Sunday Discussion Group

May 21, 2006

Over the last week or so, three leading Democratic writers — Peter Beinart, Mark Schmitt, and Paul Waldman — have looked at the party’s relationship with someone they not-quite-fondly refer to as “Nascar Man.” As Beinart described it, Dems’ efforts to impress Nascar man are foolish, and worse, a distraction from substantive debates that the party needs to have.

Nascar Man hovers over every discussion I’ve ever attended. You don’t always notice him at first, but, sooner or later, someone invites him into the room, and he proceeds to suck out all the air. Nascar Man is the guy liberals need to win, but usually don’t. He loves guns, pickup trucks, chewing tobacco, and church on Sunday. He thinks liberals are high-taxing, culturally libertine, quasi-pacifist wimps. And, once liberals have conjured him up, they no longer say what they really believe — even to one another.

The problem starts with the failure to draw a basic distinction: between what liberals believe and what Democrats should say to get elected. Inevitably, in my experience, the two are conflated, and, inevitably, the latter tramples the former. Should liberals invest more power in the United Nations? Should they spend large new sums on the poor? Should they support gay marriage? The propositions are not refuted; they are rarely even raised, because no one wants to incite nascar Man’s wrath. Nascar Man inhibits intellectual inquiry. He’s the bully everyone wants to appease.

The idea is straightforward enough: Dems believe, probably accurately, that Nascar Man would help make the party the majority party again. Dems are really, truly convinced that Nascar Man would love Dem candidates, if he’d only give up on the silly caricature he has of the party, that doesn’t reflect reality anyway. Of course, he won’t give up on that caricature, he’s easily swayed by right-wing wedge politics, and he hasn’t voted for a Dem in decades.

Waldman, among others, says it’s time to give up on him.

Screw Nascar Man. By which I mean, Democrats need to stop worrying so much about the people least likely to vote for them. Do you think Karl Rove lies awake at night worrying about how he can pick up more votes in Berkeley or Cambridge, or whether he can somehow convince more professors of cultural studies to vote Republican?

The difference, perhaps, is just a numbers game. The number of white, working class males who reject Dems for cultural reasons (i.e. Nascar man) is not only huge, it’s the difference between winning and losing in competitive southern states like North Carolina, Virginia, and Arkansas.

So, what to do? At this point, the Dems could just give up on Nascar Man, stop trying to make him happy, recognize that he’s unreachable, and have some internal policy discussions that disregard whether Nascar Man would like the answer or not. Or Dems could redouble their efforts, convince Nascar Man that Republicans aren’t delivering for him or his family, and hope that winning him and his friends over leads to a massive national sweep. Which would you choose?

Nascar Man. Soccer Moms.
Whatever happened to just calling us “AMERICANS”?
We have to balkanize this country into different cliques that only builds up on the “us versus them” mentality that the White House and conservative pundits use to keep working and middle class Americans fragmented.

In 1992, you had one message: “It’s the economy, stupid”, and the Democrats won on that. Now you have the economy, gas prices, Iraq, lack of security, hemming and hawing on immigration, and a feeling of malaise from an American public that has no sense of connection with either Congress or the White House. Most Americans care a lot more about those issues than gun rights, tax cuts, abortion and gay marriage. It’s time Democrats start defining the issues that really affect our country, and not the Bush administration and their cronies.

Dean has the right idea. Go out into the countryside, ask people what they feel about their lives and their children’s lives, and then tell them why Democrats will do a better job. Stay the hell out of Washington, leave that rotting hole for the Republicans who don’t care about the people their supposed to represent.

Stay strong, America, we’re counting on you
Now I’m getting that mug of coffee I need.

  • The wedge issues used to keep the voters represented by this “Nascar Man” symbol in the GOP – gays (esp. gay marriage), taxes, fundamentalist religion and general racist xenophobia – can’t be won by Democrats. That’s why the GOP strategists picked those issues, and why they return to them time and time again. But the reason there’s such a focus on these things is that they are needed to mask the underlying disparity between the economic interests of the working class whites who generate Republican votes, and the business interests who run the party (and who have been the nearly sole beneficiaries of Republican rule).

    Currently the “Nascar Men” are getting an object lesson in why there are far worse things for them gays, taxes and brown people. (I’m thinking Iraq, Katrina and gas prices.) Once the economy hits its next downturn this lesson will come in all the stronger, especially since Grover’s plan to deliberately sabotage government finance is so far along. The question is how much of the country will still be in existence by the time the “Nascar Men” figure out they’re only going to be played if they stick with the GOP.

    Ignore the cultural issues. In the end they will be much less important than the economic ones.

  • No politician, no matter how good, can be all things to all voters. I agree with Waldman: screw Nascar Man.

    I have close family members, male and female, who fit your description of Nascar Man his Missus to a tee. They’re not worth pointing out facts to because they’re suspicious of facts which threaten their prejudices. They live in a charicature of the 1950s which never was. They’re not worth recommending good books or articles to because they can’t or won’t read. They’re literally afraid to visit large and wonderful cities in this country, or travel abroad, or learn anything new about anything, especially art or science.

    I have no objection to what Dean is trying to do; in fact, I’m enthusiastic about what Dean is trying to in the face of those “party leaders” who only want to schmooze with the champagne set in DC (elected or up for hire). We should make an effort to “bring the message” to all 50 states and everyone in the electorate. But if we think we’re going to change the TV-addled, yuck-yuck, puhraise-the-Lawd, Messican and N-word hating beer bellies out there, we’re deluding ourselves.

    Nietzsche cautioned that when you combat monsters you must be careful not to become a monster yourself. Even the Jesuits, who have a notorious history of energetic missionary work all over the globe and a willingness to argue with anyone including the powerful, were forced to develop a concept which I think we need to ponder as well: “invincible ignorance”.

    The Democratic Party is the party of FDR and Harry Truman, of Scoop Jackson and Russ Feingold, of Edmund G. “Pat” Brown and Paul Wellstone, of John and Bobby Kennedy. It’s the party which led us through the Great Depression and to victory in World War II, while holding the line in Korea and creating a budget surplus under Clinton-Gore. It’s the party which gave us the Peace Corps and the War on Poverty, and it’s the party which gave us early warning signs of global warming and a concern for the environment. Its the party which befriended the working people of this country and, by raising wages through unions, created the fabled Middle Class of the 1950s (when one salary could buy a car, home, vacation, and college educations). If that’s not good enough for the yokels — who will increasingly look like comic-strip characters out of Al Capp as we move ahead through the 21st century — then so be it.

  • Yep, screw Nascar man. Once every Hispanic voter in America turns to the Dems for the next 20 years, we won’t need Nascar man anyway.

  • Democrats should appeal to NFL man in Ohio, Iowa and Missouri, rather than tilt at NASCAR man windmills.

  • I’d completely ignore the Nascar man stereotype, rather play into it. A populist message of economic fairness, ala John Edwards, would likely peel some of them away. Reasonable border security, and most certainly, port security would peel others away. Those guys might like to watch a Home Depot car zoom around in circles for hours on end, but they’re also leery of huge corporations.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that we’ll be further ahead by fracturing this group, rather than reinforcing it.

  • I’m away off on the other side of the planet so really I know nothing. OTOH, it gives me a perspective which may not be entirely useless. From way out here it looks clear as day that you lot are totally pissed off with your Bushgang, and the Repugs that go with them. So the Dems are guaranteed a takeover in November, more or less regardless of what they do or say.
    It’s a fairly similar scenario to when New Labo(u)r took over from Thatcherite Tories in UK in 1997. The electorate, you could say, gave the Torygang enough rope to hang themselves with – and so they did. They succeeded in totally pissing off everyone with poll tax, railway privatisation, etc so that no one had any more interest in keeping them in power.
    Of course, you could say that is quite a crude and sweepingly generalized analysis, but maybe it is near enough the mark to give a boost to your efforts to rescue America from its descent into darkness. Really, from far away, it’s difficult to understand why Democrats would be shaking in their boots about failing in November, and beyond, when the momentum is so obviously in their favor.
    – Just go for it! (and watch out for the Diebolds and Tobins)

  • Here is a novel idea – try voicing principles and practical policies. You don’t need to tell NASCAR guy or neoconservative whack job guy to ‘screw themselves’ (that’s Cheney’s thing), just politely, but strongly, state your position.

    When confronted by, say, a fearful redneck, don’t hedge. If there is legitate overlap in your beliefs, point it out, but mostly stress that you are, in fact, being truthful and open. Remind voters how empty the rhetoric has been from BushCo. A few nutcases will peel away because of commonality and respect, and a few more will just stay home as they figure out they are just convenient shock troops for people who take their money and effort but don’t really share their agenda.

    -jjf

  • Having just spent yesterday getting turned into a boiled lobster out in NascarManLand (the airshow I go to finally had “airshow weather” and even SPF 45 wasn’t enough over 8 hours spent looking up at all the airplanes overhead). At the party for museum supporters afterwards, I was in the midst of mass quantities of NascarMen – lots of folks from Orangutang County, the Inland Empire, etc. The atmosphere was a bright vermillion red.

    And while a good 90 percent of the conversations were about love of old airplanes and how cool the antique cars parked over by the hangar were, there were interspersed some interesting and highly negative comments about current events, that correctly identified the proper culprits (i.e., “those damn Washington Republicans”). Now, it might be different for me to enter those conversations than for any of the three writers under discussion here, since I have a certain credibility as the guy who built so many of the models in the museum and who writes about the museum so well in my alternative identity as an aviation journalist, so I’m not just “that lib from over on the coast”, I noticed something I’ve been noticing in other conversations I’ve been having in the last months with other Republicans:

    You (or at least I) can talk to them about such Democratic points as a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, getting Medicare straightened out right (many of these folks are either having to sign up now or will be soon), not wasting their kids’ and relatives’ and friends’ lives on worthless bullshit in Iraq that makes the America they swore to defend (many are ex-military) hated around the world, actually fighting the war on terror without “losing the war” by giving up the things that make us the people the terrorists hate (civil liberties). And they listen and they agree with those points.

    OK, I didn’t talk to them about my oldest friend in the world since kindergarten and how unfair it is the way he and his partner are treated without being able to marry and care for each other (although if i did I would put it in those terms, because nearly all of them actually know someone personally who fits that kind of description). I didn’t get on to why they shoudn’t have bought those idiot SUVs in the first place (they were doing that on their own, complaining about gas prices).

    But on important points, these people can be talked to. Maybe not by an execrable idiot like that @#$%$#@!! fool Peter Beinart and the rest of the quarter-wits at The New Republican, or even my friend Paul Waldman, but folks like you and me can do it. We can do it because we know them, and they know us, and if the relationship is close enough to talk politics, sex and religion, then likely there is enough mutual respect to get through.

    No, not the Kool-Aid drinkers. I agree, don’t waste your time trying to convince a moron, it’s like wrestling pigs – you get dirty and you find the pig likes it. But most of these NascarMen are not complete ideologues. Many are not all that political actually, and only say what they do because that’s what they’ve been propagandized with.

    The bottom line is, if you don’t believe in it, how do you expect someone else to believe you? So don’t be afraid to talk, and do be smart enough to “read the audience” and bring up the points they’re likely to respond to. Once you have them interested, youcan bring up all things in good time.

    And I’ll close with the memory this past Thursday of driving around here in El Lay and coming up to a light behind one of those jacked-up jeeps, covered in Nascar stickers and a “Drag racers rule” license holder.

    And on the bumper was “Boycott Veal: Stop Factory Farming.”

    I do believe that is a NascarMan this ex-carnivore could have talked to.

  • NASCAR Man is perhaps just a subspecies of the Jacksonian Man . This article by Walter Russel Mead defines not only the target of the Rovian strategy but also suggests how the GOP alienated many of them recently by attacking Middle Class entitlements and proving to be incompetent at war.

  • Ed,
    good points.

    “Either you’re with us in helping make America strong again, or your against us.”

  • Get out the Minority Vote.
    Get out the Urban Vote.

    Make sure the repugs don’t disenfrachise them.

    That’s how you screw Nascar man.
    You vote him into extinction….

  • If you want to crush the Republicans on their own turf then focus on the things that the “average man” hates.
    1) Taxes – focus on the tax cuts for the ultra rich. Use that table Morbo posted last week. The Repubs can call it class warfare, but it is and show how NASCAR man is on the losing side.
    2) Increasing Healthcare bills – show that Repubs want to gut medicare and leave him with the bills while the rich can do whatever the hell they want.
    3) Gas subsidies for oil cos. One of the few things I can agree with the right wing crowd is our hatred of domineering oil companies, banks and utilities. Post lots of photos of Jabbha Raymond and his $400 million dollar golden handshake and hammer the fact that everyone who drives paid more than their share for it. Show that their tax money is going to rich oil companies. The NASCAR man hates that government waste.

  • I fully agree with 2Manchu and others who believe the Dems must simply stand for something and tell the truth.

    In my part of the country (Georgia), Nascar Man’s grandpa voted for FDR, and for good reason. FDR pulled the nation out of the Great Depression with public works projects like the CCC, WPA and TVA. The South was hit hardest by the Great Depression.

    I don’t think Nascar Men and others are sold on the Repug’s “growing economy.” When push comes to shove, they (and others) won’t care about gays and flag-burning. They want to keep their bass boats.

    Money is a powerful motivator. I suggest the Dems sit on the Repugs’ insane spending and debt. But most of all, they have to “bring it home” by making a vulnerable middle class understand in detail the personal effect of Repug fiscal policies, and that they can look forward to more of the same from that party.

    I’ll add that most people care deeply about their kids. The angle the Dems have missed is burden being left for their kids.

    In the old days, the Democrats seen as standing for the “little guy” and the Republicans for the “rich folks.” That perception needs a reprise. The only problem is that the Repugs have convinced Nascar Man that he is not a “little guy.”

  • It is stupid to tailor your message to the people least likely to vote for you. The reason Nascar Man doesn’t vote Democratic is because he abhors basic Democratic values. You can only appeal to him by dumping your core values.

    The strategy is based on the belief that those people who share your core values will still support you after you’ve dumped those values. This belief is mistaken, and it is a significant part of the reason Democrats have done poorly in recent elections.

    The strategy is also based on the cynical belief that you should say whatever is necessary to get elected, and then do something completely different after you’re elected. That not only undermines the credibility of politicians, leaving people to believe that politicians are unprincipled scum, but also undermines the very concept of Democracy.

  • The problem is that Democrats are as frightened by their own progressive ideals as the Nascars are terrified by the twisted way the Republicans characterize them. Democrats act as if they are ashamed of what they supposedly stand for, and it shows. Does it ever show. Opposition to the policies of the worst and most corrupt administration in history has been virtually nonexistent.

    The philosophy of progressives should appeal to the vast majority of civilized people in this world, if presented properly. The job of Democrats is to learn how to sell it, not pretend to the Nascars that they don’t really stand for it.

    But do Democrats really believe in progressivism anymore? Or have they become corrupted by the same forces that destroyed the Republican Party? I fear the latter.

  • From my experience with these guys (Okay, I’m one of them), all you have to do is ask one question:
    “Hey, how about that Jeff Gordon?”

    Now, the more open-minded, common-sense NASCAR man (like myself) will answer “Jeff’s a good driver”. He’s the one you can talk to.

    If he answers “Gordon’s a fag”, then they’re the ones who are beyond convincing.

  • Sadly, I just call the Nascar men my brothers. I saw two of them yesterday at my mom’s house. They just don’t accept that a liberal person can have any sound grounds for complaint about George Bush.

    Nascar Brother 1: Name me one American citizen who has had his civil liberties violated by this administration.

    Me: Jose Padillia

    Nascar Brother 1: Well, well, that doesn’t count.

    So, when does it start to count?

  • Leadership and strong policies on jobs might peel a few Nascar men away, but mostly they have already made up their minds. Someone mentioned the minority and urban vote being much more important. I’d suggest that Democrats speaking to women about about healthcare, access to contraception, childcare, and college costs could go a lot further in getting large numbers of new voters, including the wives and girlfriends of Nascar men.

  • Democrats ignore more potential voters on their left than they try to woo on their right. Half of the people don’t vote, and these are the people being hammered by Republican “values”- the people who go to jail for smoking pot, work in a non-union shop, can’t find affordable housing, and can’t get training for a job that might actually be there for 20 years. Not to mention that thing about gas prices.

    Well, here’s a newsflash from ruraltania. The kids go to the cities. They go to suburbs. They try to find a place in the future economy.

    There is no monolithic Nascarman or Nascarland. It’s advertising, for heaven’s sake.

    A big problem for the Dems is their reliance on war industries, the police and prison guard unions, the unions that build suburban houses and state highways, the unions that build gas-guzzling cars, and the state welfare agencies.

    Why are the welfare people a problem? Well, in Washington state, the welfare bureaucracy, over the past decade, has reduced by a third the amount that can be provided for a disabled person to live in their own home. Adjusted for inflation, that’s like cutting it in half. When SEIU came to organize home caregivers, the state and all the “do-gooder” organizations lined up against the caregivers.

    The Nascarman myth exploits the internal contradictions of liberalism. That will work until liberals or Dems come up with a viable alternative future for us to support.

  • The Pew Research Foundation did a demographic study in 2005. You can find it here.
    The study doesn’t use the term NASCAR dad, but typology group social conservative comes close. The group is 13% of all registered voters. It is 82% Republican, 18% Independent and 0% Democrat.

    The only key belief for this group which aligns more with the Democrats than the Republicans is that 66% believe that corporations make too much profit as compared to 54% of the general population. With raising oil prices this number may be higher today.

    Here is a run down on some of the issues where this group tends to hold positions more closely aligned with Democrats than Republicans. While this group is anti-choice, it is roughly evenly divided on stem cell research. Seventy-nine percent of this group favors raising the minimum wage. On Bush’s tax cuts the group is once more evenly divided. The group overwhelmingly favors cutting the deficit over lowing taxes 61% to 31%. However, 63% believe the deficit should be cut by cutting spending and only 27% think this should be done by raising taxes. If Democrats hope to divide and conquer this group it is on these issues that they might make some inroad.
    However, the likelihood of success in picking off some of these voters is rather low. Remember 0% of them are Democrats and only 18% are independent.

    I think the best strategy for Democrats with regard to this group is to do everything we can to encourage them to stay home in November.

  • On Yahoo this morning,

    “Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.”

    Does that include Bob Novak and Judy Miller?

  • The winning Democratic NASCAR Man strategy:

    free stock car races on election day far, far away from the polling places….

  • I think it’s important to recognize that “give up on NASCAR man” as we are saying is not the same as punting his vote. We still want his vote, but we won’t get it by trying to pander to him. As Lance pointed out, they simply don’t believe Liberals have any standing. And we won’t change that for 2006 or 2008 or 2010. We will only change that if Democratic victories give us bigger and better platforms to talk about the issues that really matter. So yes, give up on NASCAR man, keeping in mind the following:

    Getting NASCAR man’s vote is not the path to victory. Getting NASCAR man’s vote is the result of victory.

    That victory will only be realized by standing strongly for Democratic values. Push for civil liberties, push for equal rights, push for opportunity, push for responsible foreign policy, push for government accountability, push for corporate transparency.

    Also, the Jeff Gordon question is a good idea.

  • Nascars run on gas. Hit em where they live.

    Oil company profits linked to gas prices linked to oilmen president and vice president with the message, these ain’t the good old boys they pretend to be.

    Bottom line.. understand the Nascar Man mindset and speakto them in their language to point out that Bush is not in their corner.

    Dems don’t have to adopt the ethics of a Rove to appreciate the need to skillfully communicate to specific democraphic voting blocks with emotional icons.

  • Here’s my idea. The Dems should court NASCAR Man by becoming the primary sponsor of a Nextel Cup car.

    The primary color of the car should be blue, of course. The car should be painted in such a way that when one glances at it, one can’t help but see words such as “Democrat” or “Democratic Party.” The names of secondary sponsors – perhaps businesses like Progressive Insurance, Working Assets, and Ben and Jerry’s – could also appear on the car, but those names should be much less prominent than words pertaining to the primary sponsor. The idea is to get NASCAR Man to refer to the car as “the Democrat car,” or something similar.

    The Dems should take on this project only if they are prepared to do it right, which means spending as much money as it takes to make its NASCAR team highly competitive. If the Dems try to do this on the cheap, and the car routinely finishes near the back of the pack, then the whole effort will be counterproductive. If the car turns out to be a dog, NASCAR Man will then mock the Dem’s car and team and associate the Democratic Party with losing and incompetence.

    Selecting the right driver will be crucial. Not only will the driver have to be a top-notch driver capable of actually winning Nextel Cup races, but he’ll also have to be someone whom NASCAR Man likes and respects. It is very important that the driver be sufficiently macho. (This rules out Jeff Gordon, whom many NASCAR fans dislike because they see him as too effeminate.) NASCAR Man tends to like drivers who are confident, tough, and laconic – and not too articulate. In other words, guys who have a sort of Marlboro Man personna.

    Of course the driver will have to be at least somewhat politically aware, a genuine supporter of the Democratic Party, and willing to say the occasional appropriate good thing about the Democratic Party. Ideally, he’ll be an economic populist who honestly believes the Dems do a better job of looking out for the economic interests of NASCAR Man.

    If I were in charge of finding a suitable driver, the first guy I’d look at would be Dale Ernhardt, Jr. I don’t know much about his political views, but I remember reading back in the summer of 2004 that he had seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11, was impressed by it, and was encouraging his crew members to see it.

    If the Dems were to pull this off – that is, buy or put together a top-notch Nextel Cup team with a great car, a great driver, and a great crew, and then win some races and establish its team as a Top 5 or Top 10 team – the political payoff could be huge. The driver could turn out to be a very effective political campaigner, even if he didn’t campaign in the traditional sense.

    I’ve read that it costs tens of millions of dollars each year to operate a competitive Nextel Cup team. So perhaps my idea is prohibitively expensive. But I think Howard Dean should look into it. It just might make sense both economically and politically.

  • The real point here is that everyone who has supported the Republican Party at any time since ~1978-79 knew what they were supporting and why. They were supporting totalitarianism, whose concrete expression has been selective enforcement and non-enforcement of the law, leading to de-facto classes of citizenship.

    The only way the Democratic Party could make any Republican voters switch would be to outbid the Republicans in promises of immunity from prosecution. Once you have promised a man to place him above the law, he cannot be stood down. He loses interest in any other promise or reward.

    Everyone who has supported the totalitarian Republican Party is morally tainted and nothing can remove that taint. They must be tarred and branded for all time. They have placed themselves outside civilization and there is no way for them to earn their way back into it, even if they wanted to, which they don’t.

  • Focus on the gender gap, because it’s back.

    Overall approval for Bush at 35%, but approval by women around 30%. That cuts deep into their base and shows there’s a split in conservative households that was not there in 2004. Forget the men. Talk to women. Then watch these Nascar men try to control their Anti-Bush women.

    Let’s talk about accountability: Polls suggest that people want divided government. They see that one-party control doesn’t work. Or as Dr Phil would say: So you got control of all three branches of government, how’s that working out for you?

  • Moron- I think you got something… but leave it to the Dems to screw it up by having Hillary driving a flag burning amendment lap car, towing John Kerry in an American flag windsurfing outfit on a skateboard.
    The trick is not pretending to be NASCAR, but letting real NASCAR folk get your message out.

  • I’m no NASCAR Man, but it seems to me the worst possible way to court him is to sit around agonizing about the best way to court him.

  • As some commenters have suggested, but I dont think it has been bluntly stated, the Discussion topic sets up a false choice. Courting or conceding the NascarMan vote is not a binary, all-or-nothing issue. It really is about prioritization of resources.

    Do we target a ton of cash and footwork on NascarMan? Of course not.
    Do we sell our souls by promising prayer in school and gay-bashing? No.
    Do we make sure, say, 20% of our media and outreach delivers a message about the working class getting screwed by Rethuglican Oil Barons and health care racketeers in a way and in markets designed to hit a significant number of NascarMen? Absolutely.

    That said, I would never want to cater to NascarMan explicitly. As someone posted above, cleave off some percentage, split them up a bit.

    I think the better growth opportunity (and, I think, the real decisive battlefront in 2006 and 2008) is purple-state suburbs. Bush the Elder won teh suburbs; Clinton won the suburbs; Bushling won the ‘burbs. They tend Rethug, mainly on economic and crime issues, but are not hardcore fundies nor are they particularly pro-war. Being well educated and a bit mroe worldly, the value competence. I think a lot of these mid-level business execs, and particularly women, are ripe to be pulled back away from the Rethugs. Much as what were then known as “Reagan Democrats” — life long Ds who switched to support Reagan — have been fairly solid Bush backers, we need to make sure we get every last Clinton Republican. If we do, 2006 and 2008 will be very good years for us indeed.

  • Off topic but I have an anecdote about Country Club Woman:

    Had dinner with old friends of my parents last night…Rich, Elderly, and Republican (REAR???)…they were in attendance at one of Dubya’s Medicare Part D events…before they showed me their “grip and grin” photos, the wife prefaced it with this comment: “I don’t much like Bush…”

    I was stunned…this couple has been voting Republican almost since Lincoln…hard to imagine that Dubya has alienated even them at this point…

  • The Republicans have been defining our brand to the rural and southern voters for decades and they are very, very good at it. Listen to Rush sometime, he spends far more time talking down Democrats than he does talking up his side. NASCAR dads and moms know that Democrats hate America because they’ve had that message reinforced over and over and over. We’ve taken the place of the evil Soviets in their minds.

    I read and post on a home decorating forum and a year or so ago a woman from Texas or Alabama posted an off-topic rant about Bill Clinton. Immediately there were a number of responses letting her know (politely!!) that we disagreed and that she was out of line to post about politics. Her response was enlightening. She had truly assumed that all of the nice people that she had been chatting with for years were just like her. We seemed to be so similar; we loved our families, were married to people of the opposite sex, worked at jobs, decorated for Christmas, and cared about the paint color on our walls. It had never occurred to her that some of us might be Democrats. Rush, et al had brainwashed her about us.

    I think that Dr. Dean has the right approach, but I don’t think that we are going to see 30 years of a relentless advertising campaign reversed in a year or two and my guess is that unless we get really, really lucky this coming November, the traditional D leadership is going to want to go back to their old (losing) methods.

    However, once folks in the red states are exposed to reasonable Democrats, they will begin to soften up. I’ve read that the at-large Congressional seat in Wyoming is looking closer than it has since 1942 and that’s a testament to the good job that Gov. Freudenthal is doing in that state. If Democrats working at a local level can take advantage of the growing dislike of “Washington Republicans” and make it clear to their friends and neighbors that they really have the same fears and goals, we may begin to counter the Republican Noise Machine.

  • Like many here, apparently, I’d like to see an effort to erase labels, recognizing that they only antagonize many, including me, and are desperately inaccurate. I have friends like Ricardo’s family friends. Dean’s approach is about the only thing that makes sense. Serial catowner pretty much nails it, as does hark, though I’d have to say to hark that the Dems have already sold out. The hope is with progressives.

  • There’s absolutely no need whatsoever to “tailor the message” to Nascar Man. Just ask the guy a few questions—and then let him stew over them for a while:

    (1) So, tell me, Nascar Man—why is it that all those body-bags coming back from Iraq are stuffed with the mortal remains of “Future Nascar Men,” while all the Slick-Dick-Cheney-types are sittin’ in a bar, sucking down cold beer?

    (2) Why, Nascar Man, are you having to buy high-priced gasoline for your pickup truck, while the King-George-Bush-types at the oil companies are raking in record profits? And speaking of your pickup truck—ever notice just how much of the stuff in your local Nascar Parts Store says “made in China?” Your truck’s startin’ to sound like a good little Communist truck there, buddy….

    Just hit Nascar Man with a few core-message questions like that—and tell him to come and see you when he’s ready to talk about it. Then, just walk away. Don’t spin your wheels trying to convert the guy; he’s addicted to the deceits of the Republikanner Beast, and an addict will only seek help when he’s ready to do so. Just like the druggie; just like the drunk—only when he’s hit the bottom, and is ready to do it on his own.

    Set this thing up the right way—and Nascar Man might just be in the Dem’s camp by November….

  • “support gay marriage”? Why not just say it’s none of the gov’ts business?Even the Methodists (Bush and Cheney’s church) were considering santifying gay marriage. What business does the gov’t have to criminalize it?

    Hunters and fishermen are a huge source of conservation work and conserved land. Talk to your state’s fish & wildlife dept. and you’d see that sportsman are natural allies of all but fringe environmentalists.

    As for church on Sunday, polls suggest that even atheists prefer believers for president. What part of Jesus’ message is conservative anyway?

  • Focus on the gender gap, because it’s back.

    Comment by CJ Kouri — 5/21/2006 @ 1:19 pm

    Ditto to that. Nascarlandia is kept together by it’s women. The guys may lean on their trucks and pontificate but it’s the women who maintain the social fabric. They do the shopping and that’s why Wal-Mart gets their business. They’re on a tight budget and they need to stay on it or something’s got to give. Like tickets to NASCAR races or groceries or new shoes. It is the economy. It is this stupid waste of a “war”. It is the environment that causes a mother to listen to a wheezing child or worry about a man in a mine or wonder why her child has cancer at the age of 5. It’s that stupid big gas guzzler she’s stuck with because they can’t afford to buy anything else right now but it’s costing $70+ every fill up when she can afford to fill it up.

    Women give a damn about issues that Democrats can claim strength on and I don’t believe they are being adequately considered or respected when all this targeting of issues is being agonized over. Women think. Women talk. Women worry. Giving women less to worry about would boost Dem’s chances ongoing.

    Shruby may patronizingly pat 70% of “unsettled” America on the head and tell it not to worry, but that unsettled majority is Shruby’s gift to us. If we acknowledge it that is and show we can bring a more “settled” future.

  • I know this may be hard for fully socialized liberals to understand, but the most effective way to convert Nascar Man is to fight with him, to express in a full-throated way, the hostility Democrats feel toward Nascar Man.

    Nascar Man loves a fight. To make friends with him, first, you have to fight with him.

    Tell Nascar Man that the Republicans are screwing him, and that he’s stupid, and that his stupidity is hurting him and his family, and that makes you, Democratic Liberal person, angry. Really angry. Say it and do it, convincingly, and I think the Democrats would stand a chance.

    Appeasing Nascar Man, though, is hopeless; it just confirms the wimp hypothesis.

  • I think it’s important to recognize that “give up on NASCAR man” as we are saying is not the same as punting his vote. We still want his vote, but we won’t get it by trying to pander to him. As Lance pointed out, they simply don’t believe Liberals have any standing. And we won’t change that for 2006 or 2008 or 2010. We will only change that if Democratic victories give us bigger and better platforms to talk about the issues that really matter.

    Bingo. Whatever happened to the art of political persuasion? Aren’t we sufficiently strong in our ideas and ideals that we feel like we can win arguments with them?

    I’m not at all convinced that “NASCAR Man” isn’t a bulls**t construct anyway, but assuming that he’s real, I suspect he partakes in the anti-authoritarian strain of American political thought. He doesn’t want to be told what to do, by the government or anyone else; it then logically follows that he’s not particularly inclined to tell others what to do. He might not like gays, he might not want to spend time with them, but he also might very well be sympathetic to the argument that he doesn’t get to legislate their morality–lest the tables one day turn.

    I have to believe that what NASCAR Man mostly wants is a sense that the folks in charge know what they’re doing and are spending his tax dollars in a reasonably constructive, productive manner–the “competence, not ideology” argument. After 12 years of DeLayican congressional misrule and six of Bush’s historic ineptitude, that’s a pretty easy case to win… even before you remember that if NASCAR Man is a resident of VA, NC, LA, OK or a half-dozen other states in the South or the Plains, he might well have voted for a well-regarded Democratic governor .

    But the final part of this story is that we need a better stylistic approach than, let’s face it, the arrogance and condescension that really did and frequently still do characterize liberal arguments. The core principle of democracy is that wisdom resides in The People; that only holds if its citizens are reachable by logic and argument in a discourse of equals. We on the left side of the spectrum must do a better job of keeping that in mind.

  • I LOVE ‘moron’s’ suggestion! The possibilities are endless. First, I’d like to see a Democratic Ferrari entered. And I’d like to see a Frenchman driving it.

    No, wait! A Volvo!

    Another possibilty would be a stealth entry. The Dems could field a car heavily covered with Republican talking points and graphics of indicted Repubs. The clincher is that the stealth car continually breaks down when it competes. At other races, it is disqualified for cheating. Plus, the team could establish a reputation for running competitors into the wall. After the race, the team would put out press releases claiming to have won, and that other drivers are gay bible-burning abortionists.

    Needless to say, the car would be sponsored by Halliburton.

  • Ali,
    It would also have to burn twice as much fuel as the other cars, with more pollution.

    The pit crew would also have to mirror the Bush staff. Worn tires? Replace the steering wheel. Driver says the clutch sticks? Replace them for not being a team player.

    And they would get tools and parts based on not would be the best for the car, but on which tool company bribes them the most.

    “Team GOP” would then declare “Race Accomplished” after the first three laps.

    And when they lose, they blame the flag-waver, as well as the announcers for only reporting the “negative side” of their race.

  • Women think. Women talk. Women worry.

    Please excuse my stating the obvious but it has seemed all along that NASCARman is treated as some sort of monolith while Ms. NASCARman is a cipher or footnote of little importance. And that’s assuming that there is a NASCARman in the equation. There are plenty of women in NASCAR territory with no NASCARman or any kind of man who is going to make their lives better. These women and their often fatherless children are struggling. Their hopes are not being addressed and they can vote too.

  • CB’s link to the Beinart article in TNR takes you to a subscription only page. I did a Google Search on NASCAR man. The result is here. The link The problem with Democrat’s…., which is the fourth one down the page, takes you to the whole article. Oddly, when you paste this link into the browser it redirects you to to the subscription only page.

  • Nascar man is as stupid as soccer mom as pointed out in the very first comment. If the Dems want to win they had better stop listening to focus groups and talk straight to the voters. People will stay home if they don’t see a difference between what we have now and what a change in party and direction can offer.

    We actually have the wind at our backs right now, so why would we want to dilute our message just to get a few die hard repubs to go along? At least 30% won’t anyway. Most people have common sense and they will vote their pocket-books, not their party.

  • We can get NFL guy if not Nascar man. So I say go for him rather than that Nascar redneck.

    Rather than Dean’s view that we want the guys with rebel flags on their truck, we want the dads with their sons in the truck.

  • 2Manchu:

    I think you have developed an ideal strategy for Nascman. One more thing, though. Team Repub’s car would not only have an incompetent driver (possibly afflicted with St. Vitus Dance), but a “back seat” full of advisors with their own agendas. “Turn around and go the other way! That’s how to win!” or “Wave to the fans with both hands!”

    (The image of a Citroen 2CV is coming to mind. And Perrier.)

  • None of it matters if the voting machines are rigged. That’s where we really need to focus…regulate the machines, regulate the way the voting is done so that it’s the same process whether you’re in Miami, Ohio, or Seattle, and track the votes with a paper trail. Don’t forget that’s why we’re where we are now, stuck with shrub…

  • I’d go for door #2. These people are being screwed by the Republicans. We need to tell them that, and how we would actually work for them and their interests. In other words, we need to shift the debate to our terms (health care, education, unions) and stop being so bloody defensive about gay marriage, dammit.

  • If, to win Nascar Man, the Dems need to compromise their principles and reverse longstanding policies of tolerance and community responsibility, where’s the gain? You’ll lose a lot of women. You’ll make progressives decide it’s not worth it. You’ll kick labor and its volunteers in the face.

    We are what we are. And that’s a good thing to be. Changing to win some guys who are against what we’re for? I don’t think that’s wise– and it’s not winning either. Repubs can do it so much better– they can convince some poor guy in Arkansas that he benefits from Bill Gates’s huge tax cut. They can convince him that he’s better off without decent healthcare. They can convince him he benefits when his wages are cut. How do they do this? By lying.

    We really don’t want to do that.

    Fortunately, Nascar Man despises a loser. And Bush is losing so much so quickly– whatever charm he held for Nascar is going to be gone soon.

    The Dems are never going to appeal to everyone– but the Republicans aren’t either. And let’s not pretend that somehow we “need” any group the Republicans lay claim to. We won in 2000. We probably won in 2004. The Republicans act like big winners, and that’s their strength. We should stop acting like losers and remember that we won the vote in 2000, and that Bush and his group have never won handily.

    It’s only a couple percentage points shift needed. And that can come from groups other than the Nascar men. That can come from elderly people who are worried about social security. That can come from mothers who thought No Child Left Behind sounded good, but now see what a mess it’s created.

    There’s nothing unique about the Nascar man group. It is not necessary to win an election.

  • Hmmm…as a bit of a NASCAR man myself (not so much the nascar itself, but more the “values” and the “culture” thereof) I have some questions and thoughts which I would like to field to y’all. Why are firearms such an anethema to democrats? Where did the notion come from that outlawing guns would prevent their abuse (hmm…much like how prohibition and the war on drugs prevented their respective abuses – just a thought)? Why is it that an urban lifestyle is considered infinitely superior to a rural one? Are those who prefer small towns and farms really less human? Why are the socialist governments (like those in europe) considered so infinitely superior to our own? Is there something wrong with not wanting the government to control my life? Why is prejudice against people who take Christianity seriously OK? Why is it OK for someone of a “minority” to have more rights than/preference before me because they are of that “minority”? Why should illegal immigrants be allowed to break our nations laws and recieve either a slap on the wrist or a reward, when myself and legal immigrants are expected to follow laws and accept responibility for breaking them? Why are Democrat good-‘ole-boys and aristocrats the salt of the earth while Republican ones are evil bad greedy men (all too often they look the same to me).

    I know some of these may sound very stereotypical, but it has been my experience that stereotypes exist for a reason. And please understand, it is not my attention to be offensive with these questions, it’s just that to be perfectly candid – I don’t understnad and I want to understand. I feel somewhat disenfranchised by the current Republican dominated government, but these questions reflect the impression Democratic leaders have given to me and those like me. I sincerely disagree with homosexuality, but then again I have gay/lez/bi friends and fully support their right to be gay/lez/bi if they choose to. I also disagree with abortion, but I do not believe that the government can tell a woman one way or another about it. As far as things like healthcare, medicare, foreign policy, the war on terror, energy costs, etc. go, my main concern is I want something that works – not nice sounding utopianesque ideals (which are either impossible/impractical to implement or do not possess a real strategy) and not well-sold plans (that seem to somehow get “bungled” beyond all recognition in the execution).

    Dajafi in post #40 hit the nail on the head (at least for me). Owen and J bean in posts 37 and 34, respectively, also hit on things that resonate for me. If a Democrat platform appeared that dropped the silly partisan infighting/name-calling, proposed a govt. that was fundamentally different from the current all-too-similar platforms (say, a non-intrusive govt that was more live and let live and less authoritarian?), and didn’t reek of a ploy to get my vote (like most of the recent outreach I’ve seen) I’d estimate people like me would get behind it in droves. Just a thought…

  • We need to quit beating ourselves up with our own straw men. A “NASCAR Dad” is an agglomeration of traits that we’re painting onto a broad demographic. They are not all thinking the same, just as all of us damn liberals don’t all have the same opinions.

    These folks come from parts of the country that are growing increasingly bewildered by a steady stream of coffins form Iraq, are spending a larger chunk of their paycheck to get from rural locations to work and are seeing the feds disregard fellow country folks like those hit with the devastation of Katrina. Don’t think they’re all enamored with the Repub’s star.

    Dems need to be themselves. Having a spine and standing up for your beliefs will earn more votes than being all things to all people. Dale Earnhardt was a peckerhead but these folks loved him because he was who he was. As John Prine sings ..”You are who you are and you ain’t who you ain’t,”

  • I don’t know how many millions of NASCAR Men there are in this country, but if we make no attempt to reach them we deserve what we get.

  • OK Joe, I’ll take a whack.
    Guns, of and by themselves, are not an anathema. Many of my friends have guns and are avid hunters. They are responsible people and are adament about gun safety.
    As I see it, there are 2 issues with guns: They are too cheap and easy to get. There is an over-supply, which creates incentive to sell more of them cheaper. The more you pour into a leaky funnel, the more that leaks out – God only knows where. I have no interest in adding silly red tape, but at the same time, I don’t want people who’s first solution to a problem is violence, to be armed to the teeth. Buying a gun should be more akin to buying a car than buying a candy bar.
    The issue almost entirely ignored in gun debates is that a gun has a whole different meaning in an urban environment, compared to a rural one. I live in an urban environment and see no positive use for a gun. If I lived in a rural area, I’d likely have 2.

    In terms of the ‘superiority’ of the ‘urban lifestyle’, I have no idea what you are complaining about. Seems to me there are a slew of rural people who feel that they are more honest, if not superior to us city slickers. The only time that rural folk piss me off is when they lecture me on things of which they have no real experience. Someone who can count the number of black people they know on their fingers is simply not in a position to lecture me on race relations, or any of the urban issues that involve race. You’re entitled to your opinions, just as I’m entitled to dismiss them in favor of better informed opinion. If that makes me a snot, so be it. At the same time, I’m not very interested in fish and game opinions from someone who’s deepest venture into the wilderness is a suburban mall.

    All I can say to your whine about ‘Christianity’ is BULLSHIT. Have your faith. I respect that. Shove it down my throat, and I’ll fight you til my dying breath.

    Government will always be somewhat intrusive – that’s the very nature of the beast. I prefer a government that regulates the behavior of a group, for the common good. Republicans prefer to regulate the behavior of the individual for the good of special interests, be they ‘moral’ or financial.

  • “Why should illegal immigrants be allowed to break our nations laws and recieve either a slap on the wrist or a reward?” – Joe

    Let me ask you this. Why do the companies that employ or sub-contract undocumented workers get off with a slap of the wrist?

    It is a supply and demand issue. Because no government has attempted to enforce the 1986 provisions against employers who willingly or knowingly hire undocumented workers, there is a huge demand for them. If the Labor department and INS tried to enforce these laws, that demand would dry up pretty quickly. But for some reason the CRIMINAL behavior of U.S. employers seems to matter less to the Know Nothings in this country than the civil offenses of undocumented workers. Why is that?

  • Joe:

    “…and fully support their right to be gay/lez/bi if they choose to.”

    Sexuality is not chosen. It is genetic. No person on the face of this earth has ever reached a point in their lives when they’ve asked themselves, “let me see, do I like women more than men or vice versa?” Nascar Man may think that sexuality is chosen, but he’s as wrong as he can be about this. What is chosen is behavior. Do I “act gay” or do I hide who I am for the sake of other people?

    On another note, you might well ask why is it alright for people of faith to demonize people who do not share their faith? Does the name Jerry Falwell ring a bell? Christians who speciously claim that they are being “persecuted” are full of it. And I’m getting tired of hearing this crap from these pious frauds.

    I don’t recognise the concept of “minorities having more rights” than other, non-minority groups. The NRA is a minority by any definition and they have tremendous influence in Congress. Is that fair? This concept of “special rights for minorities” is specious, right-wing propaganda. All U.S. citizens have the same rights under the various state consititutions and the federal Constitution. There are no “special rights” for any person or group. And that includes relgious people who claim First Amendment infringement when they are “not allowed” to pray in public school classrooms. Religious speech enjoys the same level of protection as other speech, no more or less. To claim relief under Prior Restraint statutes, you must PROVE that you are being HARMED by, in this case, not being “allowed” to pray in non-sectarian facilities, such as public school classrooms.

    The rest of your post has some merit. Just keep thinking, that’s all.

  • Hmmm…as a bit of a NASCAR man myself (not so much the nascar itself, but more the “values” and the “culture” thereof) I have some questions and thoughts which I would like to field to y’all. Why are firearms such an anethema to democrats? Where did the notion come from that outlawing guns would prevent their abuse (hmm…much like how prohibition and the war on drugs prevented their respective abuses – just a thought)? Why is it that an urban lifestyle is considered infinitely superior to a rural one? Are those who prefer small towns and farms really less human? Why are the socialist governments (like those in europe) considered so infinitely superior to our own? Is there something wrong with not wanting the government to control my life? Why is prejudice against people who take Christianity seriously OK? Why is it OK for someone of a “minority” to have more rights than/preference before me because they are of that “minority”? Why should illegal immigrants be allowed to break our nations laws and recieve either a slap on the wrist or a reward, when myself and legal immigrants are expected to follow laws and accept responibility for breaking them? Why are Democrat good-‘ole-boys and aristocrats the salt of the earth while Republican ones are evil bad greedy men (all too often they look the same to me).

    Thanks for the response. I think these are useful questions–even as, I admit, I absolutely don’t understand some of them. Let me take a shot at responding.

    Firearms: This one makes sense. My view on guns is that local areas should set their own rules, but that the NRA should put its money (literally) where its mouth is and really try to enforce the current laws. I live in Brooklyn; there’s no reason my community should have the same gun laws as one 200 miles to the west with a totally different environment, population mix, access to hunting, etc. But I also don’t want it super-easy for guns from that community to come to mine.

    Urban lifestyle: This one I don’t get. Who’s saying this? If anything, taxes from urban communities are subsidizing–some of us would say, oversubsidizing, considering our infrastructure/schooling needs in cities–rural communities. To each their own.

    Socialist governments: Again, who’s making this assertion? Honest question. Capitalism generally works, but historical experience–particularly America’s!–shows that some well-considered regulation is important if everyone is to prosper from it.

    Prejudice against Christianity: Sorry, I can’t buy this one. JoeW in comment #54 nails it: do what you want, but be prepared for a hell of a fight if you try to impose your beliefs on me. I’m fine if a store clerk wishes me a Merry Christmas, and I don’t mind a manger scene in the town square… but you don’t get to write *your* prejudice into the Constitution we share, or use my tax dollars to support your schools.

    Minority rights: Again, I don’t get it. If you’re talking about affirmative action, that’s a valid debate that we should have openly, and as the period of legal segregation recedes further into the past, we should reconsider the policies. But again, some preference in hiring and college admissions to redress historical discrimination seems like a far cry from “more rights.”

    Immigrants: I actually think Bush has it almost right on immigration: we need to be more vigorous about securing the borders–not least because there’s a terrorism risk–and enforcing the laws. But at some point practicality has to come into it. Rooting out millions of people who’ve been here for years, have worked and made lives, and have obeyed the laws since coming in would be very, very expensive and disruptive to the economy. Ultimately it’s a case of cutting off our nose to spite someone else’s face.

    Partisanship: You’re right on that one. My view is that the Republicans have done a lot more to divide the country based on one’s political registration than the Democrats have, but either way it’s not serving the nation. The problem for the Democrats is that when you’ve got Karl Rove all but calling you a traitor, not responding in kind looks like weakness. So you’ve got the unpleasant choice between rolling over and joining in the mudslinging. Fighting back is, I think, the natural response.

    Thanks again for the response. I hope you hang around and keep arguing this stuff out with us. If we can’t talk to each other, it’s a lot harder to live together.

  • “Screw Nascar Man”

    “Write off the South”

    “Write off the Rocky Mountain states.”

    “Write off the Plain States”

    …

    And HOW are you guys supposed to win in November?

    Thom Frank had a point about the religious right as a group of people bamboozled by “the culture wars” into voting against their “real” class interests.

    What he (and you) forget is that the “left” has it’s cultural baggage too. Abortion, gay rights, multiculturalism (and even immigration, gun control, and the environment) are largely shibboleths on the left that allow them to swallow hard and vote for a little turd like Bill Clinton who in turn gives us NAFTA, GATT, the Peso Bailout, and China’s Most Favored nation status. Given the fact that their is so little difference between the GOP (and the Dems and barely a hairbreadth between DLCers and “neo-cons”) and REAL issues like trade, middle east policy, corporate power, immigration, national security, national defense, the War on Terror, Iraq, Iran, campaign finance reform, electoral reform etc. Why shouldn’t one vote for the party that at least pays lip service to their values.

    In any case, Donald I Warren described this demographic in his book THE RADICAL CENTER way back in 1976 when they were known as the “Wallace voters” later they would become “Reagan Democrats” then “Perot Voters” and all the while the GOP has courted them while the Dems have “written them off.”

    I guess you guys take comfort in losing consistently. At least you have your ideological purity.

    And anyway NASCAR man doesn’t hate you…he’s just jealous, ’cause your SO smart!

  • I’m sorry some of my post was confusing. I was trying to keep things concise and it appears I sacrificed clarity in the process. As far as the urban/rural thing and the Christian comment I was referring to my experience with a number of persons who are generally prejudice free – they do not assume someone with black skin fits the lazy or criminal stereotype, or that a Muslim is a crazy terrorist, etc. However, upon finding out my heritage or beliefs prejudice appears (some are, if nothing else, surprised – I wore shoes just like them, could pronounce Iraq, and didn’t talk/act like Jerry Falwell). Admittedly that is a small and very trivial gripe, but still. And just for the record, Falwell makes me cringe. With the socialism question I was referencing our leader’s tendency to try and solve everything through increased government controls and regulation. I agree that some control is good (anarchy holds no appeal to me) but if the government is expected to solve and control everything, isn’t that socialism (at least functionally). I would think that keeping governmental controls and interference to a minimum would be desirable, but perhaps I’m just being silly there. The “minority rights” was a reference to affirmative action and preferential treatment. I believe it is entirely unethical to treat someone any different because of skin color – whether it be dealing with employment, seating on a bus, or college applications and financial aid.
    Thank you all for your replies, I appreciate them and I have some further thoughts and questions if you’re willing to bear with me. As far as the guns go, what is different in an urban setting? I’ve never lived in a heavily urban setting (visited yes, but only lived in rural and suburban). I mean, I know one wouldn’t want the same kind of firearm, but why none at all? Half the point of having a gun in a non-urban environment is to defend oneself/one’s home, why wouldn’t one want a gun to do that in an urban environment? It makes sense to me that urban would be different that rural, but I fear a lot of my perspective focuses on what type of firearm would be more effective in a given environment? Also, in my experience (which has been in very permissive sates as far as access to firearms goes – I think my home state either got a D- or and F from the Brady website) buying a gun is very equitable to buying a car already. If anything I’d say a gun is probably harder to buy (excluding price).
    How do we differentiate between “common good” and “special interests”? It would seem a lot of evil has been done in the name of the “common good”. Would not Hitler and the Nazis have said their actions were done for the “common good”. Though I doubt any of us would refer to such things in the same way, how one defines “common” and “good” depends very much on one’s perspective. If my history is correct, Communism and it’s wake of atrocities also often used “common good” to justify its actions did it not? Just a thought.
    I must say I pretty wholeheartedly agree concerning immigration. Those who seek to benefit from immigrants shouldn’t get away with it, the border should be sealed, and the immigrants here should be dealt with. I don’t think that ripping them all out of the country is the answer, but I also don’t think letting then just up and be citizens is entirely fair either. It makes more sense to me that they should either get a “get legal or get out” ultimatum (with a reasonable timeline).
    Scalawagg also makes a very good point. If you’re given the choice between someone who says they’ll do the opposite of what you want, someone who tells you what you want to hear (though whether or not they do it is more iffy), and throwing your vote away, which would you choose?

    • Comments are closed.