RTP-area local music and culture

[kevin maxwell farmer <fakirmevern-amch AT yahoo.com>]

Duncan Murrell wrote:

> On Nov 10, 2004, at 9:43 PM, kevin maxwell farmer wrote:
>
> > she talked about the issues in a way that connected with voters, her
> > opponent talked about her sexuality.
>
>
> That's an oversimplification of that race.

i disagree. the race was close until the end (in fact, i think there is
going to be a recount.) there wasn't any reason to play that card, but
woody white did and it cost him.

it wasn't just her sexuality that was at issue; there were intimations
of elitist "cultural values" as well--she was derided for her "champagne
brunch" fundraisers, for instance. good thing she is a proponent of the
lottery!

meanwhile, boseman kept talking about things like incentives for the
film industry and the negative impact on tourism from shoddy
environmental policies.

> I don't see what's wrong about talking values when it comes to figuring 
> out how people vote for president. There's forty years of hard, 
> statistical evidence that suggests that values of one sort or another 
> trump just about everything when people vote for president. Check out 
> Thad Beyle's stats at the Center for the Study of the American South. 
> Furthermore, my affinity for the Democratic party's position on most of 
> the issues are fully in keeping with, if not directly the result of, the 
> values I hold, some of which derive from my (gasp) church background, 
> some from the hours sitting zazen at the zendo, and some just because 
> I'm a fan of the Enlightenment. I'm not afraid of a discussion of 
> values, but I'm sorry they make you berserk.

values don't bother me a bit; that's how *i* voted.

what bothers me is the rush to make sense of it all, which seems to be
leading in the direction of easy platitudes like "wow. all those 'church
people' voted for bush. we've really got to figure out a way to reach
out to them." how far does one go "reaching out"? where do you give
ground? choice? gay rights? prayer in schools? what?

i thought i heard the dems talking about "moral values" quite a bit 
during this campaign. i seem to even recall a speech containing that 
refrain over and over again--"it's a moral value to want decent 
healthcare. it's a moral value to want people to earn a decent wage, 
etc..." unless i was just hearing things, where was the disconnect? fear?


> On the other hand, the statistics also seem to indicate that in races 
> down the ticket, people _do_ vote the issues more often, probably 
> because they're more immediate and less abstract. 

assuming those statistics are true---my own experience makes me doubt 
that they are--how do we make the issues less abstract at the national 
level?


> Democrats still live 
> on down the ticket, and as a result the Democrats (this time) increased 
> their share in the State House. Julia Boseman was a county commissioner, 
> and therefore was 1) a proven, well-known leader who had 2) obviously 
> long ago resolved any issues her electorate had (if they had any at all) 
> about her sexuality.  Boseman's experience isn't one from which you can 
> extrapolate a lesson for the national Democratic party. 

i think it's one from which you can extrapolate *a* lesson, not
*the* lesson. there are many lessons to be learned from this election.


-k