All Alone in the Night

I don't know, it seems to me that there are quite a few people over at ObWi who would consider voting for a Republican candidate over Hillary Clinton had GWB not driven them (me included) into seemingly foaming at the mouth rabid Kossacks (not that there aren't any of those over there).

And so we careen merrily along, two separate peoples forced to live together via an accident of geography.

I think you're significantly overstating the case here. This might be true if large numbers of people started picking their friends and shunning their relatives based on their party affiliation - but I'm not detecting any sign of that (not that it doesn't occur).

It's always something, Ugh. Right now it's GWB's fault. When he's gone, people will find other rationalizations. And for a few people, things really will change. But I think that the majority of people would pull the lever for their preferred party if their candidate was Stalin and the opposition was running George Washington.

As for overstating the case, I prefer to think of it as ahead of the curve. Most people don't have to select their friends based on political belief, because large swathes of the country have already segregated themselves. Try finding a conservative in New York City, for example. But don't ask me; ask Mr. Garibaldi how many of his friends simply assume that he's a liberal Democrat.

But don't ask me; ask Mr. Garibaldi how many of his friends simply assume that he's a liberal Democrat.

They have liberal Democrats on Babylon 5?

In Mr. Garibaldi's section of the station, it is difficult to go anywhere without them.

Heh. How right you are, G'kar. Not to mention at my old place of employment. Whoo-boy.

I once sat in on a conversation where (keep in mind these are people I very much like and respect) the concept of assassinating former President Reagan was brought up. With the agreed upon conclusion that it's a good thing he's dead, otherwise we'd have to kill him. At least one member of the conversation was entirely serious (whereas I felt the others, while not being willing to pull the trigger themselves, certainly wouldn't have the heart to convict the trigger-puller). And the majority of these people had Ph.D.s.

I didn't mind so much the constant assumption that everyone there was a staunch liberal (even at all-staff meetings that included our rather religious admin staff), as much as I minded the constant bashing of both the religious and the rural. On more than one occasion I had to step out of the room I was so insulted. I'm fairly secular but I felt insulted for my family. The constant assumption was that the rural and religious were stupid, ignorant, and sometimes even evil.

I won't even describe how they felt about the military.

That culture is at least one of the reasons I no longer work there.

G'Kar: I have voted for Republicans in my time. I even became a Republican once, on order to vote for him in a primary. I would work for HRC over any Republican running (or who seems likely to run) for two reasons.

(1) I prefer her to any of the actual Republican candidates and likely candidates. You may put this down to partisanship if you want, but I don't. Some of my problem with HRC involves the war; only Hagel offers any sort of improvement on this score, and since I disagree with him on more or less every other issue there is, I don't really want to vote for him. But frankly, he's the only one who would tempt me.

(2) I believe that the major institutions of the Republican party are presently both intellectually and literally corrupt. Since Presidents don't serve in isolation, if a Republican were to become President, that President would have to placate those interests, draw from those institutions in staffing his administration, etc., etc. This is very serious to me: I do not want the same people who gave us the Heritage interns staffing Bremer's office, Michael Brown at FEMA, and so on and so forth playing any role at all in my government. Still less do I want to provide any role for the likes of Karl Rove and Mitch McConnell and Grover Norquist.

This last point has not only been true. In fact, it was not true for most of my lifetime. (I date it from 1994, when Newt Gingrich and his ilk took over.) During those periods in which it was not true, I was a lot more open to voting for Republicans than I am now -- open enough to actually do it. And this despite my being pretty much aligned with the Democratic party on issues -- when the GOP candidate was better, I voted for him. Given what I still think of as a "normal" Republican party, I could easily do the same again.

Now, however, I think of voting Republican as having something in common with patronizing a company that fronts for the Mafia. But this isn't a conclusion I came to on ideological grounds; it's one I base on watching what they have actually done.

I really, really wish this wasn't true, since I'm generally a lot happier when there are two parties that have the normal amount of badness I put down to human nature, not the extra-special amounts that Delay and his ilk have inflicted on the contemporary GOP.

Out of curiosity, hilzoy, do you think that once the Democrats control both the Congress and the White House they will not succumb to the temptation of being able to force through what they like without having to worry overmuch about what anyone else thinks? Particularly as much of what Pelosi promised would change when she was in change has already gone by the boards, I suspect that once your preferred party is running the show, the only change between 2001-2006 and then will be who's running the show. I suspect we'll find out starting in 2009.

As for who you vote for, as I noted in my final paragraph, I would no more expect Democrats to vote Republican more than a few times in a lifetime than I would Kirsten Dunst declare her love for me. You're a Democrat because their political philosophy is more in line with yours than the Republicans. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, however much I may disagree with it personally. One can call it partisanship or whatever other term pleases you, what it comes down to is voting for people you consider more ideologically in tune with you.

I also note that my essay is about general tendencies, therefore the fact Ugh or hilzoy would, in some theoretical future world, be willing to vote Republican doesn't change the fact that a) that future looks remarkably distant from your descriptions and b) a few exceptions are not relevant to a larger trend, which is what I see.

Consider it from the other angle a moment. Wade through the RedState comment threads where it is clear many Republicans seem to think that voting Democratic is not only a bad idea but verges on treasonous. Do those people look likely to vote Democratic any time soon? Why do you think those on your side are any different?

G'Kar: I don't think that who I will or won't vote for proves much of anything; I was just speaking up as one of your examples.

I don't think the Dems will get as bad as the Republicans (in the near-term, at least, meaning the next 20 years or so, though my confidence in my predictions decreases with time.) Partly this is because I think that while some level of corruption is inevitable, the levels we've had recently are truly not; and that while I assume that their mere existence has eroded standards, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't regress to the mean.Partly this is because I truly don't think that that's what e.g. Harry Reid is interested in.

I don't suppose that the diehards at RedState will be voting Democratic in the near future, but I also think they are a lot less openminded than people on many of the liberal blogs. (Note: this is not meant to be a strong claim about liberal open-mindedness; it's more that I think that the people at RedState, to whom von is, apparently, borderline treasonous and Charles barely tolerable, are really really not openminded.)

hilzoy,

I don't think that who I will or won't vote for proves much of anything

Well then, we're in agreement about that, at least.

As for the Democrats not being as bad as the Republicans, I'm confident that, by your standards, they won't be.

As for RedState, I haven't noticed them being any worse than those at Kos or the Washington Monthly, though I certainly haven't done anything approaching a comprehensive study.

G'Kar Most people don't have to select their friends based on political belief, because large swathes of the country have already segregated themselves.

Well, if I can make the possibly unwarranted assumption that your're basing this (in part) on the map you posted in your Break Up the Yankees (please do) post, this gives a little more nuance (also check out this for a rotating map of the 1960 through 2004 elections, wait a little for it to load). Certainly people are capable of, intentionally or unintentionally, segregating themselves into bubbles, but I find it hard to believe that it will become a widespread phenomenon (though Cass Sunstein wrote book that the internet would result in this, can't remember the title even though I worked no a scathing rebuttal of his argument in law school). And we can always fall back on family members!

G'Kar Try finding a conservative in New York City, for example.

Probably harder to do that in DC or San Francisco (see the 10 to 1 kerry vs. bush voting ratio in DC), both places where I've lived, there seems to me to be plenty of conservatives in NYC in my experience (though maybe I'm biased as most of my experience with people there is with the wealthy, plus my aforementioned places of abode).

'Baldi The constant assumption was that the rural and religious were stupid, ignorant, and sometimes even evil.

I imagine that their image of the rural and religious is emodied by someone in a "god hates f@gs" t-shirt - not exactly a thoughtful position for people with PhD's (I would guess these were non-science PhD's?).

hilzoy Now, however, I think of voting Republican as having something in common with patronizing a company that fronts for the Mafia.

yee-ouch!

G'Kar I also note that my essay is about general tendencies, therefore the fact Ugh or hilzoy would, in some theoretical future world, be willing to vote Republican doesn't change the fact that a) that future looks remarkably distant from your descriptions ....

I refuse to believe that I am not the embodiment of general tendencies, harumph! I will say that as someone who declared as recently as 2003 that he knew who he was voting for for President as long as he was eligible (whoever the Republican nominee might be), things change quicker than one might think!

As for RedState, I haven't noticed them being any worse than those at Kos or the Washington Monthly, though I certainly haven't done anything approaching a comprehensive study.

I think the MBF commenters at Redstate are more hopeless than the Kossacks/WM, but I read the comments at Redstate more as there are fewer of them so I'm likely biased (plus I think people from the left are, in general, less inclined to subscribe to the "kill em' all" position).

Ugh,

There will always be some crossovers; humanity is too diverse for it to be otherwise. But I think that when you consider the cultural factors, the idea that we're becoming two (really more) separate peoples is difficult to dispute. Urban conservatives often have more in common with liberals than other conservatives and vice versa. Giuliani is a great example of this; he's a hawk on national defense, but that didn't used to be a conservative position, and Giuliani would probably govern as an authoritarian moderate. Indeed, I think that Giuliani has more in common with HRC than most people would believe.

As for people from the left being less inclined to 'kill 'em all,' perhaps a walk through DU might be in order? Or perhaps you don't consider the fellows who did this were of the left? How about this collection of peaceful, friendly lefties? I'm curious if anyone has a similar collection of conservative actions.

G'Kar -

I don't read DU, nor LGF or the Free Republic for that matter, and I will mention that, in my experience, lefties seem more likely to engage in activities like those in the Malkin post you link to (and I find them most offensive when they refuse to let people speak on college campuses), but as for actively expressing the "my opponents have committed treason and/or deserve to die" position, I'm gonna have to vote rightie.

G'Kar: when you write: "As for the Democrats not being as bad as the Republicans, I'm confident that, by your standards, they won't be", do you mean that they won't become as bad ideologically (by my standards), or that they won't become as corrupt (by my standards)? When I wrote "I don't think the Dems will get as bad as the Republicans (in the near-term, at least, meaning the next 20 years or so, though my confidence in my predictions decreases with time.)", I meant corrupt, not ideologically distasteful.

I'm willing to be told that I have my own preferences when it comes to ideology, but if the idea was that I would somehow not notice Democratic corruption, I would take mild, polite exception.

Ugh,

I'll concur regarding the treason comment. The cynic in me says that's because lefties don't see treason as a bad thing, but I try to ignore my cynical side. ;)

hilzoy,

I mean no offense, but I think that it's likely that the fact a Democratic monopoly is going to be doing things you want to see, you're going to be less likely to notice corruption. Just as it has taken righties quite some time to notice the problems of the Republican majority. It's human nature. Fortunately, we Narn aren't subject to that particular risk. ;)