The Politics of Icky

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I don't feel like thinking too hard today, so instead I'll make and defend a simple observation: Today's conservative politicians rely overly-much on visceral topics instead of intellectual arguments in order to attract the undying support of those who hold those emotional trip wires tautly. In other words, modern conservative activists and many of the elected representatives that respond to them have developed a vocabulary of dog-whistle scare tactics to simultaneously frighten their base and thus shore up support by promising to, if elected, curb the scary and icky.

Really, this is so plainly obvious that those who do not recognize it might be seeing only the grass roots in the sand along side their buried eyeballs. What are the most hammered-upon topics of the conservative movement today? Abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and gun control.

• Abortion: Kids are cute. Those that would end their lives are therefore mean.
  
• Gay marriage: Seeing two men kiss is icky. It makes me feel weird, and therefore it is to be avoided.
  
• Immigration: Dark people are scary. We should keep them away, or they'll hide under my bed and wait until I'm asleep.
  
• Gun control: Dark people are scary. Without my gun, they'll get me.

Let me start with the last first. I've been reading Dan Baum's book Gun Guys recently. He describes himself thusly:

A child of the Great Society, raised by New Dealers, I'd grown up with the bedtime story that Democrats were the party of the workingman, while Republicans carried the cudgel for the rich. That, of course, was outdated wisdom.

(Dan Baum, Gun Guys, Borzoi Books, 2013, p. 53.)

Since his childhood shooting and loving guns and being sympathetic to the plight of labor and the poor, the tide has shifted. The NRA, carrying water for the conservative movement, has turned the gun debate into a battle of Them vs. Us, the Democratic pro-gun-control politicians versus gun bearers everywhere. Yes, many of these pro-gun-control politicians have been especially stupid regarding guns; to be fair, why would someone become an expert in what they sought to ban? Still, mis-statements about the function and actual efficacy of firearms can be widely reprinted to a gun-literate electorate, making the banners look like complete dweebs out of touch with the realities of gun ownership.

It worked. They do, and some even are. The outdated wisdom now reads, "The Democrats are the party of the gun controller freaks, and the Republicans will let us keep and respect our Second Amendment rights."

---

Moving on, let's consider why the immigration debate is inherently racist. It's simple, really: There's only one wall proposed, ever, and it's on our southern border. You know, where the brown people live. Never mind that the 9/11 terrorists were clearly recorded entering the country from the other direction up north.

I have sympathy for those that point out the ongoing drug war (the real one between the narco-cartels, not the manufactured one fought by the DARE idjits). Yes, our northern War on Drugs has made it possible for actual warlords to charge outrageous sums for illicit substances, sums that fund actual war chests down south. That has taken more lives that I care to imagine, sadly. Mexico is paralyzed, especially in its north, as the warlords easily outgun and bribe the federales officials tasked with stopping the carnage and the traffic.

If we end our "war" on drugs, though, much of the profit will dry up, and quickly. Washington state ended their hard-on against cannabis recently, and will soon be selling legally, getting the tax revenue from such trade as well instead of sending that money to warlords. Maybe we'll even stop using the bastardized propaganda name for cannabis, one that simply means "Mary Jane" in Spanish.

And maybe soon there after honest workers from Latin America will be able to find better lives en el Norte without the silliness of GOP squawking points about walls and unaffordable defenses appended thereto. Still, some people react negatively when I break into my broken Spanish, and I'm lily white. I can't imagine the willies they must get from native speakers with their genetic tans, no matter how little they can afford to pay said people for grooming their lawns and procuring their food.

---

For the record, seeing men kiss only icks out two kinds of people: Those that haven't seen men kiss before and are therefore un-used to the sight; and those that wish they could be the one of the mens doing the kissing. That's it. Everyone else sees Public Displays of Affection.

On my own LJ years ago, I noted what happened when Rusty Parsons and I stumbled upon some Playboy centerfolds on the walk between our homes. (Silly fun fact; ditch pornography is quite common. Many married men hide porn in their cars, and literally ditch it when the new stuff comes out.) I felt something new that day. My pants got tighter.

Let's remember that this was early 70s Playboy. Boobs, skin, but no naughty bits. None. One of the three centerfolds was even airbrushed away behind her thin, dangled veil. Think about this, folks; none of my visceral responses to these pictures had anything to do with reproduction. I didn't know where this new stiffening was to be inserted; that place wasn't pictured. Therefore, marriage between a man and a woman is not about reproduction. It is about the pants getting tight and wet, nothing more.

A further therefore goes thusly; the wild claim that without proper religious guidance men and women will marry other men and other women is made only by people who see two men kissing and get tight pants themselves. Denying that they wish this only makes their anger stronger. Seriously. As the study found, "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."

Exploiting that closeted anxiety proves quite profitable for the modern conservative movement. As long as the closet exists, gay marriage will trigger conservative voters to vote conservatively.

---

Finally, the abortion kerfuffle and all the emotions it raises. Make no mistake; the recent Texas move to make clinics more "safe" for medical procedures is not a move to make the procedures safer, but to make them all but go away. Mississippi did the same damned thing a few years ago, and now has but one clinic in the entire state. Worse, the Mississippi legislators that imposed the restrictions proudly admitted that removing abortion from their state was their goal. The laws they passed are an end-around of the Roe v. Wade ruling allowed by a later 1984 SCOTUS ruling (the name of which escapes me at present; help remembering would be appreciated) 1992 SCOTUS ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. [Addendum: Major thanks to l33tminion for the clarification!]

There is beauty in the reduction of abortion clinics as opposed to their outright removal; reducing the number keeps abortion available as an object lesson in fear. When the bogeyman is driven from town and stays away, tales of the bogeyman fall on deaf and inured ears. Modern conservatism needs the devil to be present to motivate the faithful.

How motivating an appeal to religious fundamentalism can be a might surprise. Let's get back to the Baum quote about the Republican Party wielding the cudgel for the rich. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what is happening. "Between 1973 and 2004 . . . economic concerns topped Gallup's list almost three-quarters of the time that the question was asked. What's more, a huge body of research shows that economic issues continue to dominate the vote choices of a broad majority of Americans." (Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, Simon & Schuster, 2010, pp. 148.) People still vote according to economic alignment, mostly. The exceptions are worth noting. Continuing;

All this makes it even more consequential that evangelicals have become such loyal GOP supporters. While Christian conservatives with high incomes are more likely to vote for Republicans than their poorer counterparts, evangelicals "tip" to the Republican Party at a much lower income level than do other voters—about $50,000 lower, according to statistical analysis. Put another way, an evangelical voter with $50,000 in annual income is as likely to be a Republican as a nonevangelical voter with $100,000 in annual income. In a country where the typical household income is around $50,000, this is huge effect, and it means that Republicans attract far more support from lower-and middle-class voters than they would otherwise.

(Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, ibid, pp. 148-149, I emboldened the emphasize-able.)

To conclude, the rich and richest have become the driving force behind a conservative political strategy, one that drowns the debate about income and the class differences that come with income in a sea of icky visceral issues that trigger the rising gorges (and denial of tightening pants) of social and religious conservatives.

Until we return the debate to issues of rising income inequality, we might as well discuss politics only on silly online fora.

Comments

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"I don't feel like thinking too hard today"...That was obvious :P (dude, I don't believe you said that but thanks :D)

Just random:

Meh, I don't like public displays of affection (of the type I am inferring you mean, as opposed to meeting someone at the airport)

If all those brown people would go up to Washington instead of most of them settling in my neighbor hood, I'd stop asking for a fence.

I don't care how you slice it but $50-100K is not rich. (altho if one is wise thrifty (read miserly) one can be worth over a million on $40K a year...if one works long enough :D
So maybe that is rich.

I've already said all I have to say about abortion.

I really don't understand your point on gun control...but since I never think hard, I rarely understand your posts anyway :D

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

If all those brown people would go up to Washington instead of most of them settling in my neighbor hood, I'd stop asking for a fence.

And I'd welcome them, and the food in my neighborhood will drastically improve.

I don't care how you slice it but $50-100K is not rich.

Actually, toward the top it is. The key here is not comparing yourself and your income to that of your neighbors. ;-) Try instead to compare it to those of your fellow citizens.



This should help. According to the chart, if you have over $100K, over 3/4 of the people of the US are poorer than you. In my book, that makes a person rich-ish.

Someone who claims to be middle class with over a hundred grand in income is a liar or an idiot (you can decide which). Sadly, I've heard millionaires claim middle-class status, so denial is flowing hard.

I really don't understand your point on gun control.

It didn't used to be a political issue. It is now, thanks to decades of partisan scare-mongering by the NRA and GOP noise machine, abetted by others, of course. Embracing 2nd Amendment rights could get the right liberal candidate elected, likely in a landslide.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I don't like public displays of affection

So what. Turn the other way.

[paft.livejournal.com]

g: If all those brown people would go up to Washington instead of most of them settling in my neighbor hood, I'd stop asking for a fence.

You have a problem with "brown people" in your neighborhood?

Why?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The thing that I've never understood about the so-called Second Amendment types is their delusion that small arms are somehow decisive in a modern war. One gets the impression that the only way they understand the sheer concentrated danger of a civil war is through Jeff Shaara novels and the movie Red Dawn. One also gets the impression that a certain select demographic happens to be the most fanatical adherents of a particular set of viewpoints which involve a great deal of jousting at shadows.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

And I have never understood how law-abiding people owning firearms is such a bad, scary thing. I suppose we're even.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

If the modern war of which you speak is small enough to fit in their backyard, I'd say it counts. Bigger wars are remembered differently.

One also gets the impression that a certain select demographic happens to be the most fanatical adherents of a particular set of viewpoints which involve a great deal of jousting at shadows.

Exactly the point of my OP. Look hard enough and you see those shadows are real, projected by monied interests in an effort to draw attention away from their money and interests.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, I don't know if I've already explain this part, but just because something on its own is insufficient to accomplish a task, they remain, however, very necessary, which is why you don't see the Armed Forces giving up small-arms "because they never win wars."

Go to war college and preach how small arms are irrelevant and see how long you last.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

One thing I would hope is that people would recognize that SYG is not backed by the Second Amendment.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

For someone who clearly reads a lot of history you seem to be awfully ignorant of history.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine the willies they must get from native speakers with their genetic tans

I would say that observation is colored by personal and probably regional observations. Where I grew up, you hear Spanish spoken everywhere, see Spanish billboards and signs, and anyone who speaks Spanish of any skin color is a hot commodity in the job market right now. The people who take exception to Spanish being spoken by anyone are few and far between. I wish I knew more Spanish; it comes in handy down here.

EDIT: adding a few thoughts about the other icky subjects as I have them.

If Canada were exactly like Mexico except for ethnicity, then I would say you are correct. But Canada is not a poverty-stricken Third World nation rife with corruption and drug violence. And Canadians are not flocking to the U.S. for better opportunity here because Canada is not a poverty-stricken Third World nation rife with corruption and drug violence. You are not quite comparing apples to apples, there.

That brings me to the drug issue. Anytime anything that is widely in demand is criminalized, it goes underground. It happened during Prohibition. It is happening now with our war on drugs, as you explained. What the Conservatives fail to understand is, it also applies to cheap labor. Make it ridiculously hard for people to come to the U.S. legally to work while there is a huge demand for cheap labor only pushes immigration underground, too. What the Liberals fail to understand is, this would apply to firearms every bit as much. An EU-style gun ban would be disastrous because the arms would start to flow north to keep up with criminal demand. You would still need a fence and Border Patrol agents galore, and you would still only stop a fraction of the contraband. Just like with drugs, just like with people.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I would say that observation is colored by personal and probably regional observations.

Oh, absolutely. Where the Spanish-speaking are a clear minority—and firmly entrenched in the trenches of lower paying jobs—this holds true.

If Canada were exactly like Mexico except for ethnicity, then I would say you are correct.

No, the ethnicity is implicit and important. English speakers coming from the North to escape a situation similar to Mexico would blend right in, especially if they were well-educated and skilled. That's why I mentioned the corruption and strife in Mexico; on that we can agree there are good reasons to leave. The melanin-less in the populous would rather not have that.

What the Liberals fail to understand is. . . .

Careful, there. Many liberals have no beef with firearms, myself included. One of the drawbacks to the way the modern conservative machine has operated is that it clumps people together as The Other, when plenty of ideological allies can be found within those clumps. It's part of creating the Icky Strategy.

Sadly, every time a liberal falls for the clumping, they react reactively, not proactively by reframing the questions raised into ones that are more difficult to answer.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm really curious as to what conservatives you read, listen to, etc.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Aren't the conservatives that matter the politicians?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

And I yours.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

As the 9-11 commission reported in 2004, all of the 9-11 terrorists arrived in the United States from outside North America. They flew to major U.S. airports. They entered the U.S. with documents issued by the United States government and no 9-11 terrorists came from Canada.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/u-s-security-boss-clarifies-comments-about-border-1.391570

To set the record straight, let us be clear: the 19 hijackers entered through U.S. airports showing immigration personnel passports – often doctored or newly acquired to hide prior travel – and visas acquired often with incomplete or inaccurate information.
http://www.cis.org/kephart/NapalitanosMistakes

the 9/11 terrorists were clearly recorded entering the country from the other direction up north
The false assertion that 911 terrorists entered the United States through Canada is an excellent example of using lies to stoke prejudice. Was this intended to be ironic?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I had not heard that. Ah, but then you go too far:

The false assertion that 911 terrorists entered the United States through Canada is an excellent example of using lies to stoke prejudice.

It isn't false. The Millennium Bomber did take such a route, one I took quite a bit visiting relatives in BC in my youth. Yes, he was stopped due to suspicious looks; but attempt the route he did, and successfully landed in Port Angeles.

My attempt was not to "stoke prejudice"; quite the opposite. I meant to note the disparity in seriousness between the northern border with white people on one side and the southern one filled with the less white. Despite the circumstances, I still feel the two borders are treated quite differently. Until calls from the more mainstream right-wing candidates arise calling for equal walling and fencing, I'm going to stand by that.

Thank you for the correction about the 9/11 guys.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of the debate against Prop. 8, and the old lady that would argue against gay marriage by talking about why she thinks anal sex shouldn't work ("The sphincter's much to tight!") It's an example of something I see a lot when people argue against gays, turning to the actual sexual activity itself, because you know love can never be involved.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Also, if we want to get "icky" I could talk about some of the reasons a woman may not be so thrilled about giving birth... I mean sure babies are cute, but birth... it's not cute.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Yep, yep, yep, yep.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I think mayonnaise is icky, but I'm not leading the charge to have it outlawed, I just don't eat the shit. I suppose there is some sort of high that comes with control - it just seems past time for them to drop it though.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I would also like to add that the more religious of this group seem to like the politics of claiming the power to tell other people what to do with their own lives, every other person except themselves.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Sadly, the point is moot. Yes, people will die from gun play. Lots. And there is plenty we can do about it, and we choose not to.

The thing is, I firmly believe there are things we can do to reduce gun deaths that have nothing whatsoever to do with restricting gun ownership one whit. Australia is a good example; with far less economic inequality, the pressures to keep guns was low enough that your country was able to remove quite a few.

As long as our economic and perceived economic inequities remain, no one invested in the mythos of firearms will give up their firearms. They feel the stresses society imposes, but mistake these stresses for [insert buzzword here], justifying their increasing arming.

The same stresses cause people to buy more SUVs and large trucks and choose suburban and rural living over well-executed urban fabric. This get really problematic, since that increases the cost of transporting oneself anywhere . . . which in turn increases economic inequities in terms of spending money left after the gas tank gets filled. And this is really bad since the number one cause of death here is not from lead shot from barrels but from traffic deaths.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Herodotus wrote about the Persian custom of men kissing men before they picked up the Greek habit of men kissing boys. I have heard that southern European cultures have more male-male smooching than northerners.

The abortion issue reminds me of the days when women used a coat hanger to induce medical practitioners into providing an abortion. I doubt that that technique will be brought back in vogue in the Rednecki heartland. There are other options available.

[flaming-goat.livejournal.com]

This is a really long post for "not thinking too hard".

Everyone else sees Public Displays of Affection.

Which are also icky. Seriously, people, we don't want to see that in public. Especially that kiss-kiss on both cheeks crap that people do to make themselves look more European or whatever it is.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

This is a really long post for "not thinking too hard".

Ah, but good short pieces should be harder than good long ones.

I can't remember which President said it, but one of them (Truman?) noted that writing short speeches takes a lot more thought and effort that writing long ones. "For example," he noted, "If I had to make an hour-long speech, I would take a few days writing it; for a ten minute speech, I would take a few weeks."

Some one asked him how much preparation time he would need for a three hour speech.

He said, "I'm ready now."