Dr. Peterson, Pessimism, Losing, Persecution and Solution

[_moksha]

I tend, on the whole, to be a pessimist, so I rather expect to lose. I have no question, though, about who ought to lose: Barak Obama.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/11/no-more-years.html

I too have been pessimistic and that has lead me in the past to feel rather paranoid, perhaps even persecuted. Not saying that Dr. Peterson is ever paranoid or has feelings of being persecuted. However, if he did have these feelings then maybe the best course would be to ask the person directly if they are out to get you. This can easily dispel any misapprehensions.

Asking the person in question about areas of concern, leads you to the best information and frequently makes you more optimistic. You can then have a glass half full of Barack Obama rather than half empty. Let me know how it tastes.

[_lulu]

I'm sure you would not want to miss Dr. Midgley's insight on the election and post it here:

Louis Midgley says:

November 7, 2012 at 1:26 pm


I thought that my well-developed pessimism, bordering on cynicism, about voting and elections, coupled with much disgust with the media, including talking heads on TV, had prepared me for the results of this election. I was, it seems, wrong. I did not really expect, but hoped to see Romney elected.

If the talking heads are right, Romney did very well with both white men and women. What led to his defeat was not a srious problem with those folks, nor was it Protestant bigotry about our faith. To put it bluntly, it seems that many, many millions voted for him despite his magic underwear, and his not having discussed the details of his faith. What seems to have caused his defeat were changes in the composition of voters. He failed to attract support from Latinos, Asians and Blacks, and especially Black women. The very large number of folks who do not pay income tax–those Obama called the “middle class”–saw him as merely a slick rich dude, while Obama appealed to a new wave of populism that afflicts elections in cycles. I will, of course, recover.

What really troubles me is re-election of a Democrat who spent millions telling fibs about Mia Love, who just happens to be an attractive Black, LDS, Republican. It made me ill when I discovered this morning that she lost by a few hundred votes.

Should he be saying "magic underwear?"

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... clear.html

[_Mary]

If I was a black, hispanic or a Native American I would not vote for Romney. I wonder if people underestimate the effect that the historical stance of the church on race and curses has had on his chances?

[_Kishkumen]

Although I don't like Lou's language and overall viewpoint, I think he is absolutely correct in saying that it was the demographics of the voters that caused Romney to lose. One can't treat women and Latinos like crap and imagine that they will support you in overwhelming numbers. The real tragedy for Romney is that he would not have chosen to treat Latinos and women in that way, awkward clod though he may appear to be; no, it was the populist, conservative, Tea Party ideology, once combined with the retrograde perspective of the Religious Right, that dragged them all down.

Look at those assholes who lost senatorial races. That speaks volumes. Say stupid things about rape, and have your ass handed to you on election day. Get brutal with your immigration policy, and *poof*, there go your hopes to win the Latino vote.

It's all very simple.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Kish

Although I don't like Lou's language and overall viewpoint, I think he is absolutely correct in saying that it was the demographics of the voters that caused Romney to lose.

No question, in my opinion.

One can't treat women and Latinos like crap and imagine that they will support you in overwhelming numbers.

"Treat women and Latinos like crap" strikes me as a little over-cooked, my friend.

Indeed, the message/communication clearly needs a lot of work, though.

The real tragedy for Romney is that he would not have chosen to treat Latinos and women in that way

Not only wouldn't Romney have chosen to treat Latinos and women in that way, he didn't!

, awkward clod though he may appear to be;

?

no, it was the populist, conservative, Tea Party ideology, once combined with the retrograde perspective of the Religious Right, that dragged them all down.

Perhaps. (I'll give you this one)

It's all very simple.

Given the numbers that speak to an enormous divide in the great US of A (60,000,000 vs. 57,000,000)

I would suggest that it's much more complex and complicated than you suggest.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kishkumen]

"Treat women and Latinos like crap" strikes me as a little over-cooked, my friend.

Indeed, the message/communication clearly needs a lot of work, though.

It is more than the "message." It is the pursuit of anti-abortion laws, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, mandatory invasive medical procedures and the like. That goes way beyond messaging.

It is also support for Draconian measures against illegal immigration that include blatant racial profiling. Being stopped by a police officer and asked to present your papers because you look brown is not just a problem of message.

Not only wouldn't Romney have chosen to treat Latinos and women in that way, he didn't!

He never made his disagreement with his party on those points clear, because he could not, and the results of that are clear enough. He lost.

I would say he was placed in an untenable position, but he did choose to run on the Republican ticket at this time in history, so there you have it.

I would suggest that it's much more complex and complicated than you suggest.

You'll have to make your case, Ceeboo. I can't be expected to agree just because you assert it.

[_Equality]

He failed to attract support from Latinos, Asians and Blacks, and especially Black women. The very large number of folks who do not pay income tax–those Obama called the “middle class”–saw him as merely a slick rich dude,

With this comment (and so many others from the right-wing echosphere denigrating the "47%"), Midgley reveals what is wrong with the Republican party right now. Equating minorities with those who "do not pay income tax" is disgusting. The implication, and often it is much more than an implication, is that the Obama voters (at least those who are people of color) are all freeloaders wanting to get "stuff" from the government. That we are a nation of "makers" and a nation of "takers." Of course, in conservative Bubbleland, the fact that the facts don't really support the talking point is not problematic. Facts are, in Bubbleland, mere inconveniences. That "folks who do not pay income tax" appears to include Romney himself, older white folks on Social Security (ironically, Fox News's main demographic), and active military deployed overseas. But never mind that--Obama won because he appealed to all those Americans out there who are "takers" and "freeloaders" while the glorious John Galts of the world who nobly and heroically "create jobs" (by, I suppose, sheltering their money in offshore accounts) just don't have enough clout in our political system to overcome the dark-skinned rabble who want their gubmint check.

Having read the Book of Mormon, I understand why Mormons like Midgley see the world this way--the dark-skinned folks are just lazy, indolent types who don't provide for themselves but sponge off the righteous, industrious white Nephites. The Mormons who believe that fairy tale are understandably despondent today, believing that America is following that "cycle of prosperity" from the Book of Mormon. But understanding the basis of their delusion does not excuse it.

[_Shiloh]

I tend, on the whole, to be a pessimist, so I rather expect to lose. I have no question, though, about who ought to lose: Barak Obama.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/11/no-more-years.html

I too have been pessimistic and that has lead me in the past to feel rather paranoid, perhaps even persecuted. Not saying that Dr. Peterson is ever paranoid or has feelings of being persecuted. However, if he did have these feelings then maybe the best course would be to ask the person directly if they are out to get you. This can easily dispel any misapprehensions.

Asking the person in question about areas of concern, leads you to the best information and frequently makes you more optimistic. You can then have a glass half full of Barack Obama rather than half empty. Let me know how it tastes.

You know, elections never go well when you are voting *against* someone, rather than *for* a person you thing is a better choice.

[_Dr Charles Anthon]

I've been looking for Lillburn Boggs...

someone told me he's been hanging around here?

[_Bond James Bond]

"Treat women and Latinos like crap" strikes me as a little over-cooked, my friend.

Indeed, the message/communication clearly needs a lot of work, though.

It is more than the "message." It is the pursuit of anti-abortion laws, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, mandatory invasive medical procedures and the like. That goes way beyond messaging.

Indeed. Check out the increase in abortion restrictions around the country after the Tea Party swept the 2010 elections:

(link won't post as image)

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/2011 ... ctions.gif

What irritates me most about the Tea Party is that while it ran on a policy of economic reform and growth it has done jack squat in the House and has mostly been about social policy change.