Will America ever overcome its redneck puritan roots?

[Darth Wong]

Simple question. Certainly, there are many Americans (millions of them) who do not fit this stereotype. Unfortunately, there are even more who do fit it, and like it or not, success in politics seems to require reaching out and connecting to these people, complete with their seething hatred of sexual deviance, their religious bigotry and ignorance, their tendency to confuse flag-waving jingoism with patriotism, etc. This ensures that the mentality itself will persist, for if change will not come from above and it will not come from below, where will it come from? Schools and the next generation? That's a battleground the redneck fundies have seized already, with considerable success.

So can anyone foresee a time that America will not be ruled by the lowest common denominator?

[Tech^salvager]

So can anyone foresee a time that America will not be ruled by the lowest common denominator?

Nope

[Stravo]

There will always be more stupid people than smart, always. That's the whole point about being smart - above average.

The creator of the boondocks joked during an interview after the 1st debate that the president was just plain stupid. There was no denying that it wasn't a lack of eloquence as some Republicans were spinning it. But what really struck me was his recation when asked by an incredulous reporter.

"Are you saying that the majhority of peopel voting for the president are stupid?"

"Yes." no hesitation when he answered. "You see I come from the East coast and there are these strange God people in the middle of the counrty that I have to fly over on my way to the west coast and we never interact with each other."

A perfect picture of the map I saw last night. You had the norteast/eastern coastal states predominately urban and well educated and liberal, the west coast, predominately urban, well educated and liberal then you have the red states. Rural, family values sorts. They outnumber the other folks. Look at Ohio. Prime example. The sea of red districts, mostly rural, and the isolated bastions of blue - the big cities.

This election proves that the Republicans have appealed to the rural hick person and all but ignored the urban American in favor of these strange God people.

Now at the same time let's remember that Clinton won over some of these red states not less than 10 years ago - granted he was a southerner as well. So a Democrat winning over a few Southern states is possible - as long as he belongs to their 'tribe' if I can borrow a term from Mike.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Their influence is too strong now. It would take a supreme leader for the other side to really win them over on whatever ground. Do not underestimate the value of religious arguments and social groupings.

[MKSheppard]

Nope. Anyone who comes here in an attempt to win them over will be assimilated by them in true Scots-Irish tradition

[Aeolus]

No, not entirely. But I believe the pendulum will swing back towards a more liberal situation in a few decades. Then eventually back right. And so on.

[Bertie Wooster]

So can anyone foresee a time that America will not be ruled by the lowest common denominator?

The national republican vote is composed of those who want to be or think they will be rich, and those that identify themselves in terms of Christian values. If those that believe in their Christian identity also start to advocate "sharing" and "fairness" more, the Republicans who make over $200,000 a year will stop contributing heavily to the Republican party.

So basically, if the Christian Right goes against corporate interests, the Republican party will lose most of it's financing muscle.

[Bugsby]

I dunno. See, there were always these strange religious fundie hicks in the middle of the country. But it was Karl Rove who identified these people as a voting demographic. This is one part of the neo-con movement, to embrace dumb-as-shit, ignorant, intolerant religious beliefs and put them into the party platform. The Dems won't touch that demograchic with a 10-foot pole because it's playing to the bottom of the American barrel. Besides, its an appalling way to win an election: a platform based on ignorance intended to capture the vote of the ignorant?

Fortunately for the Republicans, the bottom of the barrel is pretty full. Among Bush voters, by far the most important consideration was "moral values" according to exit polls. He's a Born-again Christian, just like them! Let's vote for him! The fundies aren't a part of the Republican constiuency, they are BECOMING the Republican constituency. And for this reason, the situation will NOT improve. The Republicans are in power now. So there is a huge incentive to cut education in the red states because it was that ignorance that got them elected in the first place. Flag-waving jingoism and religion-blinded ignorance are responsible for this victory by the Rpublicans, and they will do everything in their power to keep that tradition alive. Ashcroft in 08, anyone?

The pendulum may swing back, but it will be slow. Ideas like this don't shift. There is no middle ground that you can work from. You can't convince fundies to kinda not believe in the Bible. As long as the Democratic Party stands for progressive policies, enlightened, reasoned postions, and universal tolerance, the Republicans will brand them godless heathens. The demoniztion of the left will continue, and America will sink even further.

Canada's looking nice right about now. Cold, though....

[Darksider]

Even though I really knew it probably wouldn't happen, I still held out hope.

Not anymore.

When my state (Michigan) passes an ammendment to the constitution banning gay marriage, there's no hope

[ReinnResauq]

So can anyone foresee a time that America will not be ruled by the lowest common denominator?

Nope, but I do believe it's possible to raise the lowest common denominator. That's how change happens. You get Mr. and Mrs. Jack Shit Nice People to see things in a different light and the game changes. That's how black people changed things forty years ago. Get the average white heterosexual god-fearing christian families to see that the people they cared little about are really just the same.

It's one of the perils of democracy, if the people who rule themselves are as dumb as bricks, the government they create will be equally as dumb.

[Aeolus]

Look at the trends. The country was founded on enlightenment ideas. "Liberal"
Mid 19th century rise of apocaliptical cults and a swing towards "conservative"
Late 19 century and early 20th populism and a swing towards "liberal"
mid 20th century hard swing back to the "conservative" side
60's and 70 back to "liberal"
late 20th century back towards "conservative"
Note we have a tendancy to get slightly more liberal with each swing, change comes slowly to the US, but it does come.

[AdmiralKanos]

So can anyone foresee a time that America will not be ruled by the lowest common denominator?

Nope, but I do believe it's possible to raise the lowest common denominator. That's how change happens. You get Mr. and Mrs. Jack Shit Nice People to see things in a different light and the game changes. That's how black people changed things forty years ago. Get the average white heterosexual god-fearing christian families to see that the people they cared little about are really just the same.

It's one of the perils of democracy, if the people who rule themselves are as dumb as bricks, the government they create will be equally as dumb.

That worked for the blacks because they live in rural America too. It's hard to demonize people when you live and work with them. But how many liberals live in small-town America? How many atheists in small-town America dare to declare themselves as such?

[JME2]

Nope. Anyone who comes here in an attempt to win them over will be assimilated by them in true Scots-Irish tradition

I can still counterpact them with my other roots, my German-Sweedish genes...

[UCBooties]

So can anyone foresee a time that America will not be ruled by the lowest common denominator?

In a democratic Republic, it's always rule by the lowest common denomenator. You have to win from as low a base as you can get, because that also means the broadest base of support.

[ReinnResauq]

That worked for the blacks because they live in rural America too. It's hard to demonize people when you live and work with them. But how many liberals live in small-town America? How many atheists in small-town America dare to declare themselves as such?

Shit! Forgot about that! So much for hope. Skin color is hard to hide no matter how small your town is, but it's a natural defense mechanism to hide sexual orientation and spirituality when you know that people would gladly maim or kill you for them. And they're not impossible to hide when neccessary.

[Loner]

Nope. It never will.

[Guardsman Bass]

Not anytime soon, especially since it seems as if they are growing in numbers in the religious rebound that happened in the 1980's. Plus, that sort of evangelical puritanism unfortunately got sucked up into American culture, and blends all-too-nicely with the origin "cowboy" myths we westerners have about ourselves.

[Augustus]

I dunno. See, there were always these strange religious fundie hicks in the middle of the country. But it was Karl Rove who identified these people as a voting demographic.

Justa nitpick. The courting of religous voters began with Pat Robertson's attempt at the Republican nomination in 1988. After Robertson delivered some early defeats to Bush Sr. in the primaries people like Raplh Reed where brought into the mainstream of the Republican Party to prevent that type of upset challage from being mounted ever again. It was'nt until 1992-94 that religous voters became fully tapped as a 'Voting Block' and operatives like Karl Rove began to target them.

[Raptor 597]

Well, I see it from the viewpoint of a member of the Paradox web board. He in essence explained how before 1861 the South could be fractured politically, but afterwards it could not. The general consensus was a blue solid South, wih people like Wilson and Roosevelt throwing them scraps. The South, however could vote on its own such as the Dixiecrats and George Wallace. However, despite this political will they can't win but can make or break someone. The era of the Blue Solid South is over; for the first time ever a Republican is likely to win the Senate seat. As an Louisianan who loves traditional corruption and decadence I can do nothing but scream.

[Ma Deuce]

The religious right will always be an intrinsic part of American society: As has already been stated, America tends to periodically swing back and forth between Progressive and Conservative, with each progressive swing going far enough to ensure some lasting social progress. But no matter how liberal America becomes as a whole, the fundies will always be there...

[Darth Wong]

That's the problem; the pendulum swings only when Christians can be convinced that it's actually "Christian" to oppose the old order (eg- most Christians will now tell you that it is "un-Christian" to discriminate against blacks). There is, however, no fucking way Christians will ever be convinced that secularism is a Christian value.

[Edi]

The way I see it with the current setup, if the puritanical movement is to lose its power and America as a whole is to become more liberal and more in line with the rest of the industrialized nations, I think it is going to first require a long harsh tenure under a repressive near-theocracy or an outright one disguised as some "secular" moral values movement (where "moral values" == Christianity), and it needs to be repressive enough that even its supporters will eventually suffer under it.

Europe had its repressive monarchies and class society well into the 19th century and in the 20th we had the fascists and communists, two world wars (and several other wars before them), so most nations here are well acquianted with the consequences of repressive governments. You can see a part of that in the backlash against Barroso's proposed appointment of Buttiglione and and the ensuing furor, there's no way the majority is going to stand for an intolerant bigot who promotes discrimination and ramming religion down people's throats.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans seem to want the exact opposite, and they are likely going to get exactly what they ask for until one day they will all find that it's not just the people they think are "diffferent" who suffer from it, but that they themselves will. Lessons through pain are the only thing I can see changing things significantly when the fundies have so much power.

Edi

[Gustav32Vasa]

When my state (Michigan) passes an ammendment to the constitution banning gay marriage, there's no hope

This is somethin I cant understand. Your constitution gives all people in the US rights, so how can you pass a law that breaks the constitution?

[Darth Wong]

People pass an unconstitutional law in the hopes that it won't be challenged in the courts, or that it will be challenged but by then they will have some Supreme Court justices who are such doctrinaire Bush-appointee idiots that they'll rubber-stamp it anyway.

As for Michigan, I don't see why anyone's surprised. Michigan has more of a Midwestern redneck attitude than a Northeastern blueblood attitude, for sure. I've been there and seen it first-hand.

[Durandal]

That's the problem; the pendulum swings only when Christians can be convinced that it's actually "Christian" to oppose the old order (eg- most Christians will now tell you that it is "un-Christian" to discriminate against blacks). There is, however, no fucking way Christians will ever be convinced that secularism is a Christian value.

I don't know if that's entirely true. I believe that that's how Christians cope with inevitable social change. They incorporate it into their faith (and then of course say that that's what they believed all along).

A massive majority of people in the South bitterly fought for segregation, and it took the US Armed Forces to forcibly integrate their backward asses. But Martin Luther King, Jr. never really fought for segregation on the grounds that it was the Christian thing to do; he fought for it because the Constitution, in spirit, guaranteed the same rights to everyone, and "separate but equal" violated those guaranteed rights.

Christianity has been a dominant force in retarding social progress in the US, but I can't think of a time when it's been overcome by actually decreasing its resistance factor. Progress came about when the Constitution pushed forward harder than Christians were pulling back.