When I say "gave up on fiscal issues" I'm talking about the Republican party giving up on arguing for them on their merits. The whole point of the Southern Strategy was to dark horse the economic agenda the rich Republicans wanted by getting the poor Republicans to vote against their own self-interest. Same with "Death taxes." Same with charter schools. Same with trickle-down economics. Perhaps that's our misunderstanding: all of these social positions are gambits to get the poor to vote for shit that does them harm, they aren't some bizarre abandonment of core Republican principles. Regardless of whether you understand the issues or not, the fact of the matter remains I've given you chapter and verse facts statistics and quotes and you've produced nothing. Wishing that I haven't validated my argument doesn't make it so, and asserting that you've done otherwise doesn't prove your point. I absolutely can say "the Republican base votes against their interests" and then demonstrate a pattern of social issues used by the Republicans to build party affinity amongst people who don't benefit at all from the fiscal platform. That's the nature of debate. That's logos rhetoric. That's how we do it. Somehow insinuating that empirical data... isn't only shows that you don't understand debate.
It's not fun to go against the grain on hubski, let alone against you
FWIW, I have really enjoyed reading the back and forth in this conversation. Sorry if it's not been fun for you, but I feel like I've learned a bit as a result, so thank you. Sincerely.
Here's the basic structure of the argument thus far: ARTICLE: It is not the facts on the ground that caused the poor to side with the Republican party, it's elite liberal smugness. KB: Here, chapter and verse, are the facts on the ground that aren't even touched on by the article. TLE: I feel that the article is right and you are wrong. KB: What you feel does not contradict known, well-established facts. TLE: I feel that facts have a liberal bias. KB: That does not change their factuality. TLE: I still feel justified in disputing your facts with my feelings. Look - you don't have an argument. You have an emotional reaction. The argument of the article is that liberals don't have an argument, they have an emotional reaction and it's utterly and completely wrong. However, I recognize that this has not yet compelled you to examine your own viewpoint, nor is it likely to. Fundamentally, you are putting forth your feelings, free and unfettered by justification or fact, and demanding that I somehow acknowledge them as equivalent to historical events. You are also choosing to change the subject at will and hold me accountable for not answering assertions that you have not yet made. So look. It's like this. You register to vote. You get to choose "Republican" "Democrat" or "Independent" (or some random splinter party that nobody cares about). To vote in a primary you only get to choose "your side." How do you pick "sides?" Well, what "values" does "your team" believe in? What is its mascot? What are its colors? Who are some of its famous players? How are you doing on the away games? How are you doing at home? What's going on at the convention? Who's going to speak for "your team?" Politics are every bit as tribal as sports and it has even more money thrown at it. "Our side" is in favor of the new library expansion, a bill guaranteeing the right of gays to marry and is putting forth Jane Smith as mayor. "Their side" is against the library expansion, has put forth a bill to gut school funding and wants to put "under God" on the license plate. Oh, by the way, they're putting forth Bob Jones as mayor. You may not give the first fuck about Jane Smith vs. Bob Jones. You might not care whatsoever what goes on a license plate. But goddamn, you don't have kids, your sister sends Timmy to bible school and fuckin' A your taxes are way too high. So you're gonna come out to vote for that tax reform bill. Are you... not going to vote for Bob Jones or Jane Smith? Are you going to leave the license plate question blank? Or are you going to vote for your team? Again: I didn't come up with this. This is APUSH shit. This is Poly Sci 101. It's as settled as the Bay of Pigs. Regardless of how you feel, this is. So while I appreciate the politeness, this is not "our" misunderstanding.
Right so we'll just skate right on without acknowledging that not only did I let you derail the conversation, I humored you, answered you patiently and gave you examples. Okay. Fine. Know that there were 900 words below this. Now there aren't. Because I'm not going to play this way.
It's whatever, dude. The problem is you can't start a convivial discussion with "Your attitude is exactly what the author talks about" no matter how "respectful" you think you're being... and when your every point is answered and refuted, the "respectful" thing to do is acknowledge it. As far as "smugness" - when the people who disapprove of your lifestyle, your music, your hair, your friends, your clothing, the car you drive, the job you hold, the bar you attend, the beer you drink, the parties you throw, the food you eat, the teams you cheer, the church you attend and the way you vote are proven, time and time and time again, to be having their prejudices stoked and their best interests obfuscated, what the fuck are you supposed to be? Because aside from "freedom to carry a gun around" the conservative movement is all about restricting individual rights. Even if the average liberal reaction was pure magnanimous beatitude, shitfucks like Emmett Rensin would still call us out for condescension or some shit. This little twiddlefuck was fourteen in 2004. He boiled "the world's greatest books" down to 2800 characters but castigating liberals for being self-congratulatory? 7200 words. Maybe the cycle is too deeply set already. Perhaps the divide, the disdain, the whole crack-up are inevitable. But if liberal good intentions are to make a play for a better future, they cannot merely recognize the ways they've come to hate their former allies. They must begin to mend the ways they lost them in the first place. I have shoes older than you, bitch, and The Southern Strategy was old enough to vote itself BEFORE YOU WERE EVEN BORN. So let's not talk too much about "cycles" and "intentions" when you've only been able to vote for president three times.... at least, if you're going to pretend that history doesn't exist.This is not a call for civility. Manners are not enough. The smug style did not arise by accident, and it cannot be abolished with a little self-reproach. So long as liberals cannot find common cause with the larger section of the American working class, they will search for reasons to justify that failure. They will resent them. They will find, over and over, how easy it is to justify abandoning them further. They will choose the smug style.