(10-29-2010 05:39 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I hear what you're saying, OO. But I will just say that, over the past two years in particular, I have heard a lot of rhetoric speaking in terms of "real America" and "real Americans," and that rhetoric--at least in my perception--has come primarily from Republicans and the right. In fact, it would almost seem odd to me if I were to hear a speech by San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi in which she denounced a group of conservatives as not being "real Americans." (Maybe she has; all I'm saying is that it would subvert my perception.)
Rhetoric that seeks to marginalize the opposition itself, rather than simply tackling the merits of the opposition's position, is a distraction and counterproductive. I think most would agree with that. I know it happens from both sides, but I feel like I hear it more from one side. To the extent that liberals might call conservatives out on it (when it happens), it seems fair--obviously so long as the calling-out is limited to the practice and not the person.

I find your choice of Pelosi bizarre, because she has, in the past year alone, used "un-American" on multiple occasions to refer to (a) TEA Party members, and (b) opponents of Obamacare. At least, that's what a quick Google search turned up.

Even more bizarre is that you are a reasonable poster, even when we disagree, not some wing nut from either side.

What I think is going on here--and regarding voter fraud and physical violence, which are subjects of a couple other ongoing threads--is that politics have gotten so partisan that both sides react almost solely based on whose ox is getting gored. Both sides react when their side is taking the heat, gloss it over when their side is dishing it out.

From your prior posts, I'm pretty sure that I'm well to the right of you on most issues, but there may also be a few where I'm to the left of you. Therefore, I tend to see it from both sides. My sense is that the democrats/left wing were way out in front on handing out marginalizing comments during 2008-09, but I think the republicans/right wing have been catching up this year. I hope that doesn't mean that's the way to gain power. I think it's more effect than cause. I haven't seen much in the way of good ideas from either side in the last 10 years or so. I think it may be easier to marginalize the other guy than to come up with something useful on your own. So when your power is on the ascent, you start marginalizing the other guys. This is not a trend that leads to a pretty picture.

For the record, I don't think any of them are un-American, except maybe those doing the name calling. This country has a long tradition of accepting and respecting those with opposing opinions. It's time to get back to that.

(10-29-2010 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find your choice of Pelosi bizarre, because she has, in the past year alone, used "un-American" on multiple occasions to refer to (a) TEA Party members, and (b) opponents of Obamacare. At least, that's what a quick Google search turned up.

I was not aware of Pelosi's comments about Tea Partiers and Obamacare opponents as being un-American. That fact subverts my assumptions/perceptions about her general rhetoric. I still don't feel (rightly or wrongly) that the "un-American" label is one that liberals usually use, however. It's just not one of their "go to" options, in my opinion. Rather, I agree with Optimistic that liberals tend to favor calling people racists, heartless, and/or hicks. The "un-American" label is one I associate more with Republicans (i.e., the practice of calling opponents "un-American"). Same thing with calling opponents cowardly, naive, and/or effete.

Both sides like calling each other dumb, though. Liberals like to call conservatives dumb via saying that they are reactionary and afraid of science. Conservatives like to call liberals dumb via saying that liberals focus too much on pie-in-the-sky theory and failing to use common sense.

(10-29-2010 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This country has a long tradition of accepting and respecting those with opposing opinions. It's time to get back to that.

Agreed.

(10-29-2010 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For the record, I don't think any of them are un-American, except maybe those doing the name calling. This country has a long tradition of accepting and respecting those with opposing opinions. It's time to get back to that.

Oh, you mean like this?



Sorry, you gave me the perfect segue for finally using this video. I'm not trying to show you up, Owl, but just want to highlight how current dialogue is hardly the worst stuff that's existed in US history.

I'd rather see less of the rhetoric, but could you imagine these words being used today? Priceless.

(10-30-2010 08:31 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(10-29-2010 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For the record, I don't think any of them are un-American, except maybe those doing the name calling. This country has a long tradition of accepting and respecting those with opposing opinions. It's time to get back to that.

Oh, you mean like this?

Sorry, you gave me the perfect segue for finally using this video. I'm not trying to show you up, Owl, but just want to highlight how current dialogue is hardly the worst stuff that's existed in US history.
I'd rather see less of the rhetoric, but could you imagine these words being used today? Priceless.

Sorry, not old enough to remember that one.

Maybe Bill Cosby should do a reprise of his "Captain Washington, this is Captain Cornwallis" routine, this time focusing on how history would have been different if we'd had the internet so that things could go viral--imagine the American Revolution, or even more so the French Revolution, or any number of other things.

(10-29-2010 11:38 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Rather, I agree with Optimistic that liberals tend to favor calling people racists, heartless, and/or hicks. The "un-American" label is one I associate more with Republicans (i.e., the practice of calling opponents "un-American"). Same thing with calling opponents cowardly, naive, and/or effete.

Both sides like calling each other dumb, though. Liberals like to call conservatives dumb via saying that they are reactionary and afraid of science. Conservatives like to call liberals dumb via saying that liberals focus too much on pie-in-the-sky theory and failing to use common sense.

I can generally live with this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I notice nobody has yet pointed out to me the place in the original article that "real Americans' was used.

I must admit, I do know a person who is openly bigoted against blacks and gays, and who thinks most people who don't look like her should go back where they came from and stop taking jobs from honest real Americans. She has voted a straight Democratic party ticket in every election since 1938, except the last one, when she chose to stay home. She did vote for Hillary in the primary, though.

You can't always tell a book by its cover.

Whether the phrase "real American" was in the article or not, the phrase "mainstream american" was, and I prefer it. I think that is what is usually meant when 'real' is used, by either side. Mainstream means the middle, so eliminate the 10-15% on the far left and the 10-15% on the far right, and what you have left is the mainstream, and IMO includes every person on this board, though of course some are closer to one bank and others closer to the other bank. The mainstream includes Republicans, Democrats, blue collar, white collar, all levels of education, all races, all everything.

However, i have had a night to ponder the definition of "real" american, and i cannot come up with one that is satisfactory to me. The process has raised some questions, though.

Are American citizens who plot and/or carry acts of terrorism against the US Real americans? How about those who spy for other countries?
Are longtime illegal residents who march in the streets carrying mexican flags real americans?
Are people who don't ever vote real americans?
How about people who always vote a straight ticket, without regard to candidates or issues, like the person i mentioned earlier?


Clearly, this could go on and on. I don't expect answers, just hope to provoke a little thought.

(10-30-2010 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I must admit, I do know a person who is openly bigoted against blacks and gays, and who thinks most people who don't look like her should go back where they came from and stop taking jobs from honest real Americans. She has voted a straight Democratic party ticket in every election since 1938, except the last one, when she chose to stay home. She did vote for Hillary in the primary, though.

You can't always tell a book by its cover.

She must be a holdover from the days of the Solid South. I guess there are some Democrats out there who didn't switch parties with Strom Thurmond & Co.

(10-30-2010 02:51 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2010 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I must admit, I do know a person who is openly bigoted against blacks and gays, and who thinks most people who don't look like her should go back where they came from and stop taking jobs from honest real Americans. She has voted a straight Democratic party ticket in every election since 1938, except the last one, when she chose to stay home. She did vote for Hillary in the primary, though.

You can't always tell a book by its cover.

She must be a holdover from the days of the Solid South. I guess there are some Democrats out there who didn't switch parties with Strom Thurmond & Co.

There were a lot who didn't switch - IMO, more stayed than switched, but there have been gradual changes in everybody's attitudes over the last 40+ years. Many people did, and many still do, vote for a party without regard to issues, platforms, and candidates. I know lots of people whose vote in 2020 (and probably 2040) is already a done deal.

Well, voting in 1938 is a dead giveaway on her age. She has been a yellow dog Democrat all her life, and her husband, who died last year, was even worse. They were my former in-laws. I could tell you stories. Growing up (born 1945), the Democrats controlled Texas, and these were typical of the Democratic party back then. Practically every race was determined in the democratic primary. As a young boy, i remember the crowds in the town square gathered to hear the results of the Democratic primary - nobody cared about the Republican primary. The Repubs weren't even allowed to use the courthouse by the Democrats, who considered it "theirs".

The old anti-Hoover, "never have voted for a Republican, never will" Democrats are dying out. The ranks of the next generation, my generation, the "my daddy would turn over in his grave" Democrats, are thinning too.

I think it is good that more people are thinking about why they vote one way or another and not just kneejerk voting on history and hearsay.

Oh, what the heck. One story. A few days before a Presidential election, my father-in-law mentioned that he hoped the Republican won. I asked why, and he said he thought he was a better man. I then said, "I never thought you would vote for a Republican". His reply "Oh, I'm not going to vote for him". Stunned, I (foolish me) continued, asked him why not. he looked at me like I was something to scrape off his shoe and said, "Well, if I did that I couldn't vote a straight ticket, now, could I?"

We didn't talk politics much - or religion. He did quote the Bible a lot when talking about gay people.

I've got more, but all y'all get the idea.

(10-30-2010 02:51 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  She must be a holdover from the days of the Solid South.

Because there couldn't be a dyed-in-the-wool bigot in any other part of the country...

From other stories I've read on similar topics, two of the biggest discrepancies between this New Elite (as the author defines it) and the rest of the country are:
- having a close friend or family member who has served in the military
- having a close friend or family member who has been in a real criminal case (not traffic)
The former is perhaps especially interesting, because it is very much a matter of choice. I am surprised the article did not mention it.

(11-01-2010 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-30-2010 02:51 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  She must be a holdover from the days of the Solid South.

Because there couldn't be a dyed-in-the-wool bigot in any other part of the country...

Didn't mean it as an insult to the South. Of course, they didn't/don't have a monopoly on racism. But assuming she's from Texas (which I could be completely wrong and I apologize if I'm), she began voting in an era where all the Southern states voted together.