Rock of the Westies

Matt Welch | November 3, 2005

I'm not entirely whistling Dixie on this Western Strategy stuff; commenter Tom Scudder points out this Liberty Platform post by lefty blogger Digby. Excerpt:

I think we should adopt a western and southwest red state strategy using a platform of personal liberty, economic responsibility, land conservation, energy independence and effective national security. [...]

"Republicans don't trust people to make their own decisions." It's that simple. They want to tell people how to live. I believe that is a simple argument that plays ever so subtly on the Republican mantra that says "they don't trust you with your own money!" We should steal it since they've already trained the ears of Americans to hear that formulation. [...]

The western and southwestern states are far less amenable to intrusions on personal liberty, far less likely to be hyper-religious, far more "live and let live" than the southern red states. There is less history of racism than in either the south or the big cities (that's not saying all that much) and they have been leaders in women's equality. As the Republican party becomes a Christian dominated party of big government, this group is becoming unmoored from the GOP and is open to a new message from us.

Much more, about guns and taxes and abortion and National Security & stuff, here.

Whether it will amount to a hill of beans, obviously, is another question altogether (and one with the likely answer of "no"). But it's at least interesting that the topic is coming up in Democratic conversation. You can find similar sentiments over at Democrats for the West, the inevitable Schweitzer for President weblog, and even on occasion at The Daily Kos.

For a good laugh, however, you might enjoy watching another West-centric site, New West, attempt to blame Ayn Rand for neo-conservatism.

Comments

|11.3.05 @ 1:10PM|#

If they adopt a pro west strategy based on these principles, the Dem party would instantly be 500% more attractive to me, give or take.

I don't think it is a platform reconcilable with the traditional wants of the minority vote, nor with the "Two Americas" construct we saw last time. They will run into problems with land use regulation, hunting and fishing, and guns. I'm intrigued by the notion, though.

|11.3.05 @ 1:21PM|#

What both parties do is that they want only the hard core voters to vote. These are the voters no matter how upset with their own party they will vote for them. The major parties are so incompetent and so corrupt they keep voters home. The 50% who stay home are indifferent and all we get is a different flavor of Vanilla.

|11.3.05 @ 1:31PM|#

"Republicans don't trust people to make their own decisions."

Wow. That's a true statement, as far as it goes, but am I supposed to believe that the Democrats do trust people to make their own decisions? This is more of the psuedo-federalist rhetoric that sprung up immediately after the election and disappeared almost as quickly.

It sounds like a good strategy, but that's all it is...a strategy to extract votes. As Jason implied, this strategy is completely at odds with the stated (and repeated) goals of the Democratic Party. The only way to reconcile is to actually adopt a pro-states attitude, and I don't believe that's possible.

taktix|11.3.05 @ 1:33PM|#

I'm not sure if I like this whole "using a platform of personal liberty, economic responsibility..." etc.

Does that mean they plan to essentially use these platforms to acquire power, then simply discard them one they are in power?

Of course not, says Harvey the Rabbit: "politicians never use issues to gain power, then ignore said issues. Now let's talk about our next 5-year plan. Shoe production is up by..."

taktix|11.3.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Correction: ONCE they are in power.

R C Dean|11.3.05 @ 1:37PM|#

The platform sounds great. Unfortunately, it would require them to discard their current base, unless "economic responsibility" is code for higher taxes, "land conservation" is code for intrusive zoning and environmental regulation, and "personal liberty" is code for abortion rights and not much else.

|11.3.05 @ 1:38PM|#

Does that mean they plan to essentially use these platforms to acquire power, then simply discard them one they are in power?

That's the problem. The GOP has used us like that since Reagan. Why should we think the Dems would be any kinder?

|11.3.05 @ 1:39PM|#

I think we should adopt a western and southwest red state strategy using a platform of personal liberty, economic responsibility, land conservation, energy independence and effective national security.

As a former New Mexican, I see the problem the Dems being that, for even a lot of western Dems, land conversation = no hunting, fishing, grazing, biking, skiing, ATV-ing, jet-skiing or snowmobiling, only "take only pictures, leave only footprints" hippie-hiking. And's that really not gonna fly except with, well, hippies and urban Dems who have an idealized view of "the envirnoment" without ever leaving their cities and who are already voting Dem anyway. It'll win you Santa Fe, but hell, that's already in the bag.

|11.3.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Just dropping the gun issue alone would be a huge boost to Dem competitiveness.

The last few years, I've been telling Dems I know they need to become a party of "personal freedoms" (as I put it) and economic responsibility. When I frame it that way, it seemed to get positive response.

There's a great opportunity, as the Repubs, always shakey on personal freedoms, have adopted big govt as a central theme. And a sense that Dems really don't want to compete on that front.

|11.3.05 @ 1:43PM|#

RC:

Economic responsibility is definitely a code for raising taxes. Since spending can never be cut for any reason, raising taxes is the responsible thing to do.

Cedarbug seems to suggest that my fears and yours about land use are more or less on target. You can't go all Sierra Club and appeal to the actual land owner.

|11.3.05 @ 1:53PM|#

offtopic...

someone had better post on the dems defeating a bill that would have exempted blogs from fcc rules or I am going to FREAK OUT!!

see here for stuff:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/03/1616230&tid=153&tid=98&tid=219

MP|11.3.05 @ 2:01PM|#

land conversation = no hunting, fishing, grazing, biking, skiing, ATV-ing, jet-skiing or snowmobiling, only "take only pictures, leave only footprints" hippie-hiking.

Screw you, Hippie!!

|11.3.05 @ 2:06PM|#

They don't like taxes, which is why economics have to be presented in terms of responsibility rather than entitlement, which they are. Nobody likes taxes, but responsible people recognise that taxes are unavoidable if we are to have a decent society.

For all except true anarchists, I think we can agree that some taxes are necessary. The problem arises from the form of those taxes and what they're used to pay for. The catch here is that the Democrats get to define what a "decent society" is, which includes all sorts of things that liberty-minded folks wouldn't voluntarily spend money on.

"It is irresponsible to burden business with outrageous health care costs and individuals with the fear of imminent catastrophe --- the government needs to fix this problem."

The implication here seems to be that we should alleviate healthcare costs for business and unfortunate individuals through personal taxation, which shows a fundamentally flawed understanding of economics. It also highlights the traditional Democrat belief in the benevolence of the government. The government will fix all your problems, as long as you're personally responsible for the bill.

"It's irresponsible for the wealthy not to accept their rightful share of the burden to keep this country strong."

Don't the wealthy pay most of the taxes? And who determines their "rightful share"?

"It's irresponsible for the government not to keep our promises to each generation by ensuring that social security stays healthy and that we don't leave behind a mountain of debt for our children."

More of the same. The government is never to be held responsible for inept programs and out-of-control spending, but the individual is always responsible for paying the tab. This really shows that the Democrats have such a warped view of personal responsibility and individual freedom as to render the concepts meaningless.

|11.3.05 @ 2:08PM|#

Then there's good old Utah, where even the illegal aliens vote Republican.

You'd figure that a state founded by people who were trying to get away from the federal government so they could screw 14-year-olds in peace would be receptive to smaller government and more liberty.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

The fact that Rocky Anderson is mayor of The People's Republic Of Salt Lake City doesn't count.

Captain Holly|11.3.05 @ 2:17PM|#

I love it when the Democrats smoke too much pot.

The Democrats will NEVER win in the West, other than in the blue urban enclaves, until they end their love affair with gun control.

Ain't gonna happen.

|11.3.05 @ 2:21PM|#

I tend to agree with the "Western" strategy in the LAT oped. I've been trying to articulate something close to that for a few months now, but Matt did it with far fewer words and much more effectively than I could have.

A couple points that come to my damaged mind:

1. If the national Dems (read-outside of Dee Cee) want to use their newly discovered balls at all, the will find a way to stop the Hillary Clinton Machine at all costs. Is there a "Democrats Against Hillary" site? There should be.

If the party is looking for a way to continue its love affair with failure, nominate HRC in 08'. I can't stress this point enough.

2. Dems seriously need to drop the Gun Control thing right now, unless you want to continue a legacy of failure with this issue (see above comment). You can't champion the 1st without giving the 2nd its due and you will continue to lose, lose and lose in main street america. Most people who live outside of NYC, SF, Boston and LA understand this, even begrudgingly.

|11.3.05 @ 2:24PM|#

The Democrats will NEVER win in the West, other than in the blue urban enclaves, until they end their love affair with gun control.

...and if they do that, then they'll loose the blue urban lefties who make up a large portion of their party and they're probably not enough people in the West to make up the numbers.

In the end, we are slaves to partisanship.

|11.3.05 @ 2:32PM|#

Akira, I think that the 2nd Amendment is a much more important issue for the Reds than it is for the Blues. On that one issue alone, I think they would pick up vastly more votes then they lose. Plus, if neither of the parties are pushing an aggressive gun control agenda, then they're likely to very, very few Dem voters.

Honestly, they don't even have to completely abandon gun control, they just have to minimize their goals in that area and get better PR to get a decent pop.

|11.3.05 @ 2:33PM|#

should read: "then they're likely to lose very, very few Dem voters."

R C Dean|11.3.05 @ 2:41PM|#

You can't champion the 1st

Who's championing the First Amendment? The Dems just killed the on-line speech protection bill, after all, so it ain't them.

|11.3.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Here in Idaho, the reddest of the red states, our most popular governor in a generation, Cecil Andrus, was a Western-style Democrat more conservative than a lot of politicians with (R) after their names. I'm not optimistic about that kind of Dem succeeding nationally, though. Seems like a distinctly regional thing.

The idiot making the Rand-neocon connection sounds like Akira's professor. Don't let facts get in the way of your predetermined conclusion.

Matt, did you have to reference the album that saw Elton John officially lose his mojo? It's depressing to read that title while listening to "Tumbleweed Connection".

|11.3.05 @ 3:14PM|#

Honestly, before I'd ever consider trusting the Dems, I'd have to see some extremely active attempts to atone for the sins they've committed in the past.

It wouldn't be enough to just stay quiet on gun control. I'd have to see some serious grovelling in the form of attempts to repeal at least the most egregious federal gun control laws.

Same goes for taxes and private property.

And, after reading the bit about the Dems defeating the Online Freedom of Speech act, they better get to work fixing the first amendment too.

But I consider any of the above about as likely my sprouting a 3rd eye in the center of my forehead.

|11.3.05 @ 3:23PM|#

The problem is to do this strategy, the Dems would have to stand up to the east coast enviro whackos who want to turn the West into a giant theme park for rich elites to get back into touch with nature at the expense of everyone who lives there now. You would have to stand up to the anti-gun nuts. More importantly, you would have to stand up to the entire elite culture that views anyone who doesn't live on the coast, owns a gun, or has ever attended a church as a member of some kind extremist excotic culture akin to the Taliban. Until you do something about that attitude, the Dems will never win the West.

This isn't a bad idea in theory, but its 20 years too late. The Democratic Party is way to far down the road toward interest group liberalism and being a party of ideological elites to ever embrace such a culture change.

|11.3.05 @ 3:41PM|#

"More importantly, you would have to stand up to the entire elite culture that views anyone who doesn't live on the coast, owns a gun, or has ever attended a church as a member of some kind extremist excotic culture akin to the Taliban."

Yes, can't have prejudiced people spouting off broad stereotypes based on regionalist resentments, can we John?

|11.3.05 @ 3:51PM|#

I'm surprised no one on this site has mentioned this Salon interview with Democratic Senate candidate Paul Hackett:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/25/hackett/index1.html

A highlight:
"I don't need Washington, D.C., or the government in my private life. Period. I don't need them to dictate to my wife the decisions she can make with a doctor. I don't need a Washington politician to tell my neighbors what they can do in the privacy of their bedroom. And I don't need Washington politicians to tell me what guns to keep in my gun safe."

Seems like the type of libertarian Democrat being talking about. VERY pro-gun (and from an individual rights angle rather than a lame "hunting" angle), anti-drug war, and anti-Irag war; plus anyone who complains about "religious fanatics" running the government is likely to get my vote.

|11.3.05 @ 4:26PM|#

Joe,

Bravo on that. And yet, I have to say that John has made a point. There does seem to be this attitude on the part of east and west coast liberals that any kind of culture different than theirs is either 1) unenlightened and therefore "conservative" or 2) endangered and therefore in need of government enlightenment. It kind of remeinds me of how some from the coasts refer to all that shit in the middle as "flyover." Ah well.

|11.3.05 @ 4:32PM|#

eric,

I live in the Northeast, have friends who fly for business, and have never in my life heard anyone refer to the middle part of the nation as "flyover country." This seems to be a self-appelation created by politicians from the area to cast themselves as victims.

|11.3.05 @ 4:55PM|#

The Democrats already have a great example of a good gun strategy in Howard Dean. In his campaign, he simply stated "Leave it up to the states" and that was good enough to get an endorsement from the NRA. Despite that endorsement, Dean remained popular with some of the sillier Democrat extremists on the far left.

The Dems have to make it clear that cities that want to ban guns can continue to do so but states with fewer gun restrictions wouldn't be forced to implement gun control.

That would be the winning strategy and 90% percent of the base would be fine with it. The remaining 10% would be pissed but they're a bunch of easily angered hippies that will still vote Democratic anyways.

Captain Holly|11.3.05 @ 5:15PM|#

cs

Most of us gun owners are not fooled by NRA endorsements. The NRA will sometimes endorse a candidate who's relatively moderate on gun control just to get a bit of influence with said candidate if they win.

Dean and the Democrats may think a 10th-Amendment gun control position might neutralize some gun owner opposition, but then they would have to follow it up by pushing for the repeal of most, if not all, Federal gun control laws if they wanted to win our loyal support. After all, if it's a state issue, then the BATFE should be abolished.

And there's a better chance of me having sex with Hillary Clinton than that ever happening.

|11.3.05 @ 5:23PM|#

I live in the Northeast, have friends who fly for business, and have never in my life heard anyone refer to the middle part of the nation as "flyover country." This seems to be a self-appelation created by politicians from the area to cast themselves as victims.

Whether created by politicians or not, I have heard this term from enough people on both coasts to accept it as semi-common parlance now.

Regardless, there are significant cultural differences between the coasts and the middle of America. The differences have been stoked and exploited by politicians for decades, with the result being the fairly strict cultural and political divide we see now. Both parties rely on their stereotypes, but the fact is that it wouldn't be much of a problem if the federal government had less power and the states had more.

This platform at least recognizes that to a degree, but falls short of actually believing it.

|11.3.05 @ 5:34PM|#

"I don't need Washington, D.C., or the government in my private life. Period. I don't need them to dictate to my wife the decisions she can make with a doctor. I don't need a Washington politician to tell my neighbors what they can do in the privacy of their bedroom. And I don't need Washington politicians to tell me what guns to keep in my gun safe."

Problem is, they never quite get around to saying "I don't need the government telling me what I can't do with my property or taking 40% of my income taxes," do they? Demo attempts at libertarianism always come off as disingenuous at best. Not that GOP is any better, mind you.

|11.3.05 @ 6:20PM|#

Whether anyone actually uses the term "flyover country" or not, there is a pervasive attitude among people who live in the coastal metropolises that the areas in between are culturally impoverished backwaters. I hear it all the time at work -- I live in the DC area, and my company's HQ offices are in NY and SF -- even from those whose roots are in middle America.

Just the same, people in middle America have their stereotypical conception of people on the coasts, which we heard in that ludicrous Club for Growth ad last election.

|11.3.05 @ 6:25PM|#

joe,

Having lived in New England for several years I can regale you with many tales about attitudes towards the South and middle part of the country.

|11.3.05 @ 6:39PM|#

Having lived in Wisconsin, South Carolina, California, and now Maryland, I have to say that:

1) I agree with joe on the term "flyover country." Sure, there's some sneering at other parts of the country, but "flyover country" is just as much a strawman as stereotypes about Southerners. The first time I heard the phrase was from a conservative bemoaning coastal attitudes. The only times I recall liberals use it, they've said it in a way that hardly suggests they take the notion seriosu. "The so-called flyover country..."

It's like when a handful of people on this form accuse anybody to their left of using the word "chimpler." No doubt there's some idiot out there using the word, but nobody here has used it except to accuse others of using it, or deny said accusations.

2) As far as guns, I don't know a lot of openly Democratic gun owners, or openly gun-owning Democrats. I have relatives (the good ones in my crazy family, not the bad ones) who own guns and are very liberal. They're kind of embarassed about owning guns. They admit that they thought about getting rid of them but ultimately rejected the notion since it's better to have them than not. But they are embarassed about it, and they think it's silly to worry about gun control. They're absolutely certain that nobody will take their guns away.

Let's ask DC residents whether that's a valid concern...

|11.3.05 @ 6:45PM|#

Joe,

Oh I'm not saying it is all over the place. I'm sure your crowd is a lot more polite than some. Anyway, the worst thing (though this is not just from the coast) is the whole asking about why you're wearing shoes when someone not from the south finds out you are from the south. I've gotten that to my face before and luckily for me I found savoring the lack of taste and good breeding on their part superior to beating the crap out of them.

|11.3.05 @ 6:50PM|#

To boil it down, we're stuck with the wretched major parties we have for the foreseeable future. Neither is going to magically change into a nice, tolerant, small-government party. Neither is even likely to accidentally stumble one inch that way.

Maybe in 10 (or more likely 20) years, we might see some some greater interest in small government. We'll naturally have an even bigger government by that time, of course.

|11.3.05 @ 7:21PM|#

As far as guns, I don't know a lot of openly Democratic gun owners, or openly gun-owning Democrats. I have relatives (the good ones in my crazy family, not the bad ones) who own guns and are very liberal. They're kind of embarassed about owning guns. They admit that they thought about getting rid of them but ultimately rejected the notion since it's better to have them than not. But they are embarassed about it, and they think it's silly to worry about gun control. They're absolutely certain that nobody will take their guns away.

I somewhat recently had a debate with a very liberal (and very best) friend of mine who said (with a straight face) that he believes all guns should be illegal but, as long as they are legal, he wants to own one (which he doesn't, btw).

I can almost get down with the notion that there should be zero guns in the world, if only we could wish them, and the ingeunity to make them, away. What disturbs me most about the gun control crowd is that they readily accept that government employees should be allowed to carry, but the common citizen should not.

For liberals and conservatives alike it's the same old story...government is always good as long as it's their government.

|11.3.05 @ 8:42PM|#

"It's like when a handful of people on this form accuse anybody to their left of using the word "chimpler." No doubt there's some idiot out there using the word, but nobody here has used it except to accuse others of using it, or deny said accusations."

This paragraph could only have been written by thoreau...or Cathy Young ;)

"I can almost get down with the notion that there should be zero guns in the world, if only we could wish them, and the ingeunity to make them, away."

What's wrong with this notion? Guns are like nukes, if someone else's got 'em you might as well get some too, but how many people wouldn't prefer a world without nukes (or ANY guns, for that matter)? I'm as pro 2nd amendment as you can get, but that's just for pragmatic reasons, because I know guns will always be around, and subsequently we should be able to protect ourselves. There's something about a person who prefers a world with guns to one without that scares me.

|11.3.05 @ 8:53PM|#

As far as guns, I don't know a lot of openly Democratic gun owners, or openly gun-owning Democrats.

Thoreau, when you lived in those states were you in rural areas?

I know quite a few of gun owning Democrats. They all live in the Kansas farm town where my family is from. The older generation is particularly anti-Republican, but have no desire to turn in their guns.

Everything seems to change when you get into the city and the suburbs.

|11.3.05 @ 9:00PM|#

Nope, I've never lived in a rural area. Suburbs, yes. Small, ritzy coastal enclave, yes. Rural area? No.

|11.3.05 @ 9:10PM|#

eric, I've stopped more than a few conversations cold when I've told people making the standard sneering West Virginia inbreeding/toothless/moron/etc. jokes that my half of my family comes from West Virginia.

There's something about a person who prefers a world with guns to one without that scares me.

Why? Guns are not only useful for shooting other human beings, after all.

|11.3.05 @ 9:17PM|#

What's wrong with this notion? Guns are like nukes, if someone else's got 'em you might as well get some too, but how many people wouldn't prefer a world without nukes (or ANY guns, for that matter)? I'm as pro 2nd amendment as you can get, but that's just for pragmatic reasons, because I know guns will always be around, and subsequently we should be able to protect ourselves. There's something about a person who prefers a world with guns to one without that scares me.

The problem is that guns are a great equalizer. In a world without guns, the strong will always dominate the weak. I accept that as a part of human nature. Firearms even that divide.

You say that someone who prefers a world without guns scares you, which I understand, but how will the weak protect themselves?

As I said, I can almost get down with it. To get rid of all guns is at least consistent, though I feel it is wrong. But to get rid of citizens guns while leaving government guns intact is flat out lunacy.

|11.3.05 @ 9:29PM|#

"... the huge budget deficits, triumphalist foreign policy and disgraceful health-care system that characterize 21st-century America can all be traced straight back to Ms. Rand�s tiresome grandiloquizing."

LMFAO!

|11.3.05 @ 9:39PM|#

John writes:

"More importantly, you would have to stand up to the entire elite culture that views anyone who doesn't live on the coast, owns a gun, or has ever attended a church as a member of some kind extremist excotic culture akin to the Taliban."

joe responds:

Yes, can't have prejudiced people spouting off broad stereotypes based on regionalist resentments, can we John?

Joe, this is your lucky day. Having grown up in Wisconsin, lived in New Mexico and Boston, and been exposed to in-laws in San Fran, Connecticut, NYC and DC for the last 11 years, I can tell you that is the coastal elite view on gun ownership to a T. Any denying of that point really only highlights your lack of knowledge about how the rest of the folks out there think. Can't have prejudiced people spouting off broad stereotypes based on regionalist resentments? Christ, that's all I hear in DC, NYC, Boston, and San Fran.

|11.3.05 @ 9:54PM|#

Thoreau writes:

1) I agree with joe on the term "flyover country." Sure, there's some sneering at other parts of the country, but "flyover country" is just as much a strawman as stereotypes about Southerners.

The use of the term "fly-over country" is irrelevant, as most Easterners, at any rate, have an exact synonym for it: "the Midwest", which they use unironically.

|11.3.05 @ 9:59PM|#

The problem is that guns are a great equalizer. In a world without guns, the strong will always dominate the weak. I accept that as a part of human nature. Firearms even that divide.

Commitment is the only equalizer. If a revolution comes my shotgun will be worth a lot less versus the armour then my resolution to die fighting.

Whatever your position on the Middle East... What enables the Palistinians isn't weapons. Hell they throw rocks. It's the fact that they're willing to die.

|11.3.05 @ 10:03PM|#

...been exposed to in-laws in San Fran, Connecticut, NYC and DC for the last 11 years,

Christ how many people did you marry? You're not Mormon are you?

|11.3.05 @ 10:07PM|#

I'm not sure where this Digby chap hangs his Stetson, but in the West I've always lived in, land conservation and energy independence are, sad to say, mutually contradictory values. Of course, the weekend grouse hunters who make their living in the natural-gas fields might be best situated to strike a sane balance. Whenever President Bush attempts to devolve land-use decisions so they're made locally, the usual environmental suspects (Democrats to a man) accuse him and his cronies of wanting to rape the land on behalf of Big Energy.

So at least one part of the formula is problematic. Friggin' politics. I don't know how anybody ever gets 51 percent of us to agree on anything.

|11.3.05 @ 10:21PM|#

Joe, this is your lucky day. Having grown up in Wisconsin, lived in New Mexico and Boston, and been exposed to in-laws in San Fran, Connecticut, NYC and DC for the last 11 years, I can tell you that is the coastal elite view on gun ownership to a T. Any denying of that point really only highlights your lack of knowledge about how the rest of the folks out there think. Can't have prejudiced people spouting off broad stereotypes based on regionalist resentments? Christ, that's all I hear in DC, NYC, Boston, and San Fran

I don't know Cedarburg. My wife's family is in Philadelphia, and are pretty reliably Democrat and favor gun control. They seem almost fascinated by the idea that I go hunting each fall. I think that if we moved to their suburb they'd be appalled if I kept the shotgun, but the fact that I'm in the West it seems almost acceptable to them. Like a cultural thing, which, in Denver, it really isn't.

|11.3.05 @ 10:24PM|#

Continuing on what Stretch said, What alternative do you propose to guns, for self defense? Do you wholeheartedly believe that the state will always be at your defense and not your throat? Ask protesters in any tyrannical state. Other weapons like swords, clubs, axes et cetera just amplify the already-strong. Our society is so (relatively) peacful that people want to rid the world of guns in the name of peace.

"Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak." "

- article at national review http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

|11.3.05 @ 11:00PM|#

Cedarburg-

I'm from the Midwest. Everybody I know back home refers to the region as the Midwest without feeling persecuted. I don't know the origin of the term (yeah, I know, some know-it-all will tell me), but I've never thought of it as condescending in any way. Nonsensical? Sure. Sneering? No.

Then again, we Wisconsinites have embraced the word Cheesehead, after Mike Royko used it as an insult. Maybe our embrace of the term "Midwest" is just our way of taking a tool of oppression and making it into a symbol of empowerment.

BTW, Milwaukee may not be rural, but we're not exactly known for our sophistication either. And even we look down our noses at Southerners. I guess we were brainwashed by the liberal Midwest establishment...

Oh, and Andy, you say that Cathy Young could write what I wrote about "Chimpler." But Cathy Young would go track down the writings of whatever idiot said "Chimpler", and give him serious treatment as "one side." And then she'd find somebody else making gratuitious "Chimpler" allegations and give him serious treatment as "the other side." And then she's explain that both sides have a point, but this culture war really needs to tone down.

Me, I dismissed the "Chimpler" utterers as idiots, and said that those who hurl the allegation are wrong.

|11.3.05 @ 11:14PM|#

thoreau,

And even we look down our noses at Southerners.

Except apparently those who migrate from the rustbelt to the sunbelt.

|11.3.05 @ 11:31PM|#

"Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak."

Provided also the larger stronger group doesn't have firearms as well.

What alternative do you propose to guns, for self defense?

There is no alternative really. Arm yourself, but remember when the shit hits the fan the gun is just a tool. Using it, not using, or running like hell is a matter of resolve.

|11.4.05 @ 4:45AM|#

The idea that started this whole thread represents exactly what is wrong with politics, and exactly why I despise political parties. What we are talking about here is just naked bullshitting. So the Democrats are saying "We could win that region if we said we were in favor of..." Well are you really in favor of it, or are you just going to say you're in favor of it to win? If you're just saying it, than obviously this whole grand strategy boils down to "I bet we can make Westerners totally forget what we stand for, then screw them over once we get in". Ok, good luck. If they're not just saying it, then that means everything the Democratic Party has stood for in the rest of the country for 60 years has been a lie. I'm going with the former explanation.
But that's not the worst part. The truly disgusting thing is that this sort of mentality drives party politics, and most of us buy into it. It's not about what you believe in, it's just getting your team to win! Not getting your team to fight for what you believe in, getting your team to win on the basis of any ideology just so they win. Whatever your political persuasion, if you believe in anything, you have to be disgusted by this. What does it say about us that the Carvilles/Roves of the world can talk about this sort of fraud OPENLY and nobody (or at least nobody important) says anything?
Any of you looking at this thinking "well I could vote for someone like that..." need a major reality check. You're essentially saying "Those lies sound good to me". If you're willing to buy that, you might as well stick with a true small government conservative like George Bush.

Yes, sarcasm.

bbridges|11.4.05 @ 9:39AM|#

Hit and run

Perhaps the Democrats could come out as anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-tax cut and pro-intelligent design. They'd completely subvert the Republican platform. YAY!

|11.4.05 @ 10:17AM|#

Cripes, now "midwest" is an insensitive slur. Why don't you get together with the rest of the great oppressed, and start singing We Shall Overcome.

"the coastal elite view on gun ownership" While your at it, why don't you define "stereotype" for me, hmm?

It's a terribly injury to refer to the part of the county 2/3 of the way from the east coast to the west coast as "the midwest," but it's perfectly appropriate to start spouting off about what "the coastal elite" thinks. Nice.

|11.4.05 @ 10:20AM|#

joe, are you sure you didn't mean 1/3 instead of 2/3? I've heard Ohio referred to as Midwestern.

|11.4.05 @ 10:24AM|#

joe,

2/3rds of the country isn't the Midwest you dolt.

|11.4.05 @ 10:26AM|#

oops. typo.

|11.4.05 @ 10:31AM|#

I live in a large East Coast city, surrounded by Democrats of various persuasions. Yes, I have heard "flyover country" used by East Coast Democrats. Yes, I have heard "Chimpler" used by ECDs. There is, if you ask me, a ton of prejudice among ECDs against most of the rest of the country. My boss, who is Jewish, jokes that people in the Midwest still think that Jews have horns and cloven hooves. Now, admittedly, some of these things are done in a joking way, but what does it reveal about their attitudes? I can't imagine these same people, for example, ever saying "Uh-oh, here comes a Black guy! Hang on to your wallets, everybody! Ha-ha, only kidding, I know all Black people aren't criminals." The attitude among the ECDs really seems to be that it's OK to disdain Midwesterners and make fun of them, because people from the Midwest are wilfully unenlightened - a kind of "they did it first" attitude.

|11.4.05 @ 10:34AM|#

joe-

Now you're changing your story.

:)

|11.4.05 @ 10:35AM|#

joe,

Right. Sure. :)

JD,

That's a nice way to sum up the attitudes of many ECDs.

|11.4.05 @ 10:36AM|#

thoreau,

Yes, it was a very convenient little "typo." :)

And yes, he is changing his story, whether you believe him about his claim or not.

|11.4.05 @ 10:40AM|#

My boss, who is Jewish, jokes that people in the Midwest still think that Jews have horns and cloven hooves.

One of my friends who attends the U. of Chicago, and is Jewish, met someone from Kentucky who believed exactly that.

I will say, though, that the idea that the only civilized places in the country are major cities and "blue" states seems to be a lot more popular with the college-age crowd than the general population.

|11.4.05 @ 10:47AM|#

thoreau, I suggest you read "Basic Arithmetic for Beginners" before you embarrass yourself further.

|11.4.05 @ 10:48AM|#

God, thoreau, you as such a little skank. Like all theists. You obviously know nothing about how a keyboard is set up.

|11.4.05 @ 10:50AM|#

joe,

Given your willingness to lie in order to cover up errors on your part we really can't your word at face value.

|11.4.05 @ 10:51AM|#

joe, you are clearly a liar and I have no more use for you.

Anyway, you east coast Catholics look down on us salt of the earth Midwesterners. Militant atheists, on the other hand, harbor no negative attitudes toward the inhabitants of Middle America.

|11.4.05 @ 11:05AM|#

I would expect a coward like you to run away, thoreau. Even with all your lies, you can't hope to argue against me.

Of course, all theists are bigots who subscribe to prejudiced stereotypes, so it's not suprising that the idiotic scumbags would look down on Midwesterners.

I remember once, when my boyfriend and wife were helping me write some code for the French Marine's legal office...

|11.4.05 @ 11:07AM|#

Why do you hate Middle America?

|11.4.05 @ 11:10AM|#

joe & thoreau,

You said you had stopped reading my comments. I guess not.

|11.4.05 @ 11:15AM|#

joe (since you are indeed reading my comments),

Calling 2/3rds of the U.S. the "midwest" is exactly what a typical ECD would say. So unless you are parodying that idea, you apparently did yourself in with a nice little self-fisking.

|11.4.05 @ 11:53AM|#

Steven Crane - My mom is from Kentucky. She moved to New York and married a (non-observant) Jewish guy. Not that she's typical, of course, or that she couldn't have stayed there and married a Jewish guy... Anyway, yes, I agree that there's prejudice in the "red states" - when I lived in Arizona, I was surprised at the number of people who would casually say things like "I think gay people are mentally ill" - but my point is not that prejudice doesn't exist there, but that ECDs are just as rich in their own kinds of prejudice, which largely exists in a huge mental blind spot for them. This is part of why I can't identify with them despite being raised by them and living surrounded by them. I don't expect them to be perfect, but I'm turned off by their belief that their own shit doesn't stink. (Let me also say that I have met a few who are very aware of this kind of doublethink, condemn it where they see it, and make a real effort to be evenhanded, and they have my appreciation.)

|11.4.05 @ 11:59AM|#

All I ask is that in regional pissing contests, the snooty coastal elites remember that we Midwesterners are totally different from Southern rednecks. Just because we happen to live away from the coasts doesn't mean that we're like those people.

My region is better than your region!

Can I get an "Amen!" from the other Midwesterners on H&R?

|11.4.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Perhaps you misunderstand me, JD. I grew up in red-state territory (Southern Illinois. less than an hour from Kentucky, and very much coal minin' country.). Most of my friends, though, are from urban-type areas (particularly Chicago, but also elsewhere), and the general disdain they have for anyplace not located on either the coasts or Lake Michigan seems to be far worse than that of older people.

It could just be that they're college-age folks who've never lived within sight of a cornfield.

|11.4.05 @ 12:07PM|#

JD,

I believe we all agree on that, except joe. joe will deny across the boards that ECDs have certain biases and stereotypes in their heads about folks from "flyover country." That Thoreau has essentially thrown in with joe in this area is more a sign of his dysfunctional mental attitude towards me than a sign of true thinking.

|11.4.05 @ 12:10PM|#

Hakluyt:

chill. seriously.

You're more easily mocked than Mona and Lonewacko combined.

|11.4.05 @ 12:11PM|#

JD-

If you've heard people say those things, well, I stand corrected. I guess there are people who really do say "flyover country" and "chimpler."

I've always known that snobbery exists, but I just thought that those phrases were strawmen examples of it. I guess I was wrong.

|11.4.05 @ 12:17PM|#

Wasn't the "flyover country" remark first coined by Paul Begala on national television?

R C Dean|11.4.05 @ 12:19PM|#

I still think some of the most virulent racists I ever met were in Boston, MA. I know the worst anti-Semites were.

|11.4.05 @ 12:22PM|#

Steven Crane,

Heh. When thoreau and joe try to mock me, they end up mocking themselves.

Begela coined "Banana Republicans" I believe. I dunno about "flyover country."

dhex|11.4.05 @ 12:26PM|#

i use flyover country sometimes. and midwest to mean anything west of eastern new jersey.

but i am a snob, so it's ok. i'm good with what i am, being an elite coastal weath accumulation zone type person.

dhex|11.4.05 @ 12:28PM|#

i am also reminded of borat and his song about wells.

|11.4.05 @ 12:28PM|#

R.C. Dean,

Well, the Red Sox were pretty notorious for their informal policies re: black, hispanic, etc. hires. It took them over a decade to actually integrate their roster after all. Then of course there is the famous "Get that nigger off the field!" remark heard at Fenway when Jackie Robinson tried out for the Red Sox - no one but management was in the stands that day. Their attitudes towards non-white players also explains part of the so-called curse - I mean, the had the oppurtunity to hire such greats as Willie Mays, and they balked at the idea because he was black. Its one of the reasons I had no sympathy for supposedly "suffering" Reds Sox fans. They deserved to lose.

|11.4.05 @ 12:29PM|#

Over a decade after baseball was integrated in other words.

|11.4.05 @ 1:26PM|#

As someone who grew up in Kansas, lived in New York and now resides in Arizona, I can tell you that each region has their own forms of prejudice and stereotypical views of people from other areas of the country. It is also true that stereotypes exist for a reason, there really are Midwestern rubes and East Coast snobs. The one universal prejudice seems to be the view that non-Southerners have about the South, they think "Dukes of Hazzard" was a documentary.

|11.4.05 @ 1:56PM|#

"I still think some of the most virulent racists I ever met were in Boston, MA. I know the worst anti-Semites were."

I don't know about anti-semitism, but I can second RC on the racism part. Boston is where the anti-bussing riots took place. Every week, as part of my job, I see people struggle to find acceptable words to express the concept "if we allow affordable housing, black people will steal my television." A former Boston City Councilman, Dapper O'Neil, once toured a thriving commercial district in one of Boston's Vietnamese neighborhoods, and commented, "It looks like Saigon fer Chrissakes...I'll be back with the checks." The fact that there are a lot of progressive-minded people in these parts does not mean that's all we have up here.

|11.4.05 @ 1:58PM|#

Betcha didn't see that coming.

|11.4.05 @ 2:16PM|#

Joe writes:

Cripes, now "midwest" is an insensitive slur. Why don't you get together with the rest of the great oppressed, and start singing We Shall Overcome.

"the coastal elite view on gun ownership" While your at it, why don't you define "stereotype" for me, hmm?

It's a terribly injury to refer to the part of the county 2/3 of the way from the east coast to the west coast as "the midwest," but it's perfectly appropriate to start spouting off about what "the coastal elite" thinks. Nice.

My modest point, which I artlessly stated at first, was that (1) "the Midwest" is a pejorative term as used by many easterners, and (2) the area encompassed by that term is frequently roughly deliniated as the entire lower 48 east of I-5, west of Philly, and north of the Mason-Dixon line--which, to me, bespeaks ignorance of a great swath of the country.

In actual conversations with actual people in Boston, DC, and NYC, I have heard grave trafficking in the exact stereotypes about non-coastal America you're going through contortions to pretend never pass the lips of such folks.

No singing "We Shall Overcome." Just pointing something out.

|11.4.05 @ 2:37PM|#

joe,

You getting in touch with reality? No, no one saw that coming. We're learnin' ya.

R C Dean|11.4.05 @ 3:31PM|#

Betcha didn't see that coming.

I may have to lie down.

|11.4.05 @ 7:28PM|#

Lose your inflated self esteem. Do you really turn all mushy inside when someone calls you a snobby jap or a dolt from the corn fields of Indiana? Just laugh and offer a witty rejoinder, the more caustic the better (And never resort to physical violence-but this is coming from an utter weakling, so I'm biased).

"I don't know about anti-semitism, but I can second RC on the racism part. Boston is where the anti-bussing riots took place. Every week, as part of my job, I see people struggle to find acceptable words to express the concept "if we allow affordable housing, black people will steal my television." "

Ah, forced bussing, the paragon of freedom. Antisemitism is more or less irrational, this instance of racism is probably not. To cite a blogger, people compartmentalize information into their unconscious, but never consciously confront them. Everyone 'knows' that black neighborhoods (usually) have worse crime rates, lower property values etc. but its racist to say as much.

|11.4.05 @ 9:01PM|#

"Ah, forced bussing, the paragon of freedom."

Suddenly the scales fall from my eyes, and the people who smashed the windows of busses full of black schoolchildren are brave freedom fighters.

|11.4.05 @ 10:18PM|#

Suddenly the scales fall from my eyes, and the people who smashed the windows of busses full of black schoolchildren are brave freedom fighters.

No one's saying that. Busing was just another unfortunately successful ploy by the Brahmins to pit the blacks against the Irish and vice versa. Divide and conqueror.

|11.5.05 @ 12:08AM|#

joe,

Suddenly the scales fall from my eyes, and the people who smashed the windows of busses full of black schoolchildren are brave freedom fighters.

That's one of the more grandiose unwarranted assumptions you've made here on this blog. The idea that opposing busing automatically means that you support violent measure to end busing is just dumb.

Viking Moose (aka drf)|11.5.05 @ 11:53AM|#

"thoreau,

And even we look down our noses at Southerners.

Except apparently those who migrate from the rustbelt to the sunbelt."

and Hak: here in chicago that means that we got those that migrated but ran out of money before hitting cheezland.

as for the midwest=insult stuff. man. i've experienced it from mentioning states or trying to figure out geography. or the insistance that pennsylvania is a "really large state" or something like that, i'd not heard "flyover country" either.

but then again, some asshole on that viking-observer blog someone cited yesterday claimed denmark was "tolerant to foreigners" (paraphrase). so if somebody can state that bullshit, i guess anything is possible. like WMDs actually being found or some such :)

a friend of mine who went to williams college had some experiences close to the "horns and hooves". and that's about NE waspy as you get!

StevenCraine. greetings!

|11.5.05 @ 5:10PM|#

I'm just curious - a lot of commenters here seem to think the Democratic Party is currently pushing a gun control agenda. I can't remember the last time I saw a nationally prominent Democrat do that unless it was around the time of the Columbine shootings, and as a liberal I try to be aware of what my party is doing. So are there examples of this that I've missed?

Speaking just for myself, I think this is a reasonable strategy - I myself believe that I'm much less oppressed by the government telling Dow Chemical they can't dump dioxins in the river than by judges legislating from the bench to tell me that it's OK for the government to tell my pregnant wife what she can and can't do with her body, or to tell my kids that they have to engage in organized prayer in schools, etc. It surprises me that more libertarians don't feel the same way. I suppose if you're a rich libertarian you might, since you can always afford private schools and "ski trips" to Switzerland if the condom breaks, but the rest of you guys, I'm puzzled.

In the end, the Democrats as a party have to get more votes from somewhere, and they sure aren't going to come from the Old Confederacy, so where else are they going to look?

Viking Moose|11.5.05 @ 8:50PM|#

Ted - you're getting some questions that separate the different factions here. I think you're touching on points that the LP discusses.

The externalities of Dow and the river will be a good candidate for some arguments all 'round.

just wait when a global warming study has a poor design and someone notes that. then the names really start getting called (with apologies for the phrasing of that sentence).

Stick around. It gets good.

:)

welcome aboard.

|11.6.05 @ 12:10AM|#

In the end, the Democrats as a party have to get more votes from somewhere, and they sure aren't going to come from the Old Confederacy, so where else are they going to look?

Ted-

Yep, that seems to about sum up why the Dems have no choice but to "Go west, young man". But they need a strategy to succeed in the West. I don't claim any great insights on how to win some Western states. A more liberal stance (in the classical stance) on guns wouldn't hurt, but I have no clue if it would be enough. One problem is that the stance would have to be convincing to undo decades of policies and, even more important, perceptions.

What they need is a gun-owning candidate. Like, maybe, Diane Feinstein! :)

|11.6.05 @ 12:10AM|#

(Note: I make generalizations about the parties, so isolated politicians do not disprove these generalizations.)

There are glaring problems with the GOP, namely its social conservative wing, but the democrats are (for the time being at least) not a viable alternative. Democrats believe in a (more) activist government, the power to regulate, taxing, and spending. Plenty of republicans do too, but not as often, not as much. Democrats may change course on a couple of issues, like gun control, but their mindset will generally remain the same. The only good thing I see coming from this article is that democrats who would have been elected anyway adopt a more libertarian view on an issue or two. That, or republicans adopt a more libertarian platform to compete.

And about abortion, do not libertarian principles strictly prohibit the use of force on any human being? Therefore, the debate on abortion hinges on when the fetus becomes a human being, or even an animal (I found Robert Nozick's discussion of the morality of killing animals interesting, in Anarchy, State and Utopia, chapter 3 I believe). This much no one can deny. Of course, people may decide on "when life begins" on their opposition to abortion otherwise. I do not know the answer to this question. Abortion recieves an undue amount of attention. If abortion were banned today, I could say with near certainty that it would not have any direct effect on my life. Other issues are of vastly more import, like taxes, regulation, public schooling, federalism, welfare state et al. The whole abortion (and gay marriage might I add) debate tires me for its absolute lack of consequence.

"to tell my kids that they have to engage in organized prayer in schools"
Oh please. Either tell your kid to sit quietly for a few minutes, or take him out of public school. There is no teacher led prayer.

|11.6.05 @ 11:26AM|#

Ted,

Keep in mind where you are. The majority of the commenters here are not just libertarians. They are radical libertarians (at least on gun control, anyway). The failure to put the repeal of federal laws against belt-fed machine guns qualifies as "pushing a gun control agenda" in these parts. Look at the comment above, which describes John Kerry's stunt of wearing camo and carrying a shotgun on a hunting trip as a signal to the radical left that, actually, he wants to take away everybody's guns.

|11.6.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Ted,

There is no comment above about John Kerry. I did a search for Kerry, and the only time that Kerry's name is actually mentioned is by joe.

The failure to put the repeal of federal laws against belt-fed machine guns qualifies as "pushing a gun control agenda" in these parts.

Apparently in the machine gun conversation in an entirely different thread joe thought we were talking about either a BAR or an an M249. :)

Brendan Perez|11.7.05 @ 3:43AM|#

"What disturbs me most about the gun control crowd is that they readily accept that government employees should be allowed to carry, but the common citizen should not."

I was thinking about this earlier today.

It seems like a lot of the people in favor of gun control are also the type to support the ACLU in their efforts implement policies to protect people from being falsely arrested, promot policies to surb police abuse.
Obviously this is a generalization, but gun control is an overwhelmingly Left based and promoted concept, and a large portion of those supporting police reforms, etc are also from the left. If I wasn't so tired, I could try to go into more depth.

If the left feels that the police need significant and comprehensive policies aimed at them to keep them from harassing, abusing, and/or framing innocent people, why do they support policies that would give that same group (police) a virtual monopoly on force. The same thing goes for the military-a group that is under heavy fire from the left for the abuse and torture stories that have come out over the last couple of years.

To me, it looks like the left don't really trust the police and/or military to govern their own behavior (I don't either), yet they seem all too willing to allow them near exclusive possession of tools of force. How can they reconcile these two concepts? Or is just that I'm way off and need to go to bed?

|11.7.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Brendan, you just made an argument for disarming the police and military. But whatever.

The Constitution also gives the government a great deal of force to use, as well as putting restrictions on how it can use that force. That, as well as the Left's balancing act stance, are based on the same recognition of reality: that a government capable of wielding power is necessary to keep us safe and free, and that the government itself can be a threat to our safety and freedom and needs to be checked.