Do Democrats Need To Learn Some Respect?

If you are a Democrat, let me ask you a question. Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, respect the beliefs of a religious fundamentalist, someone who has a strong relationship with their church, opposes abortion, has doubts about evolution, and so on? If you found out your child had these beliefs, how would you react? Would your first inclination be to try to change their beliefs, to explain through gentle (or not so gentle) persuasion why other beliefs - your beliefs - are better? Or would you fully respect the beliefs as much as you do your own?

Having faced this myself, and having handled it poorly, my first reaction was to try to change the beliefs, to argue why my way of looking at the world was better. The result? I gave the impression, probably a true impression at the time, that I did not respect, and even had disdain for the beliefs I was arguing against, particularly those with religious roots.

But over time I hope I have learned something. I think my way of viewing the world is best, or I'd change it, but that doesn't mean I have to look down my nose at anyone who holds different beliefs, and I hope I no longer do - my position is not necessarily better, and I certainly cannot prove that it is.

Do you truly respect those with fundamentalist views? How do you really feel about bowling? Or about people living in trailers? Are you one of those who thinks life outside of big cities must be boring? Not as culturally rich?

If you don't truly respect the lifestyle and cultural beliefs and traditions of the religious or the working class, why do you expect them to vote with you? Maybe I'm wrong and Democrats do, in fact, have the greatest respect for alternative value systems and lifestyles, but sometimes I wonder. But if you really do believe that your beliefs are better than theirs, is it any surprise that identity politics - the politics of resentment - works?:

Democrats must learn some respect, by Clive Crook, Commentary, Financial Times: This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it. ...

Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher ... noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate. ...

Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.

The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. ...

The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.

If only the Democrats could contain ... their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. ...

The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.

It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.

I'll just repeat something I said recently in talking about how to frme responses to Palin's nomination:

The group the [Republicans are] appealing to doesn't want Washington's money, though that never hurts, they want respect. I think it's that simple, and responses that don't give this constituency the respect they believe they are due will likely be counterproductive.

So tell me why I'm wrong, why Democrats do have respect for the group of voters they are trying to attract, but have been frustrated in doing so, or why the question is not properly framed. I'd be happy to be convinced I'm wrong.

Comments

[CL- Oregon Girl]

Respect is a two way street. I think we feel attacked -- sneering references to San Francisco come to mind. Questioning my patriotism comes to mind, disparaging intellectualism comes to mind etc. I do understand this is reactive. But we have lost two elections by being kind and gentle.

says...

>> If you don't truly respect the lifestyle and cultural beliefs and traditions of the religious or the working class, why do you expect them to vote with you? <<

Show me a single instance of concrete domestic policy action by Republicans on "lifestyle and cultural" issues (flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, etc.). Republicans posture on these issues but NEVER, EVER actually take any action. To do so would deprive them of the issue in future election cycles.

So given that neither Republicans nor Democrats will actually implement actual policies on these cultural/lifestyle issues, the intelligent response would be either to vote for a third party that takes these issues seriously, or select the mainstream party that best represents your interests on other issues, i.e. economics.

That's why I'd expect these cultural conservatives to vote Democratic. Since clearly they do not, the only explanations that I can think of are that these voters are profoundly ignorant of the Republicans' legislative history, or that they intellectually process information in a way that is totally impenetrable to me.

I would sincerely appreciate hearing a theory about how a fully informed, working-class, culturally conservative voter could decide to vote Republican.

[chrismealy]

Funny, I never hear Republicans asking this question.

[Dave]

Mark,

If you mean "respect" in the Republican sense, i.e. endlessly beating the drum on cultural conservative issues during campaigns, then taking zero action on these same issues when you are in power, I agree, the Democrats should indeed learn respect.

Cultural conservatives apparently never, ever tire of being kicked in the teeth by their putative political champions.

[Kodjo]

You are right, and what you say is important. Derision for what is not "urban elite" is routinely found on television & in our papers. It's easy to do---I know because it has bothered me for years & yet still I find myself sometimes expressing that derision.

I also note that the derision is worse than you intimate. There are many people who hold "liberal" views on most issues, including the standard wedge issues, & who are well-informed, but who don't live in NYC or Chicago etc. and who are laughed at for simply liking rural or even suburban life and not seeing the point of a Starbucks on every corner or, for that matter, a tiny rather bitter coffee with an Italian name. If we're pissing these people off, we're certainly not getting close to bringing on board people who have deeply held, and often carefully considered, opinions that are different to ours on the kinds of issues you outline.

I did not understand McCain's choice of Palin. I am still not sure I understand it. It, of course, could never be that it was thought she would bring on a material group of Hillary supporters. They would be a sliver of what is a minority of the total voting pool. But, as you intimate, she may be capable of energizing a group of voters, more likely to rural or suburban, Christian and conservative, perhaps older, southern and relatively less wealthy, who might have stayed home, or perhaps even strayed to the other side. There is no question that she has brought out exactly what it is in liberals that pisses off people who do wish to live in an urban location, and resent being patronized by a self-styled urban elite.

[Alex R]

Mark, I think that in this post you conflate the issues of respecting a person's beliefs and respecting the person who holds those beliefs. I think that it is entirely possible to disrespect someone's beliefs without looking down your nose at them.

But if we think that our own beliefs are correct, and we also think that the world would be a better place if more people held those same beliefs, why shouldn't we try to work to change the minds of other people? The "religious fundamentalists" do this all the time -- they call it evangelism. I *want* more people to believe that science classes should teach science, not creationism. I *want* more people to believe that abortion is (at least) not such a grievous wrong that women should be denied access to it by the government. Why shouldn't I work to convince others of this?

Indeed, I think that we disrespect people who hold beliefs that differ from ours if we simply say, well, you believe what you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and there's no way to say who's right. It disrespects them because it holds them to be incapable of responding to argument. It also disparages our own beliefs: if we believe something, we ought to be able to support and defend our beliefs sufficiently well to argue on their behalf.

There are other questions which are more questions of taste, where it doesn't really matter to us if others share our beliefs. For some, things like city-versus-country will fall into this category. For others, maybe even theism-versus-atheism will fall into this category, as long as neither side insists that their religious beliefs will be forced on others. On this it's fine to say that we "respect" beliefs that we do not share.

But I don't think that it makes sense to "respect" beliefs that will adversely affect us and the world if they are held by most of our fellow citizens. We can argue against those beliefs, and for our own, while still respecting those who may be on the other side of the argument.

[anne]

Powerfully argued.

"Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

"For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that 'this woman' might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible...."

[george in oregon]

Some views do not warrant respect. The problem is that there is too much respect shown POV that are not only wrong, but pernicious. It is not a matter of opinion whether Darwinism or Creationism is the "truth" about how life originated. Creationism is bunk by any measure that is rational. By abdicating reason in the face of violent, bigoted faith, we are surrendering progress to the intellectual barbarians. We need someone who will stand up to ignorance and quit apologizing for being educated, cultured and urban. Just because someone is poor, ignorant and bellicose does not mean we must, out of a misplaced sense of guilt and fear of being labeled "elitist", surrender truth to superstition and lies.

[anonymous]

Or we could reform the voting process that gives disproportionate share of electoral power to wide swathes of empty space and basically let them rot with their so-called small town values.

The presumption of this argument is that there is some sort of inherent nobility in being poor, being downtrodden, being uneducated. There isn't. These people have been victims under both types of administrations, so much so that they revel in their ignorance, because to do anything else would hurt their much-massaged pride.

So yes, the Dems need to reach out more to these constituents, and they try by pointing out that their economic interests are far more served by Dems than Republicans. But the Democrat has many constituents to play to and unfortunately cannot disguise bigotry under "family values" and sell it to the people the same way Republicans do.

To nominate Palin is to nominate exactly that crowd into office. Exactly that type of person. Not an educated version thereof. Not someone with experience, but, instead to nominate the small-town ordinary individual in the truest sense of the word. Now the Republicans could have played it smart and made her a right-wing princess story, but instead they put big words in her mouth and pretend she is not only competent, but, in fact, more experienced (read capable) than Obama.

Not everyone should be President. I am certainly not capable in that position, nor are a lot of people.

[dogfacegeorge]

"For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads ... I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate"

So, for days these unnamed Dem Bigwigs would INSINUATE but would not actually SAY anything derisive.

Too bad Clive forgot to include a single example of this.

But let's talk about insinuation: "this woman"?

[anne]

John McCain, I had thought for a while, appreciated Clinton's campaign, and when Palin was chosen as a candidate I thought the idea was with Clinton's effort in mind, to introduce an alternative voice to the campaign, rather than for a rash of complex ideological reasons. Possibly McCain even thought there is time to learn as other Vice President's have learned.

What startled me was the Democratic pounding response, beyond political railing. Republicans appeared to take days to defend Palin, but the defense when it came however railed at by analysts may set the candidacy of women differently from here on. I think McCain was imaginative and courageous in the choice, and from comments by Palin so far may even have brought more respect.

[reason]

Alex R said it. Respecting the person and the respecting the point of view are two different things. It is like the popular misunderstanding of democracy. Some people think it means that every opinion (no matter how ill informed and ill thought out) is of equal value. That is not what it means at all. It means that every person is valued equally by society. And people should take that respect, and return it, by treating that responsibility with respect.

The problem with fundamentalists, is that are not democratic, in that their views are not open to persuasion. They don't have a view worth respecting, because THEY DON'T RESPECT ANYBODY ELSE'S VIEW. That doesn't mean they are not owed respect as a person.

[dogfacegeorge]

I mean, really. Clive drops a political hand grenade of insinuation ("this woman") right in the middle of his argument that Dem Bigwigs are insinuating bad things about Palin. Clive just can't find any examples to support his argument, and so makes do with this insinuation and something that a comedian said.

[anne]

"Now the Republicans could have played it smart and made her a right-wing princess story...."

Oh dear, oh dear. There was all sorts of such "insinuation," even with all sorts of distortion.

[supersaurus]

I grew up in a small town and I've lived and worked in both even tiner towns and big cities. my dismay at the palin nomination has nothing to do with my big city or small town prejudices, but it has everything to do with qualifications. ask yourself, would you select a surgeon for yourself who knew as little about modern medical practices as this woman apparently does about virtually any issue larger than that tiny town she came from? I have to consider her as the president, since that she certainly could become, and just as with the surgeon, the job isn't simple enough to be mastered merely by good intentions. do you want someone to hold that job is not only unqualified but who has already demonstrated the willingness to lie about even inconsequential matters if it makes a good sound bite?

an excerpt from the old master, see if this reminds you of anyone in recent history:

And if there are some who think that a prince who conveys an impression of his wisdom is not so through his own ability, but through the good advisers that he has around him, beyond doubt they are deceived, because this is an axiom which never fails: that a prince who is not wise himself will never take good advice, unless by chance he has yielded his affairs entirely to one person who happens to be a very prudent man. In this case indeed he may be well governed, but it would not be for long, because such a governor would in a short time take away his state from him.

But if a prince who is not experienced should take counsel from more than one he will never get united counsels, nor will he know how to unite them. Each of the counselors will think of his own interests, and the prince will not know how to control them or to see through them. And they are not to be found otherwise, because men will always prove untrue to you unless they are kept honest by constraint. Therefore it must be inferred that good counsels, whencesoever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the wisdom of the prince from good counsels.

[anne]

Insinuation? We could start with Palin begin called "shrill," after no more than a rough and tough but thoroughly reasonable speech at the convention. We could go on to the so often repeated charge of the cutting of funding for special needs children, which was simply not true. We could go to the raising of taxes in Alaska, which was a raising of taxes on oil companies and a return of the revenue raised to Alaskans but with such a return never mentioned.

[Bruce Wilder]

"Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, respect the beliefs of a religious fundamentalist, someone who has a strong relationship with their church, opposes abortion, has doubts about evolution, and so on?"

No.

To be clear, I do not disrespect all strong religious faith, but if we are talking about Sarah Palin's self-righteous, bullying sociopathy, ignorance and stupidity, then, no, I don't respect it. And, I don't expect Sarah Palin to vote Democratic. (Levi Johnston might have a future as a Democratic voter, as long as we retain the secret ballot.)

As to my own "philosophy" and worldview, I do not regard my own worldview as uniquely superior to all others. I am never entirely sure that I am right, and I regard it as a necessary obligation and responsibility to check logic and facts. I do an imperfect job of this, as I am not a particularly good proofreader, but I don't pretend otherwise, even to myself.

I would differ with Clive Cook. I think some Democrats would do well to learn to be more explicit and aggressive in their disrespect, as long as that disrespect remains discriminating. I don't think the elaborate respect shown for John McCain is an effective campaign tactic. Job #1 in campaign politics is defining your opponent in clear, blunt, accurate terms. It is easier to build a majority against something, than for it; building a majority against John McCain's brand of self-absorbed obliviousness and stupidity is something very much worth doing for the country.

I do not expect everyone to vote Democratic. I expect 40% of the population or more to vote Republican, no matter what. To me, the key is not disrespect verus respect, the key is discretion in respect. I don't respect everyone, for the simple reason that not everyone deserves my respect.

Politically, I'd like to see the Democrats use a little discretion in choosing whom to disrespect. If the Democrats choose to disrespect authoritarian bullying, lying and ignorance, torture and corruption and perpetual war . . . well, I am OK with that.

[dogfacegeorge]

"What startled me was the Democratic pounding response"

Really, anne? Can you point me to an example of the WORST thing that any Big Dem said to "pound" Palin?

[outsider]

outsider says...

The respect the GWB campaign showed Swift-boating McCain in 2003?

The respect Palin showed at the convention?

"Defeatocrats"?

The solidly dependable Dixiecrats discovered in 1968 that Republicans wanted segregation laws to be set by Sates, not the Federal Government. The South discovered they'd been Republicans all along and didn't know it. Respect for "other"?

Pres. Johnson said "We'd lose the South for a generation." He always was an optimist.

Anyone looking at issues has made a clear decision, it's now down to image. Tough old white guy with principles, a temper and a rep for fighting hard and letting no-one tell (him) America what to do, or a smart, sociable diplomatic type who appears calm and reasoned. Willing to talk, compromise, give in? By all means Democrats should continue to display politeness, courtesy and ear time when Republicans say the Earth is 6000 years old, The Earth makes it's own oil and global warming is a lie. All just opinions.

Ho Chi Minh..."hard cuts soft".

Gallup tracking: 9/04 to 9/06

McCain 48 Obama 45

[b]

Crook is setting up a strawman here. Few liberals find fault with the fact that Sarah Palin comes from small town America. The problem is that that's almost all the experience she has with governing.

Prof. Thoma, I have a BA in History and no postgrad degree. If I applied for a tenured professorship in the History department at Oregon with this qualification and you laughed at me (as you should), is it fair for me to conclude that you must not have any respect for people who only have BA degrees?

Why is small town America instinctively ready to look down its noses at anyone who has actual experience governing and working with groups of people that happen to include (gasp!) not only small towns? Who are the ones who need to learn some respect?

[anne]

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/

1505

The Prince
By Nicolo Machiavelli

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/chapter23.html

HOW FLATTERERS SHOULD BE AVOIDED

[Mark Field]

Wow, a concern troll gets a serious response. Let's ask the question the way it should be asked: do Republicans "respect" "San Francisco values" or "Ivy Leaguers" or "liberals" or even "college graduates"? Does anyone seriously believe that they've won elections by respecting the Democrats? No, they've won elections by following a scorched earth policy of belittling and condemning us as unAmerican.
Asking us to respect them is like calling for rules in a knife fight.

[dogfacegeorge]

I'll flatter you, anne - I'm a secret admirer. So maybe you should avoid me. But I still wonder about arguments that contain assertions that cannot find any real-world supporting examples.

Is it true that some Big Dem called Palin "shrill"? Is this the worst thing that some Big Dem insinated about her? And what does this insinuate about her, anyway?

[anne]

"Can you point me to an example of the WORST thing that any Big Dem said to 'pound' Palin?"

Rather than play the game, which was so fast and furious that I am still startled, I would suggest that possibly pounding on Clinton for so many months, months during which the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, claimed to have found no pounding because Dean "seldom listened to cable," dulled all sorts of Democratic senses to the pounding of selected women.

[Freude Bud]

@ george in oregon:

Creationism is not bunk by any measure that is rational. Clearly you are completely ignorant of the intellectual tradition from which evolution comes. Creationism is completely compatible with evolution, and, I would add, was Darwin's view. The notion that the world was created in 4,000 BC or so in 7 days is incompatible with evolution.

But we cannot know, a priori, that evolution is the source of the current genetic environment, and we cannot know it after a posteriori either, because it is at best a hypothesis. We simply do not rationally _know_ all that much ... that was shown by Hume a long time ago.

The notion that the evolutionary process is a completely random process going back in time infinitely requires just as much faith as the notion that God presented the first cause or even that He guides it along. You simply cannot know, in the scientific or ontological sense, either way.

I would add that the entire notion of scientific inquiry as conceived of in the West is a direct intellectual heir of Christianity specifically. That St. Thomas Aquinas legitimized rational inquiry separate from theological revelation. That the vast majority of significant universities in the world were founded as religious institutions. That even the notion of separating church and state arose in the church, not the state! If you were cultured, educated, and urban, surely you would know these things.

But I would like to tell one story regarding the GOP:

In Washington, having drinks, I was talking to a woman who happened to be well heeled, pretty damned smart, and a Republican. Our discussion was friendly enough until a friend of hers, a young man in suit, became angry at my suggestion that the GOP was engaged in ruinous policies. He became so angry as to threaten a fight with me, and his final judgment was "Peasant!" It is my estimation that few operatives in the GOP, media or otherwise, believe a thing they say, but that they simply believe in holding onto power.

[dogfacegeorge]

"Asking us to respect them is like calling for rules in a knife fight.

Actually, Butch Cassidy called for rules in a knife fight and it worked out well for him.

[anne]

Thank you, that was kind, George. Likewise; but the matter was serious.

The reference to "The Prince" was only to show precisely where the quote used by Supersaurus came from.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/chapter23.html

1505

The Prince
By Nicolo Machiavelli

HOW FLATTERERS SHOULD BE AVOIDED

[anne]

George:

"Actually, Butch Cassidy called for rules in a knife fight and it worked out well for him."

Did Cassidy cheet, though? I thought so.

[save_the_rustbelt]

If the Democrats would allow pro-lifers back into the party (ya, I know about Harry Reid) they would probably never lose a presidential election.

John Kerry never understood apparently that both the urban and rural areas in Ohio are filled with devout Catholics and conservative and evangelicals Protestants. Much of this was set by immigration patterns decades ago - and the left hasn't noticed?

The left cannot understand why towns full of union members do not vote overwhelmingly Democrat, because they fail to notice the cathedral down the street from union hall.

The GOP has its own problems, and certainly play the cultural right, but do deliver on Supreme Court appointments.

Years ago I had a great working relationship with a couple of Howard Metzenbaum's staffers, left and right can co-exist
on issues of common interest.

[Scott]

Nonsense! Put the shoe on the other foot. The Republicans are proud of the fact that they disdain any beliefs other than their own. Actually, disdain is too polite a word; they hate anything different than their own beliefs.

[bakho]

Respect is a two way street. Religion is always divisive if there is more than one version. Religions build cohesion by demanding fealty to doctrine, punishing heretics and disrespecting the great unwashed. Religious people are the upright and moral. Those that do not adhere to their own specific religious beliefs are wrong, heretics, evil, infidels, apostates, unbelievers or any host of religious epithets invented by religions to define "them".

There are Democrats that belong to any number of the same religious groups as Republicans. Politics cuts across religion. Since religions often say bad things about other religions, then how hard is it to find instances of Democrats of one religion, dissing Republicans of another religion. The converse is also true, but Democrats do not find the religion card useful.

Our founders believed in a commitment to religious tolerance. Any one religion is allow to practice, on the condition that they respect the practices of other religions. Deep down, this is not an issue. 99+ percent of all Democrats are perfectly willing to let religions practice as they choose. Democrats often go to great lengths to unite religious groups around social issues of poverty (Habitat for Humanity is associated with Democrat Jimmy Carter), Republicans tap into the Us Vs Them divisiveness of religion and flame up the disagreements. It is easy to find Democrats (or even people who are not Democrats but can be confused with Democrats) that disrespect the religious beliefs of some Republicans. This makes leaders responsible for all the actions of their supporters. Masters of political spin can make a narrative that Democrats do not respect Christians.

The argument is illogical.
Some Democrats disrespect some religious Republicans.
(Ignore the converse that some religious Republicans disrespect religious Democrats.)
Therefore all Democrats disrespect all religious Republicans.

However, there is also another dynamic.
Very few trained economists have respect for Donald Luskin. He has unorthodox ideas that are refuted by evidence that he ignores. Luskin is free to make his own policy recommendations that may be respected within the realm of conservative ideology. However, within the realm of economics Luskin ideas do not meet the epistemic values of economics.

Creationism may be respected by some religions as a religious belief. However, creationism is not science and does not meet epistemic values held by scientists. Thus, creationism is dismissed as science by scientists because it is religion and not science. The problem is when the religious try to claim that something is science when it is not. They are being disrespectful of science, yet they claim to be the ones aggrieved. Respect is a two way street.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Does everyone here understand that there are conservative Christians, evangelicals and fundamentalists, and they are not all of the same?

By the way Mark, it is not a "trailer" anymore, it is a manufactured home. My mother has one, and it has a jacuzzi tub, custom built kitchen cabinets and a fireplace.

In the interest of balance, I have a rather interesting family tree, and there really is "white trash," but most of them do not vote much. WT largely derives from an attitude toward working, chemically-induced pleasure, and a general lack of social graces.

[a]

"Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, respect the beliefs of a religious fundamentalist, someone who has a strong relationship with their church, opposes abortion, has doubts about evolution, and so on? "

Strong relationship with their church - respect.

Opposes abortion - moral issue.

Has doubts about evolution - WTF? Such a person (unless the doubts are Humean) deserves no respect.

[dogfacegeorge]

anne, I completely agree with you that Clinton got pounded in sexist ways. But the charge here is that Big Dems are insinuating unfairly derisive things about Palin. You say that that these insinuations are occurring "fast and furious." Maybe my senses ARE dulled, but how willl they get sharper if nobody can point me to even one example?

[dogfacegeorge]

No anne, Cassidy didn't cheat. He said, if I recall, something like: "First we have to work out the rules." Harvey Logan replied: "Rules? In a knife fight? There are no rules." Cassidy said: "No rules? Then somebody say start." Sundance said: "1-2-3 Start." And Butch kicked Harvey in the groin.

How can you cheat in a fight without rules?

[odograph]

As a disaffected Republican do I get to respect the "Christian nationalist" (Tyler Cowen's words) tilt less than Democrats?

I don't respect it, not because the people have faith, but because they bind faith to politics an a way western democracies have learned to avoid.

When Palin voices a mental feedback loop that we should pray and have faith in our government, and if our government is in Iraq, then it is a mission from God ... I do more than worry.

I'll close with Tyler Cowen's more Libertarian and less Democratic (and less respectful) words:

I think you are viewing her speech too much like how a smart person would. America loved it, and they are talking about little else.

[Nicolas]

"religious fundamentalist, someone who has a strong relationship with their church, opposes abortion, has doubts about evolution"

Outside U.S., we don't need to respect those values. We label them appropriately : Middle Age obscurantism.

[RW]

The original question seems to have a skewed frame, guided by what appears to be some dubious or undemonstrated assumptions, and the comments above give some of the reasons why IMO.

Republicans do seem to be somewhat better at the advertising game than Democrats, better at sales, but really only moderately so I think. The edge may be that Republicans have a higher percentage of true believers (in the sense Eric Hoffer meant) so there are also fewer inhibitions against lying because of the sure belief their 'product' will be proven superior, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

But it is not really clear to me that the Republicans have in fact succeeded in convincing a significant portion of the rural electorate that they are disrespected or that a majority care a great deal about the opinions of urban dwellers. Is there any hard data on that? I've lived in rural, small towns for years and the Republican message as it is typically represented in conservative values does resonate somewhat better there but calls for community and collective effort also resonate.

Assuming this perception of disrespect is true for the moment perhaps begin with the attitude that Democrats respect their constituents too much to lie to them and then think, how could the truth be framed so as to appear less wry, less like lecturing or condescension.

JFK had one answer: Capture the romantic imagination, build common purpose, ask for sacrifice. Doubtless there are others.

Even without assuming Clive Crook is simply wrong Obama may need to allocate the bread-and-butter policy speeches as well as the attack stuff to Biden and other surrogates and begin to rhetorically soar again because that is a gift his opponents can not match, only denigrate.

But that decision aside there is one thing that Obama and Biden's advance team could be doing right now: For each town the advance team could identify one important local issue and a Democratic policy proposal that helps address it should be brought down to earth with specific names named. There is no better way to show respect than to show local knowledge and by that I do not mean saying y'all, I mean something like knowing a particular series of hair pins has killed 2 locals from town A and 3 from town B in the last decade and there are funds for fixing that kind of problem in your policy agenda.

PS: My own reaction to Governor Palin was somewhat mixed but now that it is becoming apparent many who know her in Alaska are reluctant to speak openly because of fear of retribution it is possible she may represent some of the worst in rural politics rather than the best; e.g., patronage systems become dangerous quickly and those who wish to appear loyal or rise in Palin's favor may initiate acts that she herself might not condone.

[Vader]

Gee what next, folks coming to cocktail parties and family get togethers to censor conversations?

That is so so unamerican.

Blogs are conversations, an expression of free speech.

Remembers the utility of free speech is that True speech is useful for its truth, half true speech is useful for the half truths in it. False speech is use for the fact that advocates must defend themselves and their ideas from falsehood.

Is Palin so fragile that the GOP cannot assemble facts to defend her and must impose censorship?

In any case the Dem political pros are going to only debate on things that are fact checked. So why all this censorship?

I can think of one and only one reason, there is truth to be hidden if only the weakness of the GOP chattering classes.

[Don]

Does everyone here understand that there are conservative Christians, evangelicals and fundamentalists, and they are not all of the same?

Don't take time to understand 'em,
just take a rope and brand 'em
Head em up, move em out
Ride em in, Ride em out
Rawhide!

I see it as another variation on the American lack of curiosity about anyone who is different from us. We don't learn languages, we don't learn about cultures. It's much more fun to demonize the other and use power to punish them. Our Nation doesn't honor God! Our nation doesn't honor Science! For the 99+% percent of students who aren't going to pursue a career in evolutionary biology either curriculum represents another flipping thing to learn for a test and promptly forget. Both sides are way too obnoxious. Point that out and everyone will hate you.

[Highgamma]

Mark,

Thanks for bringing up this point. The comments have been useful as well since they reinforce some of your points.

I read your blog even though I disagree with your overall philosophy. I have found that you have strongly-held beliefs with which I disagree but I come away with a better sense of the foundation of those beliefs. That helps me. I had to stop reading Brad DeLong's blog because I couldn't stomach his ceaseless condescension and arrogance.

The key difference between your two approaches is that you think that anyone who disagrees with you is probably wrong while Brad thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. It's pretty obvious to many people from small towns that many Democrats feel like Brad and not like you.

By the way, respect of another's opinion in no way requires you to give that point of view credence. In this way, I believe that you mean that we should "show regard or consideration" for others' beliefs. We don't have to accept them.

Oh, by the way, Democrats should beware of explaining others' beliefs with some explanation that they learned in a sociology class. That's not respect. That's condescension. ("I understand why you are wrong and respect the societal underpinnings of why you don't see that I'm right.")

[Vader]

Based on 57 years of experience, I must say, if you get too wrapped up in trying to be 'correct' you become dumb. As in not being able to speak.

It is my job to present and advocate my ideas, not to try to understand my opposition or to understand their feelings outside of defending my ideas. In short you do not negotiate with yourself over your ideas. You will go crazy trying to please everyone.

In any case, it is historically correct that Americans including the mythical 6 pack joe, love a good fight and hate a quitter.

[Benign Brodwicz]

Mark, you probably stand to have more grandchildred given your child's apparent conversion: see http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041212_secret.htm

While average household income growth may be better under Democratic administrations, as Alan Blinder cited in a recent NYT article, the faster-breeding Palinistas may actually be voting their rural pocketbooks, perceiving that Democratic initiatives will go to the troubled cities.

[Vader]

"Earlier in the day, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told Fox News that Palin would not subject herself to any tough questions from reporters "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/07/palin_agrees_to_interview.html

Words escape me.

[odograph]

Scanning, I see that I'm the only one who has mentioned Iraq in this thread. As you strive for respect, do you consider the irony of our position with respect to democracy in the middle east?

Or perhaps how Christian nationalists have greater irony in their position on democracy in the middle east?

Democracy is about a nation choosing its own way and shaping it's own government. If we accept that democracies can choose to be overtly religious democracies, then it is OK for a Christian America to choose a war. It becomes somewhat confusing though when we are setting up a Iraqi democracy that choose to be Islamic.

Will Christian-nationalist America accept Islamic-nationalist Iraq, and go home in peace?

Or does that oft repeated "Victory" from the RNC imply something else ... to them?

[anne]

George, I am thinking how to answer and not go after anyone in particular which even from your response makes me realize does not seem helpful. The sense is the press is a better reflection is such a matter. I need to think, though.

About religion and politics in general, I was completely annoyed before any vice president selections about the extent of combination in the press and the routine feeding of this combination by the candidates.

[jonm]

There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, having respect for people living in small towns and the small town way of life and, on the other, having respect for fundamentalism and creationism. The latter in particular deserves every kind of ridicule that can be thrown at it, and knowing that someone believes in it is good reason for considering them uneducated, even if they are intelligent. That said, it's usually wise to avoid the topic, and many politicians pragmatically avoid stating their own beliefs. However, as a parent, there's a good argument that one has a responsibility here and taking some kind of "your view is as good as mine" response seems inadequate to me.

The small-town vs elite argument is not an easy tactic to respond to for Democrats. First, it is being used to conflate issues of competence and issues of culture, and, second, it plays to religion, anti-immigration and just plain racist sentiments that have become Republican strengths electorally. Maybe something similar to Obama's One America theme is needed, acknowledging that while DC is different, the so-called "small-town" values are just as prevalent in Philly, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Denver, etc. as they are in Idaho or Alaska, and say that it is a smear on most Americans to claim otherwise.

[Jim Harrison]

No amount of offered respect, sincerely or insincere, will change the fact that the base of the Republican party is terrified that Whitebread America is losing its hold on the nation. Even if McCain wins, the time is coming when no ethnic party will be able to overcome the demographics. There will simply be too many non-racist Whites, hispanics, Asians, and blacks. At that point, it will be interesting to see whether small town America will finally accept change or attempt to hold onto control by violent means. For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if an Obama victory were followed by an outbreak of terrorism, perhaps on a much greater scale than the right-wing terrorism inspired by Clinton's victory.

The Republican base simply does not believe that half the population are really Americans.

[Vicente Fox]

Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, respect the beliefs of a religious fundamentalist, someone who has a strong relationship with their church, opposes abortion, has doubts about evolution, and so on?

No, but I also don't respect followers of astrology, believers in UFOs, or those who think vampires and werewolves are real.

[Jenna's Bush]

It is my estimation that few operatives in the GOP, media or otherwise, believe a thing they say, but that they simply believe in holding onto power.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

[btg]

As a Liberal (not a Democrat, since I am Canadian) I frankly have a hard time respecting the beliefs of any "fundamentalist" - wither Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever. There is no arguing with a fundamentalist - it is not a matter of reason, God has already given them the answer to most questions.

Plus, I don't know of to many fundamentalists who respect my beliefs(or non beliefs) as an agnostic (though Richard Dawkins would classify me as an aetheist). How can I respect someone who obviously has such disdain for my worldview, and there is no way to argue with them. Everything is Black and White - no shades of grey.

Look at Palin - who campaigned against her step-mother when the woman ran to replace her as Mayor of Wasilla - because the woman was pro-choice. Its not like the Mayor of Wasilla has any power on the issue or anything - like there will be an abortion clinic on every corner or the town was going to offer free abortions!

And I don't consider Obama an intellectual - he has a law degree from Harvard. Okay, he did teach law at U of Chicago. But was Clinton an "intellectual" because he was a Rhodes scholar? Is Bush an intellectual because he has a Masters degree (MBA from Harvard)?

The standard for what constitutes an "intellectual" seems pretty low to me - it is different from being educated, articulate, a policy wonk, artistic, or just plain intelligent.

There is a strange reverse elitism I see in much US media. Rural types are portrayed as being normal and having comon sense, and anyone from a big city like New York is portrayed as being arrogant - films like "Sweet Home Alabama" or even Oliver Wendell Douglas in "Green Acres", or perhaps "Northern Exposure". The same goes for the south - in a lot of western, the heroes were former Confederate soldiers - the South had to be catered to because of their sensitivity to how they were portrayed, whereas northerners and city slickers don't have the same inferiority complex that needs to be catered to.

Anyway, I will respect "fundamentalists" the day an openly avowed atheist or agnostic get elected President of the US.

(And while I am on the subject - I highly recommend Jonathan Miller's BBC-tv show "Brief History of Disbelief" instead of Dawkins).

[btg]

the only thing i really can't tolerate is intolerance!

[dogfacegeorge]

"No, but I also don't respect followers of astrology, believers in UFOs, or those who think vampires and werewolves are real."

Add to this list: Those who believe that Saddam attacked us on 9/11; those who think tax cuts pay for themselves; those who say that McCain is a straight-talking maverick; I could go on.

[AndrewBW]

I'm sorry, but this is just a phony issue. Sure, there are Democrats who have no respect for the values of conservative Republicans. And there are Democrats who do. There are conservative Republicans who have no respect for the values of Democrats, and there are Republicans who do.

The real problem, as Paul Krugman pointed out just the other day, is that Republicans are perfectly happy to play the politics of resentment. "Those damned effete easterners with their Ivy League degrees and their fancy ties always looking down their noses at people like you." And you know what? If every Democrat treated every Republican he met with the utmost courtesy and respect – they'd still do it!

[city girl]

As a Democrat I have not noticed any respect for my views from Republicans. Their entire convention was about nothing but ridicule of Democratic values, for example, community organizing. What is ridiculous about community organizing?

After the last 8 years of watching them destroy my country I have no respect left for them. Sorry.

[dogfacegeorge]

City Girl,

You're not sorry. As Bush said, you're just part of the Angry Left.

That's the beauty of the Republican strategy. They screw things up, making thinking people angry, and then win election by calling the angry people unAmerican. Rinse. Repeat.

And we thinking people sit around sucking our thumbs about whether we should respect the demagogues and their followers.

[gordon]

I'm not sure whether Prof. Thoma is making a plea for tolerance and respect or for hypocrisy on a heroic scale.

[Noni Mausa]

Respecting the beliefs of devout people, working to understand them, knowing what their lives and churches are like and what benefit they lend to their adherents -- okay. I can do that.

But at the point that those beliefs are imposed on everyone else, then we have a problem. The fringe of fundamentalism wields hate and fear to prevent other people from going about their lawful business, and sometimes it kills. To say they are only a tiny part of the movement is to forget that the edge of a knife is also only a tiny part of the knife. It was the same with racial hatred in the south -- only a few whites personally killed or persecuted blacks, but how many does it take? Only a few, to achieve the desired effect.

But the problem is actually worse than that. I'm a long-time church goer, fairly conversant with the Bible, but I would never force another to act in accordance with it,[1] the newest bits of which are more than 1800 years old. I would be hard put to explain to a newly arrived alien why it's not filed in the fantasy section at the bookstore. Burning bushes that talk, dragons, trumpets that destroy cities, 800 year old people, flaming chariots flying through the air and all the rest.

If I believed in a fantastical book and began killing people who broke its commandments, you think I would escape jail or the chair? That is, if it wasn't titled "The Bible"?

Faith should guide life, my minister preached on this morning. I disagree. There are too many faiths and they can easily inspire divisions and violence. Knowledge and compassion and patience and foresight should guide our lives. Deep faith, formless faith is a little more reliable, but requires experience and skill.

Finally, there's a T-shirt that says:

"You have an invisible friend? That's nice."
"Your invisible friend tells you what to do? O-kaaaay, I guess."
"Your invisible friend wants to tell me what to do? No thanks."

Noni

[1] That is, the parts specific to the religion -- murder and theft and accordion playing after midnight are obviously necessary restrictions to preserve a peaceful society.

[demisod]

Well, I was born on an Appalachian dairy farm and lived there until I was 12. I have decent small-town bona fides. People in small towns are exposed to the wider world via the media, travel and friends and relatives living elsewhere. They understand that their economic prospects are less in rural areas. They are a little defensive of that at times, and the GOP is masterful at pushing that button in just the right way. You have to give the Republicans credit. They are masterful political marketeers and advertisers.

[Mark Thoma]

When I was in graduate school, my dissertation adviser gave me my first exposure to intelligent design thinking. This was 25 years ago, way before I'd ever heard of the term.

I was pretty aggressively atheist at that time, I liked to challenge people in my class on religious issues (there were two classmates who were very religious, one a bit wingnutty, he was older than most of us and had spent time in the Army, but the other guy was just a typical, smart, well-rounded, very likable person - I particularly enjoyed tweaking the first guy, the second was a more intellectual argument, but he swears he witnessed a miracle, that is the foundation of his belief, and in the end, that was that).

Somehow the subject came up talking to my dissertation adviser, and I was astounded to find out he believed in creationism. I asked him how he could possibly believe that, what about evolution, etc. He was a mathematical and science type, his daughter is now a well-respected biologist, it didn't add up in my head. He held up his hand and showed it to me and said he believed the human body was far too complicated, far too complex, to be explained by evolution, and that was that. This was a smart guy, trust me, far smarter than most and I just couldn't understand how he could believe that.

But I respect him a lot, and I can't prove it wasn't all created a moment ago, memories, evidence for evolution and all. I can't understand the whole faith thing, it just doesn't click with me, and I am not hesitant to explain my views and why I think they are a much better (when I do). But faith is faith, and I can respect it or dismiss it, but it's extremely unlikely that I will change it through ridicule or disrespect of any kind.

There's no reason to treat people like idiots because of their faith. I don't understand their views, and I don't hold them myself, and I actually think anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is wrong, but I don't see why their beliefs deserve my disrespect.

On another issue, of course there are boundaries to right and wrong. Of course I don't respect any possible belief any of you can come up with. I think, for example, that discrimination against gays is wrong, no gray area about it, and no appeal to the bible or anything else will change my mind about that. All people deserve our respect and I make that absolutely clear to anyone I encounter spouting anything different, family or anyone else. So sorry if I failed to say that sacrificing babys to bring a good crop year would bring my disapproval, I just assumed that was implicit.

And for the record, I hold a harder line than most on church-state separation. If I had my way, for example, phrases like "In God We Trust" would not be on our money, but that's a different battle.

And there is a sense in which my views do not always seem to be respected by those who are religious, and that is hard to take, hard not to respond to. Do they think they're better than me becasue of their holiness? But I decided that returning the disrespect, to the extent that it exists, was not the way to respond.

Besides, if they're right about God, and if my notion of right and wrong is, in fact, best, they're going to hell anyway, so I'll get my revenge.

[dogfacegeorge]

Here's the dynamic. McCain - a serial adulterer, a flip-flopping, lying panderer - wants to make this election about "honor." You'd think that Dems would be eager to engage. But you'd be wrong. What we heard from BOTH the Dem convention and the Repub convention was that McCain is a national hero.

So let's take a voter who has things to do with his life other than follow politics closely. He knows that ONE party thinks that Obama is horrible, but that BOTH parties think McCain is great. Now, who do you think that voter will vote for?

[ekzept]

If anything, I believe, as as a group and a rule, Democrats are "too nice". They believe they are egalitarian, and so must be fair to all comers. They believe that people can be reached by argument, intelligent conversation.

But when the audience you are trying to reach believes they are doing God's Good Works, that Holy Right is on their side, and Loyalty to the Cause and Person is primary in their consciousness, it is unreachable, unconvincable, unredeemable.

To be "nice" on principle to such an audience in an election campaign means to lose.

So, I'd recommend reducing the relationship to tit for tat.

[Jon H]

"There's no reason to treat people like idiots because of their faith. "

Depends on the context, don't it? There are times when it's appropriate, such as when there's a significant risk that the person will impose their idiocy on the world.

I'm not sure why faith should be privileged. It's not genetic. People change faiths all the time.

Also, the content of people's faiths is ridiculously subjective. Why should I give special respect to a religious belief which a person's nutty pastor pulled out of his rear end last week?

Apparently Palin's pastor has said that the Rapture is coming, and the good Rapture survivors will seek shelter in Alaska. That's not Biblical, it's not even original-issue Rapture theology. It's made-the-heck-up.

So why respect it?

[dogfacegeorge]

ekzept,

I almost agree, but more fundamentally, I don't. Tit for tat sort of implies, to me at least, that Dems should copy the slime/smear right-wing attack mode - i.e., just make stuff up about your opponent. I think that's wrong.

I think that truth should be the sword and the shield. The truth: McCain is NOT an honorable man. When Dems say he's honorable, they are spouting a falsehood. And by spouting that falsehood, Dems could lose this election, and then the country will see more pointless war, more inequality, more warrantless espionage, more debt, more torture, more public corruption, more global warming, and more national scandals like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

[Gene O'Grady]

Well, it seems obvious to me but no else has apparently said it -- I disdain fundamentalism because I am a Christian.

I also feel totally ambiguous about abortion, would bowl more often if my knees were better, and generally feel more comfortable in small towns than cities. When I worked for the medical center at Stanford I was far more comfortable with my (pretty openly religious in most cases) Filipino and Hispanic immigrant coworkers than with my mostly white upper middle class nominal peer group.

If one is looking for a prominent figure who pushes cultural disdain on his inferiors, I would look at David Brooks. The pleasures, aspirations, and pastimes of most of the women I have worked with in office (not to mention post office) jobs over the last thirty years are the constant butt of his weak satire.

[Mark Thoma]

"Depends on the context, don't it?"

I said there are limits. I'm talking about looking down on people just because the have faith. That's all. You can twist that to say does that mean I should respect baby sacrifices, but I think I covered that.

[Mark Field]

No anne, Cassidy didn't cheat. He said, if I recall, something like: "First we have to work out the rules." Harvey Logan replied: "Rules? In a knife fight? There are no rules." Cassidy said: "No rules? Then somebody say start." Sundance said: "1-2-3 Start." And Butch kicked Harvey in the groin.

How can you cheat in a fight without rules?

Yes, this was the reference and the point I was making.

If Republican candidates want respect, they can start to show some. Until then, we should call them what they are: lying scumbags who don't respect American values or American voters.

Now, Republican and Independent voters are a different story. Yes, we should treat them politely; it's possible to disagree without condescension or condemnation. But we don't have to cater to people when they're wrong and we don't have to listen while they condescend to us when they insist, for example, that small town values are "pure" and big city values are corrupt.

[bakho]

Note how the conversation has suddenly shifted away from the foreclosure mess and the Freddie Fannie bailout to religion. Republicans want people to forget policy and argue about religion, something that government in the US is prevented from establishing.

[TO]

My problem is with those who state "it is god's will to build a pipeline" or a former attorney general who went home at night and asked God what he should do. - I believe that is medically cause for someone to be deemed insane.

No problem with people who believe in creationism or who believe strongly in cults, oh, whoops, I meant religious fundamentalism. I mostly just laugh about that.

[mo]

I'm a born & raised NYC'er (outer boroughs - does that count?). As others have said, I will respect others views on religion, abortion, etc. I have more of problem with the teaching of creationism as science.

One question I'd love to ask a Republican business owner - Would you hire Sarah Palin to take your place and run your business for 4 years? I doubt I would get an honest answer.

I've posted this in other places - but it would be wonderful to do an experiment. Let the fundmanentalists and club for growth run a part of the country. They could make their own tax rules (no help from the non experimental part of the country), home school the children, abortion is illegal, and they can do what ever they want in regards to immigration. However, as part of the deal, any businesses that operate in experimental land must hire from within experimental land - so - if you don't want to pay taxes, then you'll have to staff your business with homeschooled workers.

You get the idea.....

[Dickeylee]

TO, it's fine to laugh, but there is a segment of the fringe extreme right that would lynch a black in a heart-beat, bust up a gay bar or leave you tied to a fence post over night to die in the elements, or force you to marry your cousin at age 12, and tell you with a straight face that the bible told them to. The good Lutherans looked the other way in Germany.

[save_the_rustbelt]

I believe Senator Obama was in western PA this week, toadying to all them there bitter, God-loving, gun hugging blue collar small town bowling red necks.

Obama assured them they could keep them there hunting guns and continue to stock the freezer with venison. Since their jobs went to China, venison and small mouth bass is a major source of nutrition for the blue collar family.

The deer were disappointed. They were hoping for gun control.

The fish had no comment.

[ken melvin]

Thanks Prof. Thoma.

I don't think that campaigns should be about religion, nor that religion should have a role in our politics. Having said that, dems should concentrate on areas or mutual agreement, i.e., leave the religion thing alone.

And, as I've said heretofore, I think there is a power struggle going on for control of the democratic party, one that could cost us the election, one that concerns the issue of the role of the working class democrats.

[david]

I think it's important to also note that noone, but noone, should respect Clive Crook, an absolute tool whose faith in dimwitted conventional wisdom is exceeded by few.

I grew up in a rightwing family, hung out in trailers, I have listened to NASCAR races on the radio more times than most have watched. (I hate NASCAR, it's for tools, same as Clive stinking Crook. I like auto racing, too, so stick it.). I am so tired of this weak-kneed kowtowing, "oh the rural voters need respect."

This is concern trolling at its worst. There's no reason to respect a lunatic governor of Alaska who believes its god's will to do things the lunatic wing of her lunatic party approves of. There is no reason to respect people who scream drill,baby,drill, and there's no reason to respect people who whine about elitists who don't "respect" their faith by bowing to their obnoxious moral commitments. The frame is all wrong here, and the post as stands is not about respecting faith, it's about acknowledging dimwitted BS as important.

Anne, you have to have examples. Name names, and add links. Otherwise, it's just bile.

This is an election between a sack of lying, thieving, mammon-worshipping scum, and a party of the relatively less bad. Respect has nothing to do with with. Drill, baby, drill, for goodness' sake. Freedom fries. Freedom fries, what more do you need. Am I supposed to respect that?

[Jon H]

Mark Thoma wrote: "I said there are limits. I'm talking about looking down on people just because the have faith. That's all. You can twist that to say does that mean I should respect baby sacrifices, but I think I covered that."

Sorry, by 'context' I meant that there are situations in which mocking someone's religion is just crass and inappropriate and pointless. Scientology may be a ridiculous litigious cult, and there is some justification for protesting outside their facilities, but mocking the mourners at a Scientology funeral would just make you look like Fred Phelps.

I mean, really: they're religious, but it's not like they're mimes. A little restraint is in order.

[Jon H]

Oh, and Mark.

Who do you think has more respect for the beliefs of a Buddhist pacifist? The Democrats? Or the GOP?

(I mean a regular-guy Buddhist, not the Dalai Lama. Meeting with him looks like you're being tough against China, so there's a political advantage. I bet they wouldn't meet with Thich Nhat Hanh, who opposed the Vietnam war.)

[Jon H]

The group the [Republicans are] appealing to doesn't want Washington's money, though that never hurts, they want respect.

This is incorrect.

They want control.

[dogfacegeorge]

The funny part is that the "lying, thieving, mammon-worshipping scum" are out there with straight faces telling us
(1) that Washington is chock-full of "lying, thieving, mammon-worshipping scum,"
(2) that someone should eradicate the "lying, thieving, mammon-worshipping scum" from Washington, and
(3) that they have the courage and leadership to accomplish this mission.

[CathyG]

No, I don't respect opinions that are uniformed, uneducated, fly in the face of objective evidence, and are based solely on faith. Senator Moynihan said we're entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.

Gov. Palin believe that abstinence only sex ed is the way to go despite study after study showing that it leads to higher rates of STDs and, oh yeah, teenage pregnancy.

I'm afraid that a person who would sacrifice the well-being of her child for a radical ideology would also sacrifice the well-being of our country for that ideology.

Thanks, but I've had enough of that, already.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"And, as I've said heretofore, I think there is a power struggle going on for control of the democratic party, one that could cost us the election, one that concerns the issue of the role of the working class democrats."

The most astute comment of the evening.

( I tried to make a similar point with humor, but apparently that fell flat.)

Obama has not sewed up Michigan as he should have, and he may lose Ohio. Michigan, Ohio and PA will determine this election.

[enfant terrible]

There's no reason to treat people like idiots because of their faith. I don't understand their views, and I don't hold them myself, and I actually think anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is wrong, but I don't see why their beliefs deserve my disrespect.

The relevant question for comparison is: is there any reason to treat people like idiots? Are there any beliefs that deserve your disrespect? If you normally respect people equally regardless of their ideas, then there's no point having a discussion about it - you are a great, generous soul, a saintly man. On the other hand, if you do find some ideas idiotic and derisive, then you owe us an explanation why those ideas are worse than creationism.

Here are some concrete examples. Do you respect people who believe the Sun goes around the Earth? How about those who believe the Earth is flat? Those who believe that prayer is the best treatment for sick children?

And let's also make "respect" something observable, rather than just lip service. Suppose one of those people is applying for a job (or running for office) in which they will have to exercise considerable judgment which will affect the welfare of thousands of people. If they satisfy education and experience requirements, but hold one of the views listed above, would you be comfortable entrusting them with the responsibility?

On another issue, of course there are boundaries to right and wrong. Of course I don't respect any possible belief any of you can come up with. I think, for example, that discrimination against gays is wrong, no gray area about it, and no appeal to the bible or anything else will change my mind about that.

I certainly agree with you that discrimination against gays is wrong, but I can't fathom how you could have less respect for those who hold a sincere value judgment with which you disagree (there is no objective way to demonstrate that they are wrong and we are right) than for those who insist on a demonstrably wrong description of the physical world with complete disregard for evidence.

[Mark Thoma]

That's not what I said, so I see no reason to defend it.

[X Man]

1. It's best to ignore Clive Clark's brand of pop socio-political nonsense, whether it's in the FT, the Times, or wherever.

2. You're talking about "respect," but that's a very charged word and it's not a very helpful one when we're talking about faith and belief. Better to talk about "tolerance."

I'll give your example: I oppose capital punishment in all cases. Do I respect the view that capital punishment is acceptable? Actually no, I don't, I don't respect it at all, and I think if you have even the most basic understanding of global norms of human rights and the teachings of Jesus Christ you wouldn't respect it either.

Do I tolerate your right to hold the view that capital punishment is acceptable? Yes, absolutely. You have every right to hold that view and to use democratic processes including the courts to make it a reality. Just as I have the right to do the same.

I tolerate your views, but do you tolerate mine? That seems to me to be the real question. The U.S. legal system is highly adversarial, and this tends to spill over into our political life. If my side wins, yours loses. But it doesn't have to be like that. The way the system is supposed to work is that we have a full-throated debate about how we want things to be, and then policy is made through the democratic process. We respect the result, or at least we do if like most people who are not Dick Cheney we think that the U.S. is ruled by laws, and not men (and women).

So if we tolerate opposing views, and we respect the law, the system should work well. But at least since '94 and the Gingrich revolution we've lost some of our tradition of the "loyal opposition." One of the great things about Obama is that I think he's really serious about reinsert that dynamic into our political systems.

And when you meet someone who holds different views than you do, you should explain why you believe what you do, and ask them, politely, why they believe what they do. And if they don't understand that the US is about respect for the rule of law, and what that means for debates about public policy, you should help them understand that.

[K Ackermann]

I'm not sure respect is what can be offered up. It has to be something else.

As a democrat, there have been times when I have employed the calculus of logic and used only the most simple, direct axiomatic deductions in stating a position only to have it rebuffed by pure faith.

No knowledge can be imparted by either party onto the other. The frustration for me, the democrat, is that I feel I can present a clear relationship on how B can be inferred from A. The frustration is not so much that I can't "get through" as it is knowing that 'knowledge' acquired by faith required minimal effort to obtain and is brutally powerful.

I can ask a child to imagine an elephant in the refrigerator which is flapping its ears as it hovers over the butter. It has no basis in reality, and on one level the child understands this. Still, it wouldn't take much prompting for the child to start embellishing the story. When the elephant stops flapping its ears, did it sink into the butter? If so, did it sink all the way down, or is some of the elephant still visible? The child will roll with the vision instead of checking the refrigerator.

The thing is, if you ask the child to check on the elephant, he or she probably wouldn't refuse, and against all logic, there might be a small amount of hope that an elephant would indeed be found when opening the door. If you promised the child that he or she will find an elephant there, then you have elevated that hope to something closer to expectation. If you put that refrigerator out of reach for that child, then you could keep that elephant in that refrigerator that exists only in that child's mind.

Now try this fun experiment:

Instead of an elephant, tell a small child that there is a large scary Black man in the refrigerator who is holding a knife that he uses to kill small children with. Tell the child to go fetch you a beer from the refrigerator but watch out for the man because he might hack off his beer hand.

Encourage the child to hurry up by screaming at him.

Try dragging the child to the refrigerator.

Threaten the child with a beating it he or she doesn't get you a beer.

What might that child think of the "Black man" now?

Or Satan?
Or liberals?

There is no buying on margin with religion. Jesus is just out of reach, but if you pay in full up front in this life, you have hedged for the next life, and I can't prove that wrong.

[Richard]

The dispute between city and town is thousands of years old. Cities are machines of cultural creativity, from which flow most inventions and innovations, but depend upon the resources of the town. Towns fear the hegemony of the city, with it's massive populations able to swamp out the interests of the town at will.

Over the course of the twentieth century, the world in general and the U.S. in particular has increased urbanicity (source: Angus Maddison, The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective). That shifts the economic and demographic balance between town and city further to the benefit of the city. And that drift is still not yet complete: presumably the future scarcity of oil and the efficiency of mega-farms might push that balance further to the benefit of large metropolitan areas. In any event, the shift seems far from done: the most recent census data show large metro areas continue to be gainers and the most rural 20% of counties continue to lose population, both in absolute and relative terms.

It may be that whatever resentment is to be found is a product of demographics and not political beliefs. If your home has never appreciated in real over twenty years and you are paying the same price for an automobile that a city dweller does, with far less income to sustain that purchase, there will be resentment. And the resentment of the rural plains states towards Minneapolis might be of the same character, and of little similarity to politics, as the resentment of the small town denizen of Maine towards one who lives in Boston.

[Linda]

Mark Thoma: I don't see why their beliefs deserve my disrespect.
Besides, if they're right about God, and if my notion of right and wrong is, in fact, best, they're going to hell anyway, so I'll get my revenge.

Mark, from what I've read on this thread, we may have had some similar experiences. I speak from my own experience, which may or may not apply. I've followed a similar line of thought, sometimes, re hell. But the little voice in my head that always articulates the other side's retort says, "No, because you can only be saved through belief in Jesus Christ... etc.etc." In other words, only SOME Christians will grant your notion of right and wrong (through "deeds") would be enough. As to revenge, there is someone whom I occasionally visualize roasting on a spit. Regardless of my own fate, it's comforting to think that his might be sealed. And besides, if our own fate depends on our own beliefs, then it's quite satisfying to grant him ALL his beliefs! (What nonsense discussion of these unknowable unprovable ideas can result in!)

When my daughter turned to a fundamentalist evangelical group (it offered her many things she needed at the time), I was careful not to disrespect her choice. I made it clear to her that I disagreed with the vast majority of what those people believed. I told her why I am appalled at their demonization of Darwin and evolution and offered the best argument I could muster, appealing to her rational mind. I told her why I find their demonization of gays, their view of the role of women, and their partisanship in favor of George Bush and his ilk absolutely unacceptable, appealing to her values. I told her I accepted her right to believe as she chose, but that she must accept that I would not be joining her in those beliefs. In essence, we agreed to disagree. Along the way, I compared some of those "Christian" Republicans to their Ideal as portrayed in the New Testament and appealed to her sense of integrity as well as her own beliefs.

Then I waited. In 2004, she voted for Kerry. And she brought along 2 friends who shared her beliefs - who also voted for Kerry. She hadn't given up that church. But because she spent a lot of years being raised by me, she hadn't given up independent rational thinking, either. She's living what she believes, which isn't a carbon copy of what they believe and includes a firm division between church and state. Since then, she has moved to a less strident church group. (She began to have difficulty with some of the contradictions.) She's going to be ok.

In dealing with a family member or close friend there is already a fundamental respect for each other. This is quite a bit different from dealing with a bunch of people you don't know personally who don't grant you even basic respect as a human being. For my part, I start from a place that respects other human beings as fellow creatures. That means there are some lines I won't cross. On the other hand, I have come to see that there are ideas and beliefs that don't deserve any respect at all. If Joe Crackpot believes that it's just a matter of opinion that 2+2=4, I don't grant that his views need equal exposition in text books or news reports, and I confess I'd feel fairly comfortable calling him an idiot or a nutcase if he refused to accept that.

When I look at the hatred, suffering, death and destruction that religious fundamentalism of all stripes has brought us over the years, I can't respect those ideas.

[Jim Harrison]

Republicans routinely slander my city, San Francisco; but you'd be hard pressed to find anybody in these parts who gives a damn because we're not unhappy with ourselves. In contrast, the red-state folks imagine slights even when they are not in evidence. Finally it's impossible to respect the Republican base because these are people who don't respect themselves. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh and the others on AM radio or their blog equivalents, you'll hear them spending more time flattering their listeners than attacking the left because the fundamental fact about traditional America is that it is suffering from a monumental inferiority complex. Politics is the arena in which they get even.

[paine]

nurse ratchet's respect
for you
is no respect at all

u respect really respect
only what you dare not
tamper with

true respect is like
how you respect a rattlesnake

sarah palin is a garder snake

[tinbox]

Dear Mr Thoma,

Mr Crook doesn't give an example because he doesn't have one. Fine, he was watching TV and Bill Maher rubbed him the wrong way. We're not far from Maureen Dowd's "voices from the carpet" at this stage.

Along the same lines, enfant terrible thinks you should have a scientific approach-some actual test, not just entirely self-reported "feelings," that indicates respect. Is that really too much to ask?

[nemo]

"Do you truly respect those with fundamentalist views? How do you really feel about bowling? Or about people living in trailers? Are you one of those who thinks life outside of big cities must be boring? Not as culturally rich?"

Well, I like bowling. The only people who don't like bowling are people who aren't any good at it.

But man, I spent 5 years while I was growing up living in small towns in Indiana (population 9,000 and 30,000 each). And I still spend plenty of time in small towns in Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota, where I have relatives.

So I can speak with authority on this subject. Yes, life in small town America is boring. And not as culturally rich as in big towns.

These are not opinions. These are simple facts that anyone can verify by spending significant time in small towns, at least in the Midwest.

And the food is uniformly lousy in small towns (unless you talking small towns in the Cajun parts of Louisiana). And so is the coffee. Not an opinion. A fact.

[evagrius]

Interesting discussion.

I think one should make a distinction between those whose faith is conservative and traditional, those whose faith is progressive and traditional, those whose faith is conservative, and non-traditional and those whose faith is progressive and non-traditional. All of these may, also, think that their faith obligates them to impose it on others who disagree. I think this is where the term "fundamentalism" comes into play. For me, a fundamentalist is someone who wishes to impose their belief on others through force, legal or otherwise.
In other words, are they authoritarian, either as leaders or followers?
Should authoriatians be respected?

This is the real crisis in U.S. politics at present. It's a conflict between those who follow an authoritarian attitude and those who don't.

The Republicans have been devoutly authoritarian for decades, going against their own heritage.

The Democrats really haven't been authoritarian but, to those who are of an authoritarian bent, allowing through law and social convention behavior not approved by authoritarians is, to authoritarians, authoritarian. Hence, Democrats are attacked as those who wish to impose immorality etc; on a hapless population.

This may not sound logical but I think this is what's going on.

[lee A. Arnold]

It's easy to sympathize with religious fundamentalists. Some Democrats may not handle it well. It's an attitude of respect toward the divine spark.

But we shouldn't yield on the facts.

Palin is not ready to take over on national security on Day One. That should be the bottom line with VP candidates. I'm guessing national security to be as difficult as, say, plumbing. The fastest trainees are ready in two to three years. Generally you need five to ten. Putting a security neophyte on immediate back-up is a dangerous move for the country.

Does this mean that McCain would rather put the country at risk, than lose an election? Fundamentalist Christian culture warriors are not the biggest voting block, but they can win the election in several key states, win the electoral college for McCain.

He is forced to resort to a voting block he doesn't believe in. So in another irony of this election McCain won't be reforming the Republican Party.

[Lee A. Arnold]

As for Real Respect in the Culture War, it started going south in the early Enlightenment. Science began its perfect half-description of things, things that can be cut and weighed. Then shredded the planet with economizings. The Church, baffled by matter-energy yet loving the easier life, went clutching its fat scrolls to plusher cushions.

Each side went derelict: Neither side knew of, nor accepted, the psychological existence of higher consciousness in mystical experience: the being that causes religion. It is beyond scientific verification, and it requires a rewrite of Christian theology.

And since this psychology pursues and pervades the organism down into its most revolting states, our intellectual premises are entirely disjoint. Western epistemology is completely divided.

Epistemology matters; the West is shattered and diseased.

Take abortion (and that's really what it gets down to, for lots of people.) For myself, the profound difference of opinion upon the issue leads me to believe that I can't decide for everybody, and so it should be up to the woman, until viability. But then I think, five months (regular viability thereabouts) is too long. So first trimester "choice" is a compromise "rights" position. Of course I pompously urge teaching about contraception, possibility of adoption, etc. But: What kind of position is that, exactly? Social conservatives don't think liberals are pro-death, they just use that for rhetoric: what they believe is liberals are poisonous compromisers.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Continued Notes on the Morals Surge. McCain's use of his war story is just remarkable. Six months ago in these comments I predicted that he might use surrogates to mention it, but personally he would never use it. How stupid am I?

Now in my own defense, I already knew that in the 19th century some candidates ran upon successful war exploits, up to Teddy R. And JFK had the PT109 book although I'm not sure he ever made reference to it himself in the '60 campaign. One of the few exceptions in the last century?

More generally no one ever spoke of their own personal war. World War II vets never said much about their experiences, if you could get them to speak about it at all. There were war novels and movies of course, but personal accounts remained under an almost unspoken ban by nearly everyone. Use for self-promotion to the public must have been unthinkable. Perhaps something to do with the enormous horror, and the awful number who did not make it? You're lucky to be alive! Vietnam vets also are usually not forthcoming. It seemed to me at the time of Kerry's swiftboating that he was too reticent to defend himself partly for this reason of a generalized discretion.

So I'm flabbergasted by the crossing of what I had taken to be a cultural emotional line. Or am I wrong in supposing it ever existed? McCain's bold self-indication here, his own explicit and elaborate trading of his POW experience for an emotional recommendation of selflessness and patriotism, indeed as the climax of the speech, seems like a new turn in U.S. political campaigning.

[mrrunangun]

IMHO the democratic press's response to the Palin nomination has been counterproductive because it expressed disdain for her in part because of her family situation and in part for her inexperience in what we see as serious national affairs. To point out her inexperience unfortunately backfires because it calls attention to the inexperience of our candidate relative to his actual opponent. Most women admire a woman who has managed to be mother of five and still add significant achievements to that. I doubt that there are any families in America who do not have an unwed mother among their members and blaming the mother for the daughter's predicament and displaying the girl's pic in the papers to score political points is the epitome of the cheap shot. No one of us would feel anything but furious if our own unwed mom(s) were so treated.

[donna]

I'm not a Democrat, but I would appreciate it if the religious right would realize how much they've been used. The Republican politicians do not respect their beliefs or represent their viewpoints, and economically most of those who vote for Republicans thinking they share some religious viewpoint of theirs are just being fooled.

If you're not rich, and you're voting Republican, you've been had.

[ekzept]

@dogfacegeorge,

No. "Tit for tat" means something specific, not the colloquial. "Tit for tat" means:

(1) you make a positive gesture to start, then
(2) the character of the gesture you make thereafter mimicks your opponent's gesture.

In other words, "(2)" means if they reciprocate with something positive, do something positive for or towards them in return. If they respond with something negative, do something negative in return.

Contrary to your suggestion, it need not be exactly alike or mirrored of their action.

[BJ Feng]

Matters of faith, like the existence of God, cannot be proven wrong. One cannot prove God doesn't exist. And despite all our advances and gains in understanding the universe, the age old questions of how the universe came into being and why the mechanics of the world are as the are (why the speed of light is 300,000km/sec for example) continue to go unanswered. We all know that a small change in the laws of physics or to the relative strengths of the fundamental forces and life could not exist anywhere in the universe.

Therefore I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to be religious, or to believe in God. I am agnostic, not an atheist, because of the difficulty in disproving God, and because there is evidence of certain "miracles" that can't be explained away.

But many Democrats, as evidenced by this board, look down upon people of faith and view them as crazy or uneducated people. Someone equated religion to believing the Sun moves around the Earth, that's simply not right.

Plus without a higher power, there could be no fundamental inalienable rights. What man gives, man can take away. I won't get into moral relativism, but that's a big problem that only religion has been able to solve.

I think some of you here have been put off by the actions of a few religious people, or people acting in the name of some religion or religious creed. There are bad people regardless of what philosophy or group they identify themselves to be part of. There are bad Democrats, bad hippies, bad Republicans, bad Blacks, bad Whites, bad X. I find today that Democrats are no more tolerant of "diverse" views than anyone else, and just as vicious if not more. Maybe Democrats can't see their own negativity, but there is a reason why religious small town Americans feel hostility towards them.

[bakho]

If there is a disagreement about policy or issues, rational people can have a discussion around the evidence and its interpretation. However, if one party brings to the table, a policy that is based only on revelation, there is no discussion to be had. The revelation is either accepted or dismissed.

As you discovered, it is not possible to argue because you are presented with an article of faith, not a set of evidence. Creationism is dismissed in science because it brings revelation but not evidence to the debate (evidence would be considered). Evolution is dismissed by Creationists because it contradicts a revelation which by definition as the word of God cannot be scrutinized by evidence.

For secularists that enjoy a vigorous debate of issues based on evidence, public policy is to be debated and questioned. For doctrinaire religious believers, questioning their revelation based policies is heresy and the equivalent of rejecting their religion. They are two different ways of dealing with the world and the two groups will always talk past each other because they do not share the same values.

The way that politicians can address religious values voters is to address their shared values. The culture wars are ignited by focusing on the differences in values between religious voters and political opponents.

[Roger]

The claim that the Palin nomination has been a success because of liberals' reactions is entirely unpersuasive, really saying more about the fears of the writer than the reality of America and the campaign. The nomination has "caught fire" primarily because it ignited the evangelical right wing of the Republican Party, which up until that moment was rather tepid toward McCain, though they would still turn out in fairly good numbers. The second reason is that her nomination, her ostensible biography as an outsider, and good looks drew a lot of attention immediately. Any criticism of Palin from her left - not necessarily from liberals - was naturally going to be used by the Christian Right and the Republicans to claim victimization. That's their world view and the Republicans' strategic political posture, for gosh sakes! Unfortunately, the writer, swept up in the initial wave, has bought the whining as good coin. Obama, on the other hand, has been smart enough to be patient and limit his comments, figuring that time is on his side. He's also probably aware that Palin's nomination has already quietly energized support for himself, including increased voter registration.