Pussy Republicans

[yesthattom]

Greg Saunders on ThisModernWorld.com has put into words what I've been trying to verbalize for a long time.

The “I’m really a libertarian” trend has been picking up steam lately among conservatives who want to seem reasonable in the face of undeniable corruption, but it should be pointed out that a real libertarian (assuming you can find one) wouldn’t spend half their time complaining about abortion, homosexuality, drug use, violent video games, etc. People who favor “small government” tend to do so because they want to be left alone, but conservatism has shown us time and time again that when push comes to shove, imposing regressive social values always trumps any professed love of limited government.

Even funnier than the popularity of bogus libertarianism is the pleas of “I’m conservative, but not a Republican” among wingnuts. For a crowd that prides itself on its toughness and resolve, it’s amazing to see how many of them are too cowardly to stand by the party they unquestionably support.

See? That's so much better than how my drafts have put it. I think the right term should be "pussy republicans". It's not nearly as polite. However, when someone that I know votes for Bush, Bush, Reagan and the like but has started calling themselves "Conservative" or "Libertarian" or the mind-numbingly-awful "Economic conservative but social liberal" the real issue is that they're wimping out. They have become "pussy republicans".

You see, as a enlightened queer I don't usually use terms like "pussy" because it re-enforces gender norms that I think are bad. How darn PC of me. However, I was imagining a situation where I'd say to someone, "Why are you you being such a pussy? Why aren't you saying REPUBLICAN because that's how you vote? Are you too much of a pussy to admit that you're aligning yourself with the gay-killing, racist, corrupt assholes that are also in your party? You vote for them, pussy! Stop being such a pussy, pussy!" When I imagine it, I puntuate each point with a shove or punch to the shoulder.

As my readers know, I'm not generally a violent person. But this issue really pisses me off.

On a more humorous note, it reminds me of:
Cartman and the Underwear Gnomes calling each other pussies (click for audio). (The script is here.) If anyone can find a video clip of that scene I would appreciate it.

Comments

[rakshathewolf.livejournal.com]

Funny you should bring up the Underpants Gnomes; my very canny roomie MB had an epiphany the other day: The Republicans are the Underpants Gnomes!!! She was referring specifically to Iraq. If you recall, the gnomes' plan was A. They would steal underpants, and C. be really rich. No part B. See the sense of the analogy? I sure did.

[practicallyfame.livejournal.com]

<-- actually a libertarian. But you knew that. ;-)

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

I accept your explanation, but still feel the term "pussy Republican" is an insult to pussy.

[aillecat.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with that.... true libertarians are those like me, who would prefer to be l;eft in peace. Sure we share some views with you, and some views with the Republicans, but overall, I really don't give a shit, stay out of my bedroom, out of my decisions, out of my life.

[aillecat.livejournal.com]

oh, and we're not as hard to find as the author may make it out to be :)

there are two that piped up on your blog already.

I should really change my icon, as I've moved to NY, but I've not joined the NY LP yet.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Tom: Lose the mysogyny. Seriously. It's fucking up your framing efforts in a big way.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

No shit. Female = weak and/or insincere???

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

I'm being ironic... like when I use the word "fag". Both are rare and only to make a point. However, I must say that as far as "speaking in the audience's vocabulary" it is dead on for many of the people that need to hear this message. Sadly, few of them are on this mailing list.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

That dog won't hunt.

As a bisexual man, your relationship to the words "fag" and "pussy" are fundamentally different things -- and you better believe I'd be calling you out on it if you were a heterosexual man using the term "fag" in my hearing. Whether you intend it ironicly or not, it is mysogynistic of you to use the term "pussy" in a derogatory manner. It should no more be a part of your framing lexicon than the terms "death tax" or "partial birth abortions."

Framing is all about not speaking the audience's vocabulary, but making them speak your vocabulary instead.

Ask them why they're chicken.
Ask them why they're cowards.
Call them "closet Republicans."

There's a million ways you can frame the debate without handing another part of the fight to them on a silver platter.

[sfo2lhr.livejournal.com]

Tom, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. The Saunders quote seems to reduce to the idea that somehow the presence of bogus libertarians derogates the idea that there are real libertarians, which is simply preposterous.

It is true that some libertarians, historically, were taken in by Republican promises of "small government", but most of us are smart enough to see through that simply by observing the conservative propensity to regulate personal behavior on "moral" grounds. This is less of an issue since the religious/authoritarian majority of the Republican Party appears to have thoroughly purged the remainder of the libertarian wing of the party anyway, with Grover Norquist being pretty much the last one out (he has recently broken with Bush over the domestic-spying scandal).

There is also nothing wrong with the straightforward label "economic conservative and social liberal", except that anyone who salf-describes as that and voted for Bush anyway is seriously brain-damaged.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

There is also nothing wrong with the straightforward label "economic conservative and social liberal", except that anyone who salf-describes as that and voted for Bush anyway is seriously brain-damaged.
Anyone claiming to be a "economic conservative but a social liberal" doesn't understand the economic entanglement that lets social conservativism perpetuate economic conservatism. There will be no social justice as long as there is no economic justice. The forces that keep poor people poor leverage off racism, sexism and homophobia. Saying "I'm economically conservative but I'm not racist" is like saying "I'm a vegitarian but I eat meat every day!"

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

That implies that the only thing government spends their money on it social welfare, and if one wants to curtail the government's spending it will necessarily come out of programs that (hopefully) increase justice within America. Obviously this is not the case and a truly fiscally conservative leadership that wasn't driven by "socially conservative" ideology wouldn't necessarily fuck over social programs.

I admit, I'm fairly fiscally conservative. Why? Because I want to see what's best for the population as a whole, and I identify "non-bankrupt government" as one of the things that the population needs, along with accessible health care, education, and so on.

In any case, I don't think jumping to "you're a racist" is the best way to promote your position. I agree with you on a lot of things and I'm sitting here thinking, "wait, did Tom just call people racist for (potentially) not agreeing that the way to bring justice to people of color is paternalistic government spending?"

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

This LJ vacillates between trying to win people over and trying to speak the hardcore truth.

[sfo2lhr.livejournal.com]

"Anyone claiming to be a 'economic conservative but a social liberal' doesn't understand the economic entanglement that lets social conservativism perpetuate economic conservatism. There will be no social justice as long as there is no economic justice."

Well, that is the standard leftist argument, but it's based on a lot of assumptions that reveal how one views the world. When you say "perpetuate economic conservatism", you equate "economic conservatism" with a system that "keeps poor people poor" and so forth. But it does not imply that at all -- instead, in my view, it simply means that the government pretty much stays out of economic activity, does not try to perform social engineering by economic means, and does not over-regulate economic behavior.

On the other hand, in the libertarian world view, people are fundamentally good, and can be trusted to make intelligent decisions about things. The left seems to understand that point with respect to things like sexuality, medical decisions, drug use, personal appearance and style, etc., but -- inconsistently -- prefers the heavy hand of government intervention in the economic sphere. This is very frustrating. (By contrast, conservatives seem to "get" the idea of economic freedom and laissez-faire, but -- inconsistently -- prefers the heavy hand of government in dictating matters of personal conduct. Equally frustrating.)

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

People are basicly good, but communities develop self-serving views of the world, which serve to define thinking-boxes in ways that justify collosal selfishness. Not selfishness between members of the community, but by members with regard to non-members. And any group of the powerful will, over not too much time, start to see themsleves as a community apart and develop these thinking-boxes. Just as benevolent de jure dictatorships don't stay benevolent for more than a generation, de facto dictatorships of the priveleged don't stay benevolent, either.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Its only inconsistant because you aren't drawing your axis correctly. Liberals feel that it is right for government to regulate businesses, and conservatices believe that it is right for government to regular people. Both of your lists of what each wants to regulate fall consistantly into those categories.

Libertarians feel that businesses are people, thus can't understand why republicans would want to regulate them. Liberals believe that businesses are not people, and thus must be restrained from gaining more power than people.

Liberals believe in government by the people for the people, thus hating the government is like hating your own citizens. We encourage transparency to keep government playing fair, and regulate markets to make sure they provide a level playing field.

Fundametally the values of liberalism are people working together for everyone's betterment, as opposed to "every man for himself" survivalism.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

except that anyone who salf-describes as that and voted for Bush anyway is seriously brain-damaged.
I KEEP MEETING PEOPLE THAT FIT THAT CATEGORY! THAT'S WHY I'M SO FUCKING UPSET!

[naudia.livejournal.com]

Though that is an insult to pussies everywhere.. I think it can be tolerated to make the point ;)