Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.Can anything awaken the Jesusmaniac Borg? Fundamentalism isn't a religion -- it's the most dangerous form of hypnosis ever devised. The south is populated by millions of Trilbys with twangs. How did that happen?
Friday, November 11, 2005
Fundies and southerners are so dumb they think the "W" stands for "Honest"
According to a recent AP-Ipsos poll, the nation is starting to awaken to Bush's basic dishonesty. Guess who the hold-outs are?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
unfortunately, I break all your odds and so do alot of my freinds and neighbors. I am white southern and would call myself an evangelical Christian but Bush has never been popular at my home and no I did not vote for him either...
I think the polls are rigged... I do not know many white southern evangelicals supporting Bush and blanket trusting BushCo anymore...
The numbers are wrong... they are like the vote count... all made up.
A large part of the problem is that when the profitability of a nation's economy shrinks, its citizens become niggardly as they try to hold onto their share. On the other hand, when an economy generates improved profitability, citizens tend to feel more expansive and generous, willing to grant more rights and freedoms.
What's happening now in the USA isn't a sociopolitical problem. It is, essentially, an economic one. Our country is hellbent down the road to bankruptcy. In that primary fact is found explanation for the rise of fundamentalism, the corruption of politics, and the erosion of privacy rights.
(I got a head full of ideas/that are driving me insane...)
hm. anon, i'm from the south, though i don't live there anymore, the reason being that it was so damn hard to find a large enough community that thought outside the 'traditional' southern, christian mindset. i have no doubt you are the exception, and i know there are exceptions, and i know many of those exceptions, but the fact remains that they/you/we ARE the exception down south. the polling numbers are not wrong, as there are just too many different polls, and they all converge, a sure sign they are talking about the same population.
still, you helped explain a lot when you note that you don't know many...supporting bush...ANYMORE.
the tide is turning, but you're still the exception.
and oddly, unirealist, i have to disagree with your analysis for a change. if it's the case that evangelism and fundamentalism arise during bad economies, how do you explain the rise in this country during the 90s when our economy was better than it's been since the 50s?
read karen armstrong's book on fundamentalism the world over, across all religions, to get a really good perspective of the phenomenon. it's truly a human inclination, quite universal, and tends to emerge as an expression of fear. packaging the object of the fear by the powers that be keeps mass hysteria in control and the throngs under control. nasty stuff, but not at all as simple as the economy.
and i'd also have to ask how you would explain how it was that the 50s, when our economy was thriving, saw mccarthy and silenced racism no evidence of increased rights and freedoms whatsoever. those came in the 60s and 70s when our economy was in relative limbo.
and to make the comparisons even more confusing, the colonial economy was not exactly thriving for the colonies (though it was for the crown). in fact, the demands for more economic autonomy drove a large part of the revolution's motivation.
none of these things is simple. if they were, more southerners might have a better grasp on these matters.
lll, you little devil. You've thrown me a few curveballs, but I sense a deep correctness to the thesis I offered. It wasn't as off the cuff as it may have sounded; it's an understanding I have gradually (but without peer review) developed over a long time.
That said, you raise excellent devil's argument points. I'll have to consider them for a while.
But, as for the 50's: paranoia is not equivalent with a diminishment of freedoms. You can easily separate McCarthyism from the general social movement toward increasing freedom. I would argue that the intellectual currents of that day were, contrary to your implication, expansive rather than contractive. That these currents didn't burst into splendor until the early sixties is hardly proof that they didn't exist; hell, our generation was literally schooled in the new, expansive, thinking.
As for the nineties, you're buying into the CW. The true GDP of the USA has been contracting since the early 70's.
The colonial question requires more attention than I can summon at this point, but I think that economics of the period support rather than contradict my argument.
Look at it this way. If you're feeling rich, aren't you more sensitive to a friend's financial needs than if you're feeling poor? If your life conditions seem to be continuously improving, aren't you more likely to let your child explore new ways of being?
Etc.
As usual, I am indebted to you for your insightful discourse.
Post a Comment