Reply - Dumb Republican Syndrome

Greenman has a post up in response to the ongoing debate on red voters being perceived as idiots. The argument as I see it (and Greenman, please correct me if I'm off base) is basically that: 1) if you agree with the idiots at the far right, though from a close analysis of the issues rather than a reflexive or prejudiced world view; and 2) if your candidate doesn't come off as none too smart either - whether it's factual or a façade assumed to appear "folksy"; then 3) don't be shocked if people presume you're an idiot by the company you keep.



I can grant that far right conspiracy theorist moonbats exist, and there are plenty of people who hold conservative opinions without taking the time to actually inform themselves on the issues. I can understand the knee-jerk response to tar all red voters with the same brush. But the issue, as I see it, is less "Why do they think red voters are idiots?" than "How do they expect to woo voters whom they've labeled idiots?"



The majority of voters - people that you know are likely to show up the next time around and not spend election day doing more important things, like painting their toenails - are now apparently pro-Bush.



Within the pro-Bush group, you have both moonbats and intelligent, informed voters who simply see things differently from Kerry supporters.



The moonbats are admittedly unlikely to be educable. They see the world through their own special filter and facts mean nothing.



But there are a whole lot of non-moonbat Bush supporters and they were the ones who swayed the vote against Kerry.



So you've got two choices: 1) alienate the intelligent ones by labeling them moonbats as well, then hope to h*ll you can persuade the non-voters to stop painting their toenails long enough to show up and vote next time; or 2) engage in intelligent political discussions, find the common ground, understand where reasonable minds disagree, and try to find a mutually appealing candidate.



Did each and every blue voter agree with every word out of Kerry's mouth? I'd venture not. They narrowed it to the man they thought was electable, and had the most views in common with them. So why is it so tough to do the same across party lines by relegating the moonbats on both sides to the wings? God forbid we come up with two really good candidates to choose between next time. What would we do with that?