The "hicks" bit back

Freya

gmilf
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Posts
42,367
I read this article in the Toronto Sun on Saturday, and was thinking that maybe this guy made a little bit of sense in what he was saying.

Opinions?



The 'hicks' bit back

The icons of glamour and glitz all said John Kerry was the only choice for people with any intelligence -- but Middle America didn't care, says Michael Coren

By MICHAEL COREN -- For the Toronto Sun


Ben Affleck changed the world this week.

No, of course I don't mean that a tedious movie star actually changed international events. I mean that he personifies why George Bush and the Republicans won the election.

They won because Middle America bit back. Simple as that.


Middle America bit back. The abused, the marginalized and the mocked decided that they had had enough. Those taken for granted, those patronized, those treated with disdain voted to no longer play the silent victim.

For months a daft coalition of the extremely willing played their guitars, sang their songs and read their Hollywood statements about Iraq, oil, the evil George Bush and the foolishness of the American people. They would deny, of course, that they accused their fellow Americans of being stupid, but this is precisely what they did.

True understanding and enlightenment, it seemed, only came after you'd appeared in a sequel to a superhero movie or seen your last album go platinum. Bruce Springsteen might claim to be an ordinary working man, but ordinary working men don't have bank accounts the size of Rhode Island.

The assembled pop stars and actors meant no harm when they demanded that Americans vote Democrat, but what they were really saying was that only certain people really get it. Michael Moore got it. Rosie O'Donnell got it. Academics at universities got it. Howard Stern got it.

Yes, Howard Stern. America listened to Stern and his giggling sidekick explain why only a "retard" would vote for George Bush. In between fart noises and references to naked lesbians, this tired peddler of smut made fun of people who spoke with southern accents and voted on "moral issues."

The clever people at the mainstream television networks, the stylish types in New York and Los Angeles, the icons of glamour and glitz all said that John Kerry was the only choice for a person with any intelligence. As for those ignorant evangelicals, those stupid church-going Catholics, those family-values fools, those dumb redneck hicks, they weren't real Americans.

Then, in the smiling twilight of the new political morning, the unwashed told their betters to shove it.

They realized that their kind were smart and sophisticated enough to storm the beaches of Normandy and wrestle Europe from the Nazis and Asia from the Japanese fascists. They realized that they were suave and urbane enough to work the farms, make the cars, drive the cabs, do the work.

An epiphany

Middle America experienced an epiphany. We are not bigots or yokels just because we believe in the family and in traditional virtues and values. We are not hateful merely because we support our troops and cry when we hear the national anthem.

Working-class Americans began to ask some questions. They wondered why wealthy, white entertainers, artists and, I'm sure, freelance manufacturers of organic yogurt, were announcing that they would leave the United States if George Bush won the election.

Imagine that. If democracy didn't provide the result they wanted, these selfish rich kids would run away to Canada or Britain.

Is that patriotism? Middle America didn't remember Republicans threatening to leave when Bill Clinton won a second term.

Middle America grew tired of the insults. We're not voting out of fear, they said, we don't accept every word we hear from the government and we're not so easily manipulated. Stop telling us that we don't understand what's going on.

We've raised kids and paid mortgages and we resent listening to lectures, especially when delivered by an actress with a vacant smile and a copy of Socialism For Beginners.

Tired of the critics

Middle America shouted its impatience. It wasn't that it so liked George Bush, more that it was so tired of Bush's critics.

Middle America remembered a time when actors, singers and writers reflected the nation. These performers no longer aspired to reflect but to reshape it in their own narcissistic image.

John Kerry was too close to that clan, too much part of the culture of smug assumption.

It wasn't George Bush who was the victor last week, but men and women who stood up and announced to the self-defined elites that "the people" is not a concept but a flesh-and-blood reality. And one that bites back.


Edited to add the link.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/11/05/702380.html
 
No.

For the most part, this is way off the mark from what happened.

Parts of it are factors in the broad sense but many issues are misrepresentd here and in the media in general.
 
I like it and agree because he is saying what I have been trying to say. (When I ain't baiting people anyway)
 
So instead of voting for Bush, or against Kerry, they were voting against Hollywood?

If that's even half true, the country is full of idiots.
 
ruminator said:
No.

For the most part, this is way off the mark from what happened.

Parts of it are factors in the broad sense but many issues are misrepresentd here and in the media in general.

How so?

I'm not disagreeing with you...just curious.
 
It's a bit overdramatic. I think it's more a case with those people mentioned in the article being fairly well out of touch with what's going on in the flyover states... People didn't vote to spite them, but people didn't put any additional credence in what they had to say, either.
 
Calamity Jane said:
So instead of voting for Bush, or against Kerry, they were voting against Hollywood?

If that's even half true, the country is full of idiots.

People do strange things when their ego is bruised. Especially if it's done by someone who just divorced their third husband in 2 years, if you know what I mean.

After reading that, I was thinking that possibly there's a segment of the population who were maybe torn between the two candidates, but then decided to choose Bush to spite the "stars" who told them not to. I mean seriously, most people consider Hollywood actors/actresses etc to be so far removed from "normal" life...so maybe some people decided that they wanted their choices to be different than them as well.
 
Calamity Jane said:
So instead of voting for Bush, or against Kerry, they were voting against Hollywood?

If that's even half true, the country is full of idiots.


Yeah, the half that voted for Kerry.
 
SleepingWarrior said:
Yeah, the half that voted for Kerry.

Now that I don't agree with. If I were American, I'd certainly have voted for Kerry - he's the safer/saner choice for sure.

But something Bush did or said spoke to the people. Or maybe something Kerry did or said didn't. A lot of times people vote based on who they can relate to better - it's not the best method for sure, but it happens. Not very many people can relate to Hollywood stars.
 
Freya said:
People do strange things when their ego is bruised. Especially if it's done by someone who just divorced their third husband in 2 years, if you know what I mean.

Ok, but I'm from MiddleAmerica. Smack dab in the middle, in fact. And that's not what I see around here.

It's a lot more like what Lasher was saying. No one here voted to spite Hollywood - maybe they ignored what Hollywood was saying, but that's all.

It'd be a lot like saying that country music fans vote Republican because Toby Keith said to. Somehow, I doubt it, ya know?
 
Calamity Jane said:
Ok, but I'm from MiddleAmerica. Smack dab in the middle, in fact. And that's not what I see around here.

It's a lot more like what Lasher was saying. No one here voted to spite Hollywood - maybe they ignored what Hollywood was saying, but that's all.

It'd be a lot like saying that country music fans vote Republican because Toby Keith said to. Somehow, I doubt it, ya know?

But you're a little smarter than the average voter.
 
SleepingWarrior said:
Yeah, the half that voted for Kerry.

The vast majority of people who cast their ballot for Kerry did so because they hated Bush. Period. Kerry was a fraud in an empty suit.
 
Freya said:
How so?

I'm not disagreeing with you...just curious.

It's very convoluted and will take several posts to try and clarify but this is really important. I'll start and keep it in short posts. If you and I discuss this without sevral others jumping in to argue, then I think we can put a lot out for consideration.

I'm just real tired of arguing, not with you, but with some who feel I have an unattatchable bias.
 
Freya said:
Now that I don't agree with. If I were American, I'd certainly have voted for Kerry - he's the safer/saner choice for sure.

But something Bush did or said spoke to the people. Or maybe something Kerry did or said didn't. A lot of times people vote based on who they can relate to better - it's not the best method for sure, but it happens. Not very many people can relate to Hollywood stars.


A lot of it may have to be with the perception of Bush being just like a normal person. He makes mistakes talking, is personable and he is just a likeable guy. He pulls the act of being an average Joe off well and that would gain votes for him. Middle America may have seen Kerry as living in some kind of ivory tower and I can't really disagree with that thought.
 
SleepingWarrior said:
A lot of it may have to be with the perception of Bush being just like a normal person. He makes mistakes talking, is personable and he is just a likeable guy. He pulls the act of being an average Joe off well and that would gain votes for him. Middle America may have seen Kerry as living in some kind of ivory tower and I can't really disagree with that thought.

That's sort of where my thought train was heading on this. Add to that perception a few dozen millionaires jumping on Kerry's side and the average Joe is just not going to be able to relate mentally with Kerry.


Rum, I'd be interested to hear what you think.
 
I don't think you'd find many americans that voted based on whether a 'star' supported one candidate over another. I think more than anything Americans have been through some difficult times in recent years. We've dealt with situations that have raised our sense of patriotism. I think one would find more often than not that middle america feels the most patriotic roots and with 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan these were issues in which middle america had feelings about and that is why they stepped up to vote.
 
Freya said:


Middle America experienced an epiphany. We are not bigots or yokels just because we believe in the family and in traditional virtues and values. We are not hateful merely because we support our troops and cry when we hear the national anthem.

Middle America grew tired of the insults.

Middle America remembered a time when actors, singers and writers reflected the nation. These performers no longer aspired to reflect but to reshape it in their own narcissistic image.
America got sick of Hollywood, a town of artificial people, telling it theres only one side of an argument. Tinseltown does not represent the average working person. Actors bitch about corporations but who is that carries their merchandise?
They bitch about social change but when is the last time they took a homeless person in to their mansion to live?
 
Freya said:
That's sort of where my thought train was heading on this. Add to that perception a few dozen millionaires jumping on Kerry's side and the average Joe is just not going to be able to relate mentally with Kerry.


Rum, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

A good place to start is acknowledging the effect of the cable news media (web too), corporate power and influence exerted over the message that gets aired.

The media self censors for a number of reasons in different ways. I believe that the principles inherent to those in that field are generally liberal leaning but the management is more conservative. There's always some bias, even when they try to be objective, but the bias is to favor profits, sponsors and owners.

Media is global along with most major industries. By the time the degrees of seperation are removed it's all the same company. The 'revolving door' policy between govt and business, in all countries, let's this influence take priority over journalistic integrity.

That's a start. Let me know what you agree and disagree with?
 
I don't think its anywhere near that simple. I don't think it was a vast reaction to Hollywood. I never believed in Nixon's Silent Majority either. As Lasher said many people just discounted what the glitterati had to say. I don't give much credence to who Rosie O'Donnell or Bo Derek, choose to vote for. The ideas Kerry presented were 180 degrees from my view of goverment and what goverment should do. Bush is more like 30 degrees off from where I stand.
 
Lasher said:
It's a bit overdramatic. I think it's more a case with those people mentioned in the article being fairly well out of touch with what's going on in the flyover states... People didn't vote to spite them, but people didn't put any additional credence in what they had to say, either.

I agree with the first part of this but I'm not so sure about the last part. I think many people may not vote for someone out of spite but if they are on the fence and some loudmouth (i.e. Micheal Moore or Howard Stern for example) says the right words it can certianly harden that persons convictions to vote the opposite of what the loudmouth is telling them to vote. It's a bit of the final shove over the fence.
 
I stopped reading as soon as i saw "Michael Coren". As much as the guy has a nice voice, he's far too vehement for me.
 
How sad that even now, the news people, the pollsters, the politicians, the celebrities don't understand Middle America. They talk as if the millions of votes Kerry DID get from Middle Americans don't exist. They act as though because those votes didn't come from a 'blue' state, they were never cast, and by merely residing in a 'red' state IQ points are lost, and reading comprehension skills decrease.

The continued polarization of our country is sad, and ultimately counterproductive for everyone, regardless of the color of the state in which we reside.
 
Last edited:
ma_guy said:
I think many people may not vote for someone out of spite but if they are on the fence and some loudmouth (i.e. Micheal Moore or Howard Stern for example) says the right words it can certianly harden that persons convictions to vote the opposite of what the loudmouth is telling them to vote. It's a bit of the final shove over the fence.

Oh, I'm fairly sure that listening to people of this type can reinforce people's views regarding how they are going to vote. But the article that was posted took a huge stretch in saying that people voted the way they did specifically to spite the so-called loudmounths. That part is just not right.


Ya know, one of the great things about this election is how it's enabled so many people to feel superior. It's very empowering.
 
Back
Top