Women, social issues, and how that translates into votes

[proteanmix]

Check out this email I got from a man I was talking to about issues for the upcoming election! I kind of stopped reading after the bolder part. I just can't read any further! Was I just condescended to? I can't tell. I don't even know what to say. I laid out my concerns to him and then he turned around and told me my concerns really aren't concerns at all! Damn and then he said I need to look at the "big" picture!

Crystal,

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with your latest email. Of the hundreds of people I’ve interviewed and talked to, the vast majority of women I’ve known are ONLY concerned with the social issues, and I assure you they should not be an issue in politics because responsible government has no business interfering in moral, ethical or religious issues. They failed miserably in the 1920-1930s with prohibition.

Big Government should not have any say in gay marriage or abortion. These are strictly issues decided by your conscience or religious values, and if strongly contested let local governments decide if it becomes absolutely mandated by a significant percentage of the people in that locale (although I fervently disagree with that premise). Big Brother should not be deciding issues that affect Catholics in Massachusetts, Lutherans in Minnesota, Baptists in the south and Mormons in the west. The only issue that is critical that may border on a social issue is the issue of universal healthcare. I have been a patient in the Veteran’s Administration (VA) healthcare system and they almost killed me doing a biopsy. The incompetence was unbelievable. Is this what we want? Do we want a government mandated healthcare system whereby the people have no choice as in Canada, where private healthcare is illegal? The mere thought sends chills up and down my spine.

A friend of mine argues that putting Sarah Palin up as Republican VP with her strong and biased conservative religious values will be a disaster as the 18 million female Hillary Clinton supporters are too intelligent to be swayed by the simple presence of a woman on the ballot. I challenged her claim because I stated that there aren’t 18 million intelligent voters in the entire country, so what makes her think that Hillary has a monopoly on the intelligence factor. Sarah Palin will be a factor if for no other reason she will appeal to many women. In retrospect, Hillary would have made a superior president than Obama will ever make – he’s a disaster waiting to happen. I despise the intelligenzia (although I’ve been accused of being an intellectual, as well). Most of the superior intellects are clueless and exist in the cocoon of academia and utopian thought processes of right and wrong. I am frightened as to what Obama and a Democratic congress will do to the country.

Women need to expand their horizons and look at the “big” picture of ALL issues, especially those economic issues that will soon bring the country to its knees. A majority of my close friends believe that by the year 2025, this democracy will fail and the country will be taken over by the military. Does that sound hopelessly drastic? Ironically, it won’t be because of social issues but because of basic economic spending, debt and waste issues, and outrageous growth of government in both size and regulatory strangulation. Currently, there are 22 million, yes 22 million, government employees in the country (almost 8% of the population), and only 1.9 million in the active military. What the hell do the other 20 million people do? I have no idea.

If you haven’t done so, please read our article on “Downfall of Democracies.”

You strike me as a very intelligent, concerned citizen. You and other female associates need to examine the critical issues that may doom your children and grandchildren. You won’t have to worry about social issues when there is no infrastructure to decide these issues and anarchy takes the place of responsible government.

[pure_mercury]

This person sounds needlessly alarmist, but I agree that people who vote on single issues or "women's issues" are definitely missing the big picture. Also, lack of economic understanding is not a gender issue; it's now endemic in the United States.

[Eileen]

If you read on, protean, you find out that this man has been accused of being an intellectual. heh.


Libertarian folk/fiscal conservatives pretty much dismiss everybody else as being clueless about the economy and the market, and this guy doesn't really seem like an exception. I definitely think that people--women and men--should vote with a broader picture than only one issue or only social issues or only the economy. Civil rights matter, and sometimes the government needs to intervene with regard to them so that the majority does not crush the minority. pure_mercury will disagree, and I don't want to have the conversation now becase I've already had it.

[cafe]

Wow. It's just so generous of an enlightened man to explain to us what we should be concerned about. Sometimes I wonder if we should be allowed to vote at all.

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by Eileen

Libertarian folk/fiscal conservatives pretty much dismiss everybody else as being clueless about the economy and the market, and this guy doesn't really seem like an exception. I definitely think that people--women and men--should vote with a broader picture than only one issue or only social issues or only the economy. Civil rights matter, and sometimes the government needs to intervene with regard to them so that the majority does not crush the minority. pure_mercury will disagree, and I don't want to have the conversation now becase I've already had it.

With what I am supposed to disagree? You must have me confused with someone else, because I just wrote above that people should not vote only on single issues or gender issues, and I am vocal about civil rights and the fact that the majority tends to take rights away from the minority. That is a completely libertarian position, and why the United States is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. I've written several times here that majoritarian democracies can be awful for the minority, and that is why civil liberties and the U.S. Constitution are of vital importance. Am I missing something here?

[Eileen]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

With what I am supposed to disagree? You must have me confused with someone else, because I just wrote above that people should not vote only on single issues or gender issues, and I am vocal about civil rights and the fact that the majority tends to take rights away from the minority. That is a completely libertarian position, and why the United States is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. I've written several times here that majoritarian democracies can be awful for the minority, and that is why civil liberties and the U.S. Constitution are of vital importance. Am I missing something here?

I was remembering that we had an entire conversation about racism and the government intervening/legislating about civil rights. I don't think you're racist/sexist/anything of the sort.

[lowtech redneck]

Originally Posted by cafe

Wow. It's just so generous of an enlightened man to explain to us what we should be concerned about. Sometimes I wonder if we should be allowed to vote at all.

He kind of reminds me of the idiots who keep referencing "What's the Matter with Kansas".

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by Eileen

I was remembering that we had an entire conversation about racism and the government intervening/legislating about civil rights. I don't think you're racist/sexist/anything of the sort.

I didn't think you thought that. I think we just have differing ideas of what these "rights" are. For instance, I don't think there is a right to a job or a right to expensive health care. Still, the whole point of having a constitution and a "liberal democracy" is that the majority/those in power tend to take rights away from the minority (and I am not just talking about women or racial minorities; I am talking about whose beliefs are unpopular).

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by lowtech redneck

He kind of reminds me of the idiots who keep referencing "What's the Matter with Kansas".

He doesn't sound like much of a liberal, though. I've seen Thomas Frank on TV multiple times, and he is a complete moron. This guy sounds like a run-of-the-mill nutjob/ax grinder.

[Orangey]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

Check out this email I got from a man I was talking to about issues for the upcoming election! I kind of stopped reading after the bolder part. I just can't read any further! Was I just condescended to? I can't tell. I don't even know what to say. I laid out my concerns to him and then he turned around and told me my concerns really aren't concerns at all! Damn and then he said I need to look at the "big" picture!

That's funny...he's been accused of being intellectual . You should send him an email virus.