides which, I’ve got a hunch that they couldn’t do that without losing just as many votes as they gain from women, because I have a hunch that deadbeat dads are a part of their loyal base (MRAs, PUAs and all, they tend to love the anti-woman pro-male-privilege platform of the Repub party).

  • Carstonio

    I suspect they would care about deadbeat dads only when these men aren’t white. Or else they would treat the issue as though it’s the women’s fault, the same mentality behind mandatory ultrasounds. For all their talk about families, they probably would sense that any government action about deadbeat dads would mean decreasing power for men and increasing power for women.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It wouldn’t work. All the MRA’s who play up and blow up the statistically rather small segment of women who actually “pregnancy trap” men would throw a mighty strop and force the Republicans to back off that strategy.

  • Don Gisselbeck

    Yet again, if Rush works as hard as a Montana Snowbowl liftie, he should make as much.

  • Nelson Rudolph

    Michael Brown is Jewish. He was dishonest to say he’s a white evangelical in his letter. Jews generally don’t talk to blacks in that tone about race. We’re in the same boat.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X