“White Men Are Not Very Progressive”
That’s Matthew Yglesias looking mournfully, or maybe more accusatorily at this electoral map. Sounds like a vast swath of the American elecotrate needs its politics corrected:
Odd choice of color schemes. I thought purple was the most progressive of hues, after “rainbow.” You’ll notice that even in my own very Democratically blue state of Massachusetts shows up as gray, only just cracking 50 percent. In fact, you pretty much need to dive to the very bottom of the nation’s granola bowl … Vermont … to hit 60 percent. It looks like DC might be a miniscule bright blue spot, but that’s probably more a case of racial preference and old school Democratic politics than full-on flaming Burlington-style “progressivism.”
Anyway, Yglesias takes this chart to mean that white males are not sufficiently “progressive.” I dunno, it’s possible it means white males largely didn’t buy the “vote for charismatic inexperience, half-baked socialism and virulently anti-American foreign policy or you’re a racist” line. Maybe they figured that a vote for Obama is a vote for racist preference policies that run counter to their own and everyone else’s interests. All that basically is what is called “progressive” in American politics, which raises the question of who died and let people who believe in that hijack the English language. Racist preference policies, half-baked socialism and virulently anti-American foreign policy? That’s not progressive. That’s heading backward. This nation needs to move forward, out of that morass.
Rather than insufficently “progressive,” that chart suggests vast swaths of the workaday, tax-paying electorate still has its head screwed on straight.
It also looks like what is theoretically the most powerful segment of American society is willing to let traditional, constitutional, electoral politics play out,* because they know America is big enough to absorb it, and that sooner or later, America usually wakes up and recognizes its own self-interest. And that those vast swathes have equanimously accepted the election of a black president because, all the other abovementioned issues aside, that wasn’t that big a deal. In fact, it was a development to be welcomed.
OK, here’s Yglesias’ conclusion:
I would say that another message is that progressive politics is badly disadvantaged by a situation in which the overwhelming majorities of political leaders and prominent media figures are white men. There are plenty of white men with progressive views, but in general the majority of white men are not progressive and the majority of progressives are not white men. Drawing from the relatively small pool of white male progressives means drawing from a shallow talent pool.
Uh oh. “Progressive politics is badly disadvantaged by … ” Starts to sound a lot like “re-education camp.” Though it’s hard to argue against Yglesias’ theory that white male progressives — or any other variety, for that matter – represent a “shallow talent pool.”
Legal Insurrection: “It’s a center-right nation which elected someone who convinced 53% of the voters he was a centrist. Some people knew better then. More people know better now.”
Lefties at Lawyers, Guns & Money get the prize for the post that jams the most non-sequitor per line into a post that ignores the subject matter it is addressing, capping it with: “And the fact that Obama is trying to implement the platform he ran on proves that he really put one over on the American public.” LG&M commenter chimes in helpfully:
Obama is trying to implement the policies he ran on? Which policies? Transparency? The end of DOMA? Health care insurance reform with a robust public option?
Hang on, the idiocy prize may need to go to OpenLeft:
What if the last election had taken place under the laws and customs that existed in most states in 1860? In other words, what if only white men could vote in 2008?
Well, the good news is, the Democrats didn’t win in 1860. Interesting exercise, though. The Republican win in 1860 was good news for the United States of America, all its black citizens, and the cause of freedom, though Abraham Lincoln’s resolve to save the union and his moves to end slavery did end up costing 600,000 American lives. Imagine if today’s “progressive” values prevailed then. Bull Run: “Quagmire!” Antietam: “U.S. out of North America!” Gettysburg: “Why do they hate us?”
Apropos of which, Surber weighs in with a Civil War vet’s warning from the grave.
Ha! Crusty old teabagger! Gotta love ‘em. The G.A.R. halls would have been full of them.
In more recent left-right electoral news, via HotAir: Scozzafava endorses Owens and Hoffman bounds ahead.
Malkin on ACORN and Obama’s efforts to progressivize the right-leaning NY 23: Snortworthy and O’s “air traffic controller.”
Gateway: Obama slide continues. Down 33 points since January.
* Unlike some White House occupants and their advocates, who have launched attacks on free speech and hold that dissent is unpatriotic racism. More post-racialism, please.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:25 am on Monday, November 2, 2009
5 Responses to ““White Men Are Not Very Progressive””
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
What if only property owners could vote? That was the situation in the early years. And that is exactly why most people are conservative: today, as in the early years, most people were property owners. Democrats have always had the non property owners, mainly immigrants, who vote without any real stake in the nation’s future.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden: Yglesias takes this chart to mean that white males are not sufficiently “progressive.” I dunno, it’s possible it means white males largely didn’t buy the “vote for charismatic inexperience, half-baked socialism and virulently anti-American foreign policy or you’re a racist” line. [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden begs to differ. var addthis_pub = ”; var addthis_language = ‘en’;var addthis_options = ‘email, favorites, digg, delicious, myspace, google, facebook, reddit, live, more’; [...]
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 am
Each time Matthew is cited, I am reminded that Julio has the better voice.
Cheers
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
That there epitaph is awesome!