It's not the values, stupid!!!

After listening to a number of Bush voters--Rs and Ds--over the past few days on various call-in programs, I think the fundamentalist values crap is a red herring. When pressed about values specifically, what I heard many of those people say about * was that the value they supported was that he could be counted on to do what he says he'll do. They somehow are comforted by that, never mind the psycho may be responsible for blowing up the world. It is not a value they are endorsing, but it is a fear response. This society could use some therapy.

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

From todays NYT OpEd page http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In other words:
15%: Concerned with progress in Iraq
19%: Want toughness on terrorism
20%: Worried about the economy
22%: Support Legislating Moral Issues
70%: Dumb as a fucking post

rationally nor do they focus rationally. It's a very human response to trauma. They instead focus on issues in their environment over which they feel they can exert control. Right now that be us!!! The way to overcome fear is to shine a light on the shadows.

I'm not buying that excuse.

they have only experienced vicariously. Believe me, the nation lived those towers coming down over and over again, in living color, day in and day out, until someone convinced the cable new that they were hurting more than helping.

Add on to that the nebulous, but zingy, level orange alerts that the * administration trots out when people are distressed by other issues. It has been stress upon stress for this population for the past three years. Overt and covert coercion have been pervasive.

It seems like people who live in small towns and remote rural areas that will NEVER be targeted by terrorists, because it would be a waste of time and weapons, have appropriated the tragedy of 911 to satisfy a need for community fear and an issue around which to rally.

When 911 first happened, I as a New Yorker was amazed at the initial response from those in the Midwest who looked at it as a video game show. On one board, a young poster watched the second plane swing around and aim and HIT the second tower and the poster proclaimed the piloting of that plane as "sweet!" They were watching it on TV like it was a remote movie - far from their own reality, but now they have been conned into believing irrationally that it COULD HAPPEN TO THEM.

Right after 911 there began the greatest influx of tourists into New York than ever before as people poured in from all over the nation to gawk at the still burning remains of the WTC, laughing and taking snapshots and buying t-shirts and postcards. I was there for several days, just watching them and I did not see one single tear. They were having a ball and they were greatly surprised at their welcome by New Yorkers. We dubbed it "DisneyYork." When they were not mugged or robbed or killed on this initial visit they began to lose their fear of visiting New York, but replaced it with the fear that they, somehow, on their farms, in their small, protected towns and in their wooded counties would be next to be attacked.

IMO, the only people who really need to be afraid are those who live in areas near nuclear waste dumps and power plants that remain unexplainedly unsecured and from reports, largely unguarded. Why would terrorists waste a single minute attacking a small community with a handful of people? It seems to me that they would always go after large areas for the greatest number of casualties and the greatest emotional impact.

You said, "When people are scared out of their heads, they don't listen rationally nor do they focus rationally."

Then, you went on to say, "The way to overcome fear is to shine a light on the shadows."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that last sentence. If you mean that you overcome fear by exposing the lies, then I would completely disagree with you. In fact, you would be arguing a course of action that is completely in opposition to your first sentence.

If you mean that instead, you offer them HOPE to counter their FEAR, then I would fully agree. But once again, we come back to the fact that this HOPE cannot be simply based on facts. Rather, it has to be based on something that has a much more basic, emotional appeal. It has to be based on something that people can easily grasp and accept without a great deal of effort on their part.

What is there that could help us do this? It surely couldn't be tying our themes together around central VALUES, could it? If you think that it's something else than this, I'd sure love to hear an explanation -- but I just don't see any other possible way.

fears and teach them ways of dealing with the fear and of coping. I have lived through a war, up front and personal. My home was two doors down from one that was leveled by one of Saddam's missiles. When you have been attacked and you are in an environment of threat--percieved or otherwise--the first thing you must learn is that life goes on. All the caterwauling about safety and handwringing is pointless. No party can guarantee a risk-free world on any level. Nor does values have anything to do with what we cling to when we are afraid. It is simply looking for order in chaos. I remember reading an article shortly after 9/11 about how many people suddenly were flocking to churches. Do you really believe they did this because suddenly they had epiphanies? No, they went to find reassurance and order in a chaotic situation.

I think one basic question we need to address is how do we get the act of living one's life back to some semblance of normalcy. One step toward this would have been to successfully oust the FearMongerInChief from his illegitimate throne. In the absence of that, how do we get there?

I fully agree with you about the upsurge in church attendance following 9/11. People were looking for reassurance when they felt their world was crashing down around them.

But you should know, having lived through what you lived through, that when people are in this state of mind simply pointing out to them the source of their fear is not enough. If you really want to reach them, you have to reach them on an emotional level -- because that is the level they're currently operating on.

The best way to do this is to give them something to be hopeful about. This is what the Republicans actually do in a perverse way through the playing of the fear card. They tap into that fear by first reminding people of how uncertain things are, and then by telling them that they'll kill all the terrorists. This encourages the people to trust them, because they're saying they will spare no expense in "defending America".

The gay marriage wedge is another example. Many people are going through tough times right now, and things are uncertain for them. Republicans tell people that the institution of marriage -- something very personal for them -- is under attack, they tell them who is orchestrating the attack, and then present themselves as defenders of the institution of marriage by opposing those who are attacking it. With all the things in people's lives that they feel are beyond their control, they see this as something they CAN control. I'm not endorsing any of this, mind you -- I'm just trying to analyze how it all works.

We need to respond on this front. Policy nuances will obviously NOT accomplish our objectives. I still think it all comes back to values, and the ability to wrap your campaign around a few basic values. The Republicans are doing it, and are winning because of it. They present themselves as "standing up for traditional marriage", "protecting and defending the American way of life", and so on. This hits people on an emotional level. We won't succeed until we learn to do the same with the values that we believe in.

in fact, I think I've been saying just that. I do believe, however, that it is easier to be hopeful when you aren't exclusively focused on self-preservation. It IS a very basic human response--very instinctive. I thought Kerry had a message of hope, but it kept getting lost in the terror warnings and his muddled war message. I know he had a consistent answer on his war vote, but as long as there is a perceived threat of terror out there, people will focus on that.

The wedge issues we have defined have become lightening rod issues in these times because lashing out at someone is better than just sitting at home the dark and quivering. Dark experiences invite us all to give vent to our darker selves.

I simply think that you're experiencing a slight disconnect on HOW to offer that hope forward. That's where I come back to the issue of values. I keep coming back to it, because it is perhaps the most effective way to reach people at their most basic level of response.

Kerry's IWR vote and explanation killed him. It was long and tortuous, and was on a completely different level than Bush's responses. Bush's statements on this subject were all on a totally emotional level. John Kerry was trying to combat this with a call to reason -- a tactic that will only work with those people who are already responding on a reason level. To people who are on an emotional level, the call to reason will ring quite hollow.

When those 18 Saudis and 1 Egyptian DELIBERATELY drove those planes into the WTC and into the Pentagon on 911 on their BELIEF in a God that would supply them with a bevy of virgins and heavenly welcome, I think Rove hit upon the idea that what fearful Americans really wanted was proof that OUR GOD was even BIGGER, BADDER, MORE CRUEL, MORE TERRIFYING, MORE VENGEFUL, than THEIR GOD. Now it longer mattered that we had the best weapons in the world...what good did that fact mean if we didn't also have the most frightening God in the world?

Bush had to be used to prove that we had the best GOD anywhere on the planet and in the entire universe. That is what fuels these evangelicals and even those Republicans who are not necessarily religious. WE gotta have the BEST of EVERYTHING. How can they possibly allow the God of some Third World country foster a greater faith than our God does? Solution? Rally around Bush, because God has CHOSEN him to be HIS REPRESENTATIVE. Build faith in Bush to show your faith in God.

Than, first you need to divide it in 1/2 (because that is how our country are divided).

Then if truely 11% are concerned about moral issues, than Bush did his job. He helped people forget about terrorism, homeland security, a misleading war in Iraq by putting the fear of god in them that some couple down the street will obtain equal values.

11% of this country think it is more important to write legislature about gay marriage than to write legislature about homeland security, voter fraud, the economy, WAR.

The statistics show 10% of Americans are gay (and I am one of them). So instead of focusing on the issues that affect all americans, we focus on 20% of the population and their morality, which doesn't really affect the other 80% of Americans. What does affect the 80% (and the other 20% for that matter) was forgotten in a rush to legislate morality.

That is truely sad.

are not one thing. It's Gay Marriage, Prayer in schools, Abortion, displaying the 10 commandments in state offices, etc etc.

confined to those items you've listed. I could easily endorse that item because I consider it immoral for government policy to be developed and implemented in the way it has been since 2000. Likewise, I consider poverty, the war, absence of affordable heatlh care or housing, etc. all to be under this heading. Who knows who endorsed that item. I don't assum it means necessarily that all those who endorsed it were fundamentals/evangelicals.

So then how many of the 22% of Bush's voting population were focused solely on gay marriage?

11% now gets cut down to what?

And meanwhile, what about the remaining 80%?

The only thing that matters is what you want to believe. 50% of Americans still believe in their heart of hearts that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us. Seriously, this was a stat from only about 6 years ago. It's probably worse than that today.

The war on terror was up there, too, and national security. Values as usually the last on the list of top 5 or 6 issues, even in polls done in someof the Bible Belt states.

While I know these things change, they do NOT change that drastically...I really DO think the whole values thing is total spin. Make everyone believe it so that's all they will talk about....forgetting the others. Plus it's a good wedge issue...people will fight bitterly over it. Not only that, but saying it adds power to the supposed mandate Bush has...

as with most matters BushCo, they toss out a red herring to divert attention from the real issue . . . seems to be working for them again . . .

Bush won by motivating his base on sheer hatred and contempt:

Hatred of the HomoSexuals!

Hatred of the Traitor Kerry!

Hatred of Liberals!

Hatred of the Mongrol races!


Instead of refering to the the Red states as "the Heartland"...we should call them..."the Hateland".

Katherine Lampfer was saying that the "values" question was pretty much "fill in the blank" as to what the person's values are. I've never understood why people were making such a big deal about this. It's very vague.