xssve
Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009 Status: offline
|
Nah, it has to do with social perceptions: they don't associate themselves with the financial elite pulling their strings, the conservative philanthropies that are the legacy of the Robber Barons, wealthy televangelists, Banks, Financial markets, etc., no, they see that they're football and NASCAR, we're Soccer and Mountain biking, they wear jeans ball caps and boots or tennis shoes, we wear shorts, Birkenstocks and pile, they drink beer and eat Potato Chips, we drink wine and eat exotic cheeses, we live in big houses, they live in trailer parks, etc., etc. And there is some truth in that: Liberal urban housing markets are characterized by extremely high property values, rents and prices are inflated way beyond what one would normally expect, completely out of synch with the rest of the market, unattainable basically, by anyone without a college education, and that is also associated with being politically correct, adopting liberal values and prejudices - prejudices against poor, ignorant, semi-rural bible thumpers basically. And the housing thing is a big problem, the weakness of liberals is the difference in value systems, liberal value systems started in the Seventies as more of a rural thing, do it yourself, organic gardening, build your own house, make your own furniture, grow your own food, generate your own energy - the Whole Earth catalog thing, republicans were "fat cats" urban bankers and businessmen, financiers, etc . Nowadays, the fat cats are still republicans, but the do-it-yourselfers are all conservatives: survivalists, etc., and the liberals are all urban consumers, with consumer values, which are largely aesthetic: quality, cutting edge consumer products with high production values - slick marketing, rather than stiff amateurs on public access, organic chain groceries instead of wooden crates with hand painted signs by the side of the road, etc. Essentially, we're pricing ourselves out of the political market here, liberals complain about the two tiered economy, but liberals are the upper tier, and the lower one feels completely left in the dust - that's why they're digging their heels in on this one, it's about all they have left in terms of political legitimacy, as a class. As a party, they're basically being used as stooges for the same old fat cats, Banks and corporation, that fleece them regularly and constantly, but offer them political legitimacy and the appearance of dignity while doing it, while liberals basically mock them. Hell, like I said, 30, 40 years ago, these were the rural democratic liberals, and we were the urban republican conservatives, it's completely flipped, the republicans are more like the Democrats, pre-Kennedy, with their power base in the rural South (with the glaring exception of organized labor, which they still hate with choking passion), while the formerly republican urban North are now largely liberal democrats. Pro-no choice is a wedge issue: there are still a lot of religious liberal democrats, by making it a religious issue, I think they hope to make religious belief the hot button issue, since it's the most basic litmus test, i.e., the more religious you are, the less likely it is you support Roe v. Wade, and everything else it represents, i.e, social, political and economic parity for women. They're counting heavily on it, although I think for most, including swing voters and even solid percentage of conservatives, Roe v. Wade is an acceptable compromise, they may not like it but they're willing to live with it, while the personhood agenda is a distinctly far right religious issue, and it will be effective to the extent it drives conservatives to the polls if they succeed in framing it as a God vs. Moloch issue. The level of rhetoric here can only be being fed by those Robber Baron Philanthropies I mentioned, who have considerable PR and political clout, although they seem to focusing more on the "Obabma is a N****r issue".
_____________________________
Walking nightmare...
|