Tag Archives: dualism


Here’s why Republican pollster Glen Bolger says Mitt Romney lost the elections:

Mitt Romney put together a coalition that just eight years ago would have won the presidential election (hence the data comparisons to George W. Bush). However, instead of whites being 77% of the electorate, they were 72% of the electorate. Instead of Republicans and Democrats being equal, Democrats far outnumbered Republicans, and washed out Romney’s advantage among Independents. Bush kept it close with younger voters (under age 40), while Obama won them decisively….Underscoring that there are considerably more Democrats than Republicans, Romney was the first national candidate in exit polling history to decisively win Independents and lose the election (John Kerry won Independents, but by just one point).

Thus, to have a chance, Republicans have to appeal to Hispanics. It’s simple math, but it’s hard to do. We have to start today.

The Fix’s Chris Cillizza says he’s right. But they’re both wrong.

They’re both stuck in what I like to call “Dualistic Thinking.” Either/or. It’s doomed as an advanced society since Adam and Eve. Either Adam, or Eve.

It’s just not about demographics, which is the only thing pollsters understand, or think they understand. It’s the only thing politicians understand. Saying the right thing to get the right group of people to touch the box by your name on the electronic voting machines.

I have a better idea. How about we get our dualistic, either Republicans or Democrats to think about saying the right thing to get a human being to vote for them.

I know, I know. Wishful thinking. But focusing on demographics is so short term. What’s changing right along with the make-up of the electorate is how that electorate thinks. And THAT, my friends, is something Republicans have absolutely no clue about (and Democrats have only a slightly better clue about).

I will give you that both sides do it. But there’s a difference. Just to give you an example, here’s a little sampling of a political disagreement between a conservative and a liberal, from the comments section of an article on Politico.

E Be Rose · Top Commenter
Isn’t it interesting, how easily everyone over on Fox lies? As if people will not call them out on it, especially a real journalist like Ricks? Not an “on-air personality.” Right now, Baier, Celmente, Klinghoffer, Ailes & Murdock are all working on a response. It will be brilliant, for sure. It will somehow blame Ricks for making Fox lie in the first place. It’s never their fault.

Brett Richard · Top Commenter
ROFL! Like it’s NEVER obama’s fault!! His little, pointy blame finger must be getting worn down to a NUB by now!!!

E Be Rose · Top Commenter
People like you amuse me

Brett Richard · Top Commenter
Glad to be of service!
People like you disgust me…

Just so you know, the conversation was about a journo who was on Fox who said that Fox was an arm of the Republican Party and the Fox exec who said that said journo apologized for saying it, except the journo said he didn’t.

My point is found in the last two comments. “People like you amuse me” and “People like you disgust me.” If you see no difference in those two comments, you might be a Republican. I’m just sayin.

Or you might be like the dumbest of dumb Republicans, Erick Erickson — who runs RedState and sometimes spouts his idiocy on CNN — who wrote an entire column about how Republicans just needed to convince 6 percent or so of the population to vote for them in order to win. Of course, he used the wrong figures, beginning with the population of the United States.

Excuses, excuses. These guys all thought Mitt Romney was gonna win in a landslide. He didn’t. It wasn’t even close, and he even ended up with 47 percent of the vote. How’s that for a sign?

What these guys really need to understand is that they’re being left behind by the steady march of progress. Get on the clue bus, boys, or think long and hard about Neanderthals.


2 sides to every story

There are two sides to every story, or so the conventional wisdom goes. And if you watch or read or listen to my colleagues for any length of time, you’d think that was exactly true.

But the second side to that story — that there are always two sides — is that there rarely is. Most of the time, there are multiple sides to every story, and sometimes — more often than you’d think — there really is just one.

For example, when TeaPublicans started clamoring about “death panels” in the health care reform bill, my colleagues dutifully reported it. And then they dutifully pitted a TeaPublican up against a Democrat to argue the point. Presto, two sides to the story. But you and I know there is just one side to that story — the TeaPublicans lied because there are no death panels.

Shirley Sherrod — there’s another one. One side. Shirley Sherrod told an inspiring story aimed at getting people to see they needed to get over their own racism. The rest of it? Bullshit, pure and simple. In her very nuanced tale — and we all know how nuance goes over in the black and white world of the TeaPublicans — Sherrod admitted that there is racism in the black community, otherwise why would she need to tell a story about overcoming her own?

That’s not something you see among the TeaPublicans. Nope. They busy denying the very existence of racism in their movement. All those signs and hurled epithets, they say, are from infiltrators trying to give them a bad name. According to them, not one single person in the movement is opposed to Barack Obama because of the color of his skin. It’s just his policies. That’s why they have to lie about the policies, y’know. Because they can’t argue rationally about the policies and programs and bill and such on their own merit, and they can’t admit to any racism. Lying is all that’s left. Socialism! Death panels! Fascism!

Yeah, they get confused too, because you can’t be a socialist and a fascist at the same time, no matter that the Nazis had socialist in their name. There’s a difference between socialists and national socialists, you see, but the TeaPublicans are fixated on that word “socialist,” probably because it contain the word “social,” which reminds them of the contract with “society” that we all have that they don’t want to honor.

Whew, that’s a buncha sides. Over in Europe, and a lot of other places, they understand that idea. But here in America all we’ve got are Republicans and traitors. All those other parties — the Green Party and such — they’re big liberal jokes, because only conservatives can have more than one party and still be serious in politics.

The conservatives are stuck in a really rigid dualism with absolutely no room for the slightest variation. Marriage must be between a man and a woman. The United States is a Christian nation. Republicans must vote “no” on every bill Obama and the Democrats put forward.

And the really funny thing is, if you put any stock into such things, that the source of their dualism is written right into the bible. It is. In Genesis. That whole eating the apple thing. This serpent tells Adam and Eve that if they go ahead and eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that they’ll be like god and that that’s why god doesn’t want them to do that — he’s threatened by the idea of humans having knowledge of the difference between good and evil. So they eat, but there was one thing that the serpent failed to mention: Puny little humans just aren’t capable to understanding the world the way god can. Trapped in physical bodies on a physical earth, they just can’t see anywhere near enough of the big picture to comprehend the nuance involved in detecting the sometimes minute differences between good and evil. God wasn’t threatened at all — he just knew what would happen, what did happen.

Humans who bought into this monotheistic thing think they know what god wants. They arrogantly believe that they know what’s right and what’s wrong for everyone in the world. Dualism. Black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. Two sides to every story. Oh, how wrong they are.

And right there it is in that book they swear was inspired by god, despite all the contradictions and just plain ugliness. Humans ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but, without the ability to see the universe from god’s perspective, they had nothing more than a perverted sense of right and wrong, and they went about applying to everyone because their arrogance told them that they and only they knew the way.

Sad, isn’t it? For millennia, these folks have tortured and killed and imprisoned their way around the planet, convinced of their own righteousness even though the bible they claim as the word of god tells them plainly they don’t have a clue. How many millions have died and suffered because of this?

And it still goes on today — I’m right, you’re wrong. Two sides. No room for variation.

If I were of their ideology, I’d be scared shitless, wondering just when god is gonna have enough and wipe this place clean to start again.

That’s the other side to the biblical story of creation — that the monotheists got it wrong, and we’re stuck with the ramifications.

But I don’t share that ideology, although it does seem to me there’s a bit of truth in the idea that the god followers blinded themselves to the great variety that is this life on earth. I sure see very little evidence these days that they have any comprehension at all that two sides is just too limiting.

If you have a choice to make, and the choice is between two things, you really don’t have much of a choice. You have a dilemma.