This is a response to this article that accuses liberals of being smug and accuses the GOP of being wrong to accuse liberals of voting liberal because they want stuff and then accuses liberals of voting liberal because they need stuff because liberalism is anti-civil engagement and anti-family (which is why we just voted in a former Community Organizer and spend a lot of our time fighting for marriage equality.)


You’re accusing liberals of thinking that they are speaking for God while SEVERAL conservative candidates actually blatantly ran on a platform that included “God wants you to vote for me”?

I’m really not sure what reality you are in here.

I know that the segment of the population that actually DID vote for Obama because they want “stuff” has been paraded around the media in order to bolster the narrative that liberals (especially those non-white ones – that’s not racist or anything) are voting liberal for their own self-interest because of economic hardship that the neo-Calvinists among modern conservatives undoubtedly (as you seem to have) ascribe to personal moral failure and lack of Church attendance (regardless of evidence) – but that’s not real.

I mean – how can you say that requiring birth control coverage in comprehensive health plans in order to reap tax benefits for businesses that provide health insurance is a “threat” to churches (who are except) without, you know, having fits of painful cognitive dissonance?

Yeah, some people are being really smug about it.  However, I think you might be confusing the joy associated with, for the first time, the white-male voting block not getting their way especially against a candidate who exemplifies the dismissive out-of-touch privileged white-male stereotype to a catastrophic and cartoonish degree, with being smug.  It’s understandable, since you may be accustomed (as most of us are in the U.S.) to the groups that were instrumental in the last election being treated as “subjects” for debate instead of decision-makers with agency.

Also, you may want to replace the fascist-sounding “assimilation” Borg language with “integration” – just a thought.  Then again your argument was that Hispanics voted for Obama because the U.S. has morally corrupted them, causing them to have lots of babies out of wedlock (even though teen birth rates are declining in the U.S. for all ethnic groups and according to the most recent CDC compiled data from 2010 are at historic lows, and births to unwed mothers has also been on the decline since 2007 and the decline has been the greatest among Hispanics) and therefore encountering economic difficulty (which is a bit of a myth).

I suggest you read the economic studies by Kearney and Levine on the subject as well as the miscarriage study by Hotz.  Could it be that socio-economic disparity is a contributing factor in the prevalence and impact of societal ills and not necessarily the other way around?

Republicans did try very hard to court the “minority vote”, as you might recall.  However, it might be possible that some of the Hispanic vote swung to Obama because the Republicans have decided that allowing “brown people” to literally die of starvation in the desert, be stopped on the street and asked to show their papers because they “appear” to be illegal immigrants, and be used as political scape-goats for economic hardship and crime (even though their crime rates are lower than the national average) are stances to be tolerated, and the voting blocks that hold those views should be directly catered to since they happened to self-identify as conservatives.  I mean, I know that the simple step of NOT KILLING or allowing the preventable deaths of people usually gets you into hot water, but y’know, don’t want to piss off that segment of the white population that needs someone to hate and blame.

When your candidate it caught joking about how being Hispanic would be a political asset, and you blame Hispanics having babies on Hispanics not voting for him, I really don’t know what to say about that.

Of course, there is a completely different hypothesis.  It might be that the majority of non-white non-men voted for Obama for reasons that have little or nothing to do with their ethnicity or sex.  Could it be that, among the only demographic group in the entire country that voted majority for Romney (who happen to be in the same demographic as Romney), may have been influenced by race and gender politics?

I know – that’s just crazy talk.  I’m just being smug, right?  And all those commentaries about how people must have voted the way they did because those people just want the government to give them stuff isn’t possibly sour grapes.

PS: Also, to quickly address the more poignant point, that when social supports such as churches and strong family structures fail, there is more need for governmental social supports; you might want to consider that when one of the largest religious patriarchies in the world chastises the women within it by criticizing their social justice work as “radical feminism” and reiterates the authority of men over women, that perhaps you might want to shift your blame from those who point out the failures of the church to the actual failures of the church.