Burnt Orange Report

Your story on canvassing in Oklahoma reminded me of Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" which I read recently.

It is the great mystery of our time: Why people care about "lesbians kissing on TV" when they're starving and can't afford health care.

I grew up in deep east Texas. The best parallel I can give is that the republicans have successfully employed the tried and true "TV Preacher" pitch. You know the one, "I'm in a battle against satan's evil. If you'll just send me $100, I can WIN this battle. Please...help me save the soul of America and send me that $100." The TV preacher never actually wins the battle, because that would ruin the pitch.

I have a good friend, poor as dirt, that sent $10,000 to one of these TV preachers over the course of about 5 years because he really believed that money was going to be used to save souls, not buy Mercedes Benz's for the preacher and his family.

The pitch works. Just ask Billy Graham.

Jim in Austin

"I can't understand why poor people in communities across American allow their social concerns to trump their economic self interest."

I have a suspicion that if you had truly sat down to listen to what this lady had to say, you might understand a little better. But you had an agenda. You did not really want to reach out to these people and connect. You wanted to grab these people and force them to agree with you. You seem proud of the fact that you can change your personality, your attitude, to fit whatever area you're canvassing.

If you need to play the straight-arrow, apple-pie college kid, you do it when the neighborhood warrants? What the hell kind of political statement is that? Is THAT really you're grand political strategy in your life ambitions? Conform? Hide? Diminish? Did you feel like you'd make a better impact on Madill, OK if you hid your sexuality / politics / lifestyle from people like this woman? When she started talking about women kissing, as a good liberal, did you step up to the plate and defend women kissing? That's quite a relevant question. I really do feel sorry for you if you feel like YOU have to change, just to advance the political career of a stranger.

Additionally on your later comments... "Unintelligible liberal rant", indeed. This is exactly where liberals fail to connect with mainstream America. America did not become a great nation because everybody is obsessed with their "economic self-interest" above all else. I can give you the alternatives (socially, spiritually, and economically), but I know you're already prejudiced against what these people believe, and don't want to waste your time reading it.

Besides, as a note of irony... why do you think this woman should be "obsessed with economic self-interest" when you would deny that same obsession to a wealthy man as you tax him into oblivion?

Not going to respond to Chris.

Byron we have the same problem here in SW Ohio. People ought to vote on economic issues like jobs and health care and education (some high schools have cut extra-curricular activities or make parents pay $600 for band or football). The unemployment rate went up to 5.9% in the state. In Dayton it's 11.8%!!! In some of the SE counties on the river its 12%.

The evangelicals have done a good job of getting people revved up on the social issues. I don't think it's going to lead to a Bush victory, but the Gay marriage amendment will pass.

Kerry still has a good shot at winning the state. Bush can't say we've turned the corner and not tuning back in Ohio on the economy.

Chris ended his smug rant with "you would deny that same obsession to a wealthy man as you tax him into oblivion"

Check the facts Chris. Last time I checked, there are more millionaires today than there were four years ago. The rich will never see oblivion.

And by his own words, our puppet president has admited that the rich will always find a way to keep from paying taxes.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone votes for the candidates they vote for using the same logic you use in selecting your candidates.

I've seen other liberal-minded folk pose the same questions about why rural voters don't vote with Democrats anymore. It's a mistake to do this and it's a sign of groupthink. If you are puzzled, then you are not listening to what people have to say.

Rural voters are more socially conservative and put a higher value on traditional ways of doing things. Politically, this is an important issue for them, just as marriage equality is an important issue for gay and lesbian voters. You could probably write an entire volume of books on why rural voters are more conservative than their urban counterparts.

It's a mistake to assume that these people are not voting in their own interest. It's also a mistake to assume that most voters equate Democrats with health insurance and college funding and better economic opportunities.

David ( above) makes a very good point in his last paragraph. What is important to one set of people is not the same as what is important to another group. Many rural residents feel that urban ills have encroached on their communities and they want to stop this trend. Therefore they vote for the most socially conservative candidate. That there are socially conservative Democrats will remain below the radar for many of these people until the Democratic Party ceases to allow the Republicans to have a stranglehold on things like "family", the flag, and faith. There is no reason to think, nor to allow, Republicans to hold a monopoly on these issues.

I suspect the OK schools have a lot to do with the problem. Indoctrination about Jeebus and high school football get much more emphasis than teaching critical thinking skills.

Oh, and anyone who really believes this represents "mainstream" America needs to turn off Fox news and get out and see more of the country. Most Americans aren't terrified of gays/lesbians, despite all the crap Ralph Reed and Rush Limpballs have been trying to sell. It's just that the few who are squeal so loudly, like stuck pigs, that you'd think it was their rights that were being trampled.

Rural voters certainly have the right to place "social issues" above their own economic ones. Some call that a conscious choice. Others call it ignorance. Prejudice, whether against gays this generation (key issue of the day: same-sex marriage), or blacks in the past generation (key issue of the day: integration), is more prevalent among less educated people. These people's prejudice, poverty, and lack of education is all related. It is viscious cycle. The lack of education spurs prejudice and poverty, which creates an environment making it harder to foster education. And so on . . .

Of course, the plutocrats (i.e. Republicans) know that if they can deny these people educational opportunities, then they are less likely to demand more economic opportunity, and in turn grow a middle class that will infringe upon the plutocrat's ability to maitain disporportionate power. Nothing helps Republicans better than a public policy that keeps people dumb, fat and happy.

The issue is rural people are per se more conservative - rural Europeans with good schools are not "social conservatives." The issue is that uneducated people tend to be "social conservatives."

Having grown up in a small town in far West Texas (pop. 2700) I can tell you that folks in small towns live there because they don't like change. They thrive on routine and tradition. They want to know that everything will be the same 10 years from now. They don't like progress - it scares them. They accept and are comfortable in their "role" in society be it the mayors wife or a cleaning woman. They don't aspire for more than they have now - they just aspire to make it to the next month.

Folks in small town America love small town America because they can live in a comfort zone of knowing that tomorrow will be like today as will next year be like last year. They are the ulimate in conformist by choice but that's what makes them happy.

And I have to address "Miss Chris" - PICK ONE CHRIS!!!! Do you want gays to be out in society so all of your precious children will see "homos" on the street or do you want gays in the closet so as to save you having to explain to your child what homosexuality is? Conservatives bitch and moan about homosexuals being out in public but when an attempt was made to downplay what might otherwise be an uncomfortable situation for someone - you jump all over Byron for not being public. Which is it? Do you want us out and proud or do you want us to respect that not everyone feels comfortable around homosexuals and attempt to respect that fact and modify our demeanor? You can't have it both ways so get a grip and pick one.

I know a couple of lovely progressive people in Madill. I know a very politically active lesbian who works at a grocery store in Madill. Madill is very accepting of her. Madill, Oklahoma is a great little Oklahoma town. I think real Democrats have a great chance. Now, I said Real Democrats. I am not sure if Mr. Carson really fits into this categorey. He is running ads that say he opposes all immigration, very Buchannanish, thinks marriage should be only between a man and a woman, thinks abortion is wrong, this is hardly the Democrat that rural Oklahoma loves to vote for. Rural Oklahoma has a great history of supporting progressive Democrats. I am just not really sure about this Carson. Of course, he is better than the Republican in the race who supports the death penalty for anyone who gets an abortion. Truly, I think a lot of real Democrats in Oklahoma will just skip this race as they can not bring themselves to vote for either candidate.