The Politics of Bumper Stickers
I happened to have participated as a National campaign staffer for the 1988 Presidential Race. Yes I was paid (although not so well), and yes it was a full-time job. We thought we were high-tech with our two fax machines — one for incoming faxes and one for outgoing faxes. I spent most of my time traveling around the North East helping to organize local efforts and keeping important supporters happy.
It was in Maine during the 1988 primary/caucus cycle that I first witnessed the power of the Moral Majority, Evangelical Movement, Christian Right whatever you want to call them. The Maine caucus was overrun and controlled by busloads of Calvinists.
The day after the 1988 election it was amazing how many Bush bumper stickers appeared overnight. This was of course “inside the beltway” essentially a completely different world, an alternate political reality not based upon ideology but who can get you a job — wait until a victor is declared and slap on the bumper sticker.
And that’s the DNC’s problem, but it’s not the “an inside the Beltway” defined reality — it’s the complete misconception that wealthy politicians from New England — particularly Massachusetts can win Presidential elections.
When JFK won the presidency the distribution of this countries population looked a little different.
Not to mention JFK had the support of labor, your average “working joe”, and the civil rights movement.
Today, rather then acknowledging the reality of the general ideology of the voting population in this country the DNC attempts to create their own little universe — mostly built upon elitist, intellectual “moral values,” which just don’t reflect the demographic and cultural make-up of the United States.
Who do the Democrats appeal to?
Just take a look at the people lamenting today “Who are these people?” “Who are these intolerant, ignorant, stupid people that would actually vote George W. into a second term?”
Who were the supporters of John Kerry? Seriously take a look:
What do they look like?
What is their socioeconomic status?
How about education level?
Have they ever been poor?
Do they believe in proving their “tolerance” by disdaining and condemning those of religious conviction, unless it’s some Eastern religion that is presently hip?
What is the likelihood that they’ve participated in a protest primarily for the social occasion?
What is their stance on environmental issue? Intolerant towards any devleopment? How would they speak to a man who had lost his job due to some law say protecting old growth forests. with Respect? and Tolerance? and genuine interest in that man’s plight?
Or is it easier to just shout at people from street corners when they don’t agree.
Granted, I’m making generalizations — but I’ve been part of that community, so i’m not just an outsider looking in making blanket condemnations.
What I see is extremism. Extremism without true ideaology. I call these people knee-jerk liberals. Very good at spewing rhetoric — but not so good at listening, understanding, adapting, and resisting the urge to condemnation.
And quite frankly those are the people I believe to be responsible for four more years of George W.
They have conceded the question of “morality” to the Republicans, by making freedom seem “immoral” to the rest of the country and completely alienating those with a more moderate political agenda — who might not have multiple piercings, tats, a meditation group, or be part of the intellectual elite. Hell, they might even like to eat meat.
Bill Clinton got it –
Look at his supporters.