Why the Republicans are doomed. Thanks, Literotica!

[Hamletmaschine]

~Do you believe homosexuality is morally wrong?
~Do you ever personally look at pornography?
~Would you look down on someone who had an affair while married?
~Do you believe sex before marriage is morally wrong?
~Is religion an important part of your life? I.e., do you attend church regularly?

In a short essay in the recent Atlantic, Thomas Edsall reports that if you gave the "liberal" answer to three of those questions, then chances are that you voted for Clinton over Bush or Dole in '92 and '96. What's more, the "blue movie" factor is a better predictor of how you will vote than just about any other variable.

The growing "morality gap" should have Republicans rethinking their current plans to push a more conservative social/moral agenda on us. With church attendance going down, porn consumption going up, and the 'sexual revolution' that gave women, gays, and lesbians more freedom in determining and expressing their own sexual behavior, the Republicans are either going to have to join the 21st century or face extinction ... unless they can prolong their "war on terrorism" indefinitely.

So ... keep up the good work, Literoticans!

Here's a link to the article, for those who might like to read it without my spin:

"Blue Movie"

 

[modest mouse]

Bad logic Hamlet.

Lots ot Southern Conservative voters vote based on what they want for morals, not the morals they actually follow. Its an article worth reading though.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Perhaps you're right. I haven't quizzed them all, but the duplicity of voting for/preaching moral conservatism while practicing moral liberalism seems about right for the grand Peyton Place that is the southern US.

That accounts for the mass neurosis, I guess.

 

[modest mouse]

Yup, underneath such moral highground (in their eyes anyway) is a history of severe conflict between spoken morality and practiced morality.

But getting back to the article; the porn movie question as a barometer of voting is fascinating. If you read it as those who answer they have viewed one are willing to admit it, and those who deny having seen one are either not willing or havnt seen one... then its truth becomes clear.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I'm sure Dick Morris got a chuckle out of it, as did I. But I did like the attempt to develop an interpretation out of the correlation b/w porn consumption and voter behavior that makes a kind of sense.

I think Marxist had a thread related to this issue a few months ago, asking conservatives how they rationalized their porn consumption. Maybe I'll go try to find that.... I wasn't around much then to pay much attention to it....

 

[busybody..]

Most people vote their pocketbooks

and their security. That is what keeps the Repos strong.

There is no contradiction between being conservative and porn consumption.

Here is an interesting article.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study: Dems more anti-Semitic than GOPers
Survey finds bias against Jews greater among young

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A new study finds Democrats are more anti-Semitic than Republicans.

The Institute for Jewish & Community Research, which conducted an authoritative public opinion survey on the topic of anti-Semitic beliefs, also reveals the young are more likely to be anti-Jewish than those over 35.

"In the wake of the Holocaust, social norms in the United States and elsewhere in the world were more prohibitive of most overt expressions of anti-Semitism," said Gary Tobin, president of the institute. "The constraints against anti-Semitism are weakening, and the rise in anti-Semitic beliefs is part of that trend."

The survey, entitled, "Anti-Semitic Beliefs in the United States," by Tobin and Sid Groeneman, also asked some other timely questions, and yielded some surprising results:


Nearly one-third of Americans (32 percent) were concerned that a Jewish president might not act in America's best interests if they conflict with Israel's. This belief recalls the "dual loyalties" stigma sometimes applied to American Jews – that Jewish Americans are at least equally swayed by Israel's interests as by what is best for America.

Democrats tend to be more anti-Semitic than Republicans. For example, Republicans are less likely to view Jews as caring only about themselves (12 percent) than Democrats or independents (20 percent each). This finding may come as a surprise to many Jews, who are much more heavily aligned with the Democratic Party.

Thirty-seven percent of Americans agree that Jews were responsible for killing Jesus Christ. Historically the Christ-killing charge has served as an ideological basis of anti-Semitism. Moreover, the analysis shows that those holding the view that Jews killed Jesus Christ are more likely to accept other anti-Jewish stereotypes, see Jews as different from themselves, and also see Jews as a moral threat to America.
In addition, the survey asked respondents about their beliefs regarding:


Jewish "control of the media"

Jewish lawyers

Holocaust denial

Jewish "influence on Wall Street"
The data from the survey also revealed a connection between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.

"Much of anti-Israelism is thinly veiled anti-Semitism – anti-Semitism in disguise," said Tobin. "The same kinds of stereotypes are often used, such as Israel controls the media or Congress."

On the other hand, the research revealed that nearly one-half of the American public (49 percent) perceives Jews as "like themselves" in terms of basic beliefs and values. Jews are viewed as more similar in basic beliefs and values to other Americans than Muslims, Mormons and atheists. However, Jews are seen as significantly less similar to other Americans than blacks, Hispanics and Catholics. In other words, Catholics, Hispanics and blacks are viewed as more "American" than Jews, while Mormons, Muslims and atheists are not.

Tobin reminds us that "we cannot ignore the flip side of this story: Jews are accepted in America by large numbers." He says, "Indeed, it is not insignificant that about 50 million plus Americans, or 24 percent of our sample, do not hold even one anti-Semitic belief."

The survey was conducted by International Communications Research, a leading public opinion research organization based in Media, Pa., utilizing random-digit dialing. The sample for the main survey is made up of 1,013 randomly selected adults from across the country. The sampling error for total-sample percentage estimates is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

 

[teddybear4play]

I think the Republicans are moving away from social conservatism defining their party. Granted, some of the old guard still cling to it, but guys like Pat Buchanan have essentially been excommunicated, or they've left because their morality no longer meshes.

For however Puritan you see George W. Bush, he's nothing compared to Barry Goldwater.

TB4p

 

[celiaKitten]

As long as al Qaeda, Iraq, and North Korea dominate the news, the Republicans will be able to maintain their slight advantage.

(This quote taken from the article hamlet linked to .. )

And they know this. I'm always wary of political manuvering .. when it comes to lives being lost over it, a world put recklessly into turmoil for it .. I start getting just a *little* pissed.

 

[sunstruck]

Yup, underneath such moral highground (in their eyes anyway) is a history of severe conflict between spoken morality and practiced morality.

Hypocracy. My biggest pet peeve. lol

My answers are No, yes, yes, no, no. Do I have to vote liberatarian now?

 

[Hamletmaschine]

LOL - no, you got 4 out of 5 "right" (i.e., liberal), therefore you almost certainly voted for Clinton (assuming you were old enough at the time).

Busybody: that was an interesting article, although irrelevant to the thread. And the article I summarized and provided the link for addresses your initial claims. Did you read it?

TB4P: I think you have a point. The "culture war" rhetoric seems to have been toned down considerably, at least. It will be interesting to see whether it reemerges after the "war on terrorism" peters out.

 

[miles]

Perhaps you're right. I haven't quizzed them all, but the duplicity of voting for/preaching moral conservatism while practicing moral liberalism seems about right for the grand Peyton Place that is the southern US.

That accounts for the mass neurosis, I guess.

Where do you live?

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Ham's a New Orleanian. or at least he was a year or so ago.

 

[Young Knave]

Yup, underneath such moral highground (in their eyes anyway) is a history of severe conflict between spoken morality and practiced morality.

But getting back to the article; the porn movie question as a barometer of voting is fascinating. If you read it as those who answer they have viewed one are willing to admit it, and those who deny having seen one are either not willing or havnt seen one... then its truth becomes clear.

This is true of midwest small town people as well. The vast majority take that Republican religious moral high ground position at least publicly, but behind those white picket fences der's a lotta freaky ass shit going on, especially with the kids. Small towns are pretty dull, and there's not much to do other than get drunk, get high, and fuck. Especially when you're talking about the younger crowd.

 

[KillerMuffin]

~Do you believe homosexuality is morally wrong?

Nope. I think it's perfectly natural and sexually arousing.

~Do you ever personally look at pornography?

Yep. I write porno, too. I even showed my boobies to the 'Net world at large.

~Would you look down on someone who had an affair while married?

Bratcat says yes. She's probably right.

~Do you believe sex before marriage is morally wrong?

Nope. It's fun.

~Is religion an important part of your life? I.e., do you attend church regularly?

Nope. I'm arreligious at the moment.



I do believe I'm batting pretty high on the liberal answer part. I voted for Bush in 2000 and Dole in 96. I plan on voting for Bush in 04 should he run.

Was this helpful?

 

[Problem Child]

For however Puritan you see George W. Bush, he's nothing compared to Barry Goldwater.

TB4p

Tb4p I think you are thinking of the younger Barry Goldwater. As he got older he changed his views quite a bit on certain things.

He was against the ban on gays in the military, supported legalized abortion and gay rights, and often criticized the religious right.

I wouldn't call those views puritan.

 

[Young Knave]

Re: Re: Why the Republicans are doomed. Thanks, Literotica!

I don't think Dubya would aprove.

~Do you believe homosexuality is morally wrong?

Nope. I think it's perfectly natural and sexually arousing.

~Do you ever personally look at pornography?

Yep. I write porno, too. I even showed my boobies to the 'Net world at large.

~Would you look down on someone who had an affair while married?

Bratcat says yes. She's probably right.

~Do you believe sex before marriage is morally wrong?

Nope. It's fun.

~Is religion an important part of your life? I.e., do you attend church regularly?

Nope. I'm arreligious at the moment.



I do believe I'm batting pretty high on the liberal answer part. I voted for Bush in 2000 and Dole in 96. I plan on voting for Bush in 04 should he run.

Was this helpful?

 

[70/30]

Iraq, Iran, and DPRK do have certain advantages that could allow them to succeed with a more open economy and greater freedoms (too bad they have the full backing of a rusty 8000nuke giant) Here's a reminder to JAZZY, TB, GWB, Uncle Ronnie, and other keepers of the peace (Republicans)---why liberal democracy building usually doesn't work and why it could eventually hurt them politically.

World Systems 101:

There is a belief that it is liberal democracy that encourages stability, development and social harmony--and that the core (developed world) has been trying to transmit this form of government to the periphery states (developing world) who are viewed as less evolved for their lack of stability and liberal democracy.

What most of the core doesn't understand is that the lack of political stability and liberal democracy in the periphery is just as predetermined by the system as the reality of liberal democracy and stability is predetermined in the core. Stability or instability, liberal democracy or authoritarianism has little to do with the social potential of the populations or cultures but rather everything to do with the fundamental anatomy of the capitalist world economy.

Authoritarianism and political instability is prevalent in the periphery because--

--Since consumers don't subsidize periphery workers' households by paying a higher price for periphery products, there is less money in the periphery. This sends small children out to earn money or starve--no education is received. Some Afghan girls do attend school but only after they've worked a 12+hour day making rugs--boys mine for coal on slave wages (less than $5 a month).

--Since there is relatively little wealth, that means politicians and political parties will have little to offer the electorate in terms of benefit packages in exchange for votes.

--Thus, there is little support for the local political structure and you have little stability.

--When people get hungry and organisations like the army see their budgets threatened, they move to overthrow the government.

--With little support for the local political system based on little wealth to offer the populace in exchange for their support, politicians revert to a more coercive mechanism.

--The gun replaces wealth as a means to get people to accept the status quo. The rest of the perks that go with liberal democracy are of course discarded (if they ever were functional)

--History says this is the typical situation--however, our current period does have examples of significant popular democracies in the periphery but they are still on shaky ground and are still relatively affluent (South America). They only superficially appear to be like core democracies---they are characterised by the concentration of wealth and political power, also the marginalisation of the electoral process. Obviously, the difference in the periphery democracy results from the periphery's structural disadvantageous position in the world economy.

--During a period such as now when democracy is fairly prevalent in the periphery, there still is little wealth political parties can redistribute to the electorate for their support. That party's time in control likely will be limited until the next election, unless they turn to the gun.

--It is true that Communism is less likely to truly be successful in the periphery--the nature of this system is compounded with a fuming core, they levy sanctions and send in the secret armies. Sometimes that even props up the most brutal general to savior status if he can fend invaders off. In these places the gun initially becomes the coercive tool.

--Bolivia is the prime repeater--over 200 governments in less than 200 years

A country's ideology is generally the by product of economic status--not derived from the expectations of the populace or the ideals America brings to the table. Politics in the periphery is aptly regarded as "the politics of failure", probably even more so when we get involved---I'll qualify that by saying unless it is an attempt to prevent genocide--our involvement has to be better than the alternative. (I'll qualify my qualification by saying unless they are fully backed by a rusty 8000nuke giant that wants to challenge us)

 

[Worm]

Well I gave the "liberal answer" to 4 out of 5 of those questions but I typically vote republican.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Re: Re: Why the Republicans are doomed. Thanks, Literotica!

I do believe I'm batting pretty high on the liberal answer part. I voted for Bush in 2000 and Dole in 96. I plan on voting for Bush in 04 should he run.

Was this helpful?

You're an aberration. But we already knew that.

Originally posted by Young Knave
This is true of midwest small town people as well....

Yes, it is. I shouldn't have limited that remark to people in the southern US. I could have just said "the Peyton Place that is the US" and left it at that.

 

[Shaq]

Bad logic Hamlet.

Lots ot Southern Conservative voters vote based on what they want for morals, not the morals they actually follow. Its an article worth reading though.

Which I consider dispicable hypocracy.


Ha! I just realized I'm conservative on 4/5 but if I worked at Hardees when it came time to vote for Employee of the month I'd support the liberal. Suffice to say I follow the same methods in politics.


Still, the bigger issue is how much morality actually means to voters. Fundamentalist Christians may be attracted to the right because of conservative moral legislation where as somone who is homosexual would almost certainly reject such actions.

But I'm almost sure economic policy is as heavy a factor in why people vote as any other.

 

[teddybear4play]

Tb4p I think you are thinking of the younger Barry Goldwater. As he got older he changed his views quite a bit on certain things.

He was against the ban on gays in the military, supported legalized abortion and gay rights, and often criticized the religious right.

I wouldn't call those views puritan.

I meant Goldwater when he ran against LBJ in '64.

I didn't know he had changed that much, though.

TB4p