Republican voters--evil, or stupid?

Yesterday I looked at the Republican politicians themselves to see how they operate, and of course, it's not pretty. Today I want to think about why they keep getting elected, even after decades of evidence that doing so has only wrecked the country. What it comes down to, really, is that anyone who has voted R since about 1982 is either evil or stupid. Putting aside, for a moment, those who are in the top 1% of wealth in the country--in other words, the only people in the country who actually benefit in any way whatsoever from Republican "governance"--we have to explain why every other R voter has voted against his or her own material interests.
The first possibility is that the R voters are thinking about things other than material interests when they cast their ballot. What might those things be? Most Republican campaigns since the early 1980s have been run on something called "family values", and supposedly Republicans have them and Democrats don't. (The fact that the vast majority of politicians' violations of those "values" have come from Republicans has completely escaped the notice of the R voter, which is evidence of my second possibility below.) "Family values", it seems, is a coded phrase that really means, to put it baldly and accurately, "bigotry", and imho, bigotry is evil. Why else would Republicans, elected official or not, castigate non-WASPs as being deserving of less than equal treatment under the law? That's what bigots think. Whether you are Latino, African-American, GLBTQI, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, (and especially, according to polling data) atheist/agnostic, you have been slandered, libeled, and legislated against by Republicans for decades. And now finally, after having exhausted all ethno-religious groups, the less-than-rich are getting their turn in the stocks from the Republicans, as they set about eliminating all methods of preventing poverty and stripping the country of its wealth.
As each group has come under the noose of Republican rule, their only possible political response has been to join the Democrats in fighting off destruction, but until now, at least, Republicans have been able to keep the bigotry just attractive enough to their electorate to keep their winning streak going. But with the overt decimation of the economy that almost everyone sees was caused by Republican policies implemented since 2001, they may have finally reached the end of their run. (When you have dyed-in-the-wool conservatives like Arlen Specter join your party, you know things must have gotten pretty bad across the aisle.) The teabagger nonsense of the last few years, I'm hoping, is their last gasp, but I also think that it represents their coup de grace, because I don't see the Democratic Party as strong enough to stop the economic slaughter any more.
And yet, as we just saw in Wisconsin, some people still vote Republican, despite 100% of the evidence showing that the economy is dying and that Republican policies are 100% to blame for it. Let's take a hypothetical here: even if I think everyone not white and Christian is Satanic and coming to get me, if I'm unemployed with no hope of getting another job, why would I choose to vote for someone who has overtly stated s/he is not interested in helping me get work or food or healthcare over someone who has? And the only reason I can think of would be sheer idiocy on my behalf. It is just plain stupid to vote for a Republican at this late hour; they have shown zero interest in doing anything your "family values" BS calls for. Even when they controlled every single branch of the government, did they repeal Roe v. Wade? No. Did they impose English as the only official language for the country? No. Did they deport every unpapered immigrant? No. Did they declare Christianity the state religion? No. What exactly have they given you, despite decades of your voting for them? Nothing. Zero. Face it, you all were played for chumps. Suckers. It's hard to hear, I know, but get used to it, because I have nothing but contempt for you, now that you've screwed the country over for good, and for what? The null set. (Anyone still voting for Republicans is beyond my contempt, because they are clearly "too stupid to live", as Rebecca Howe once said.)
Congratulations.

It's not just the politicians

People who vote for republicans are simply sick, and there's no way around it. At best, they are merely delusional, but the base? Read this and explain how I can think anything else . . .
Choice quote: "'Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get.' She squints at the sun and smiles. 'Then things'll change.'"

What's up with that?

Every now and then I turn to Google News to get a glimpse of what's going on in the world. I will probably have to change that habit, though, because for some reason, they seem to present a fairly slanted picture. This morning, one of their top headlines ("above the fold") reads "Democrats must figure next step on Iraq", as if it has been the Democratic Party that has been controlling the occupation and its consequences. The subheading makes me really question Google's algorithm, though, because it truly betrays the writer's bias: The debate is likely to expose fissures among Democrats, who remain divided on whether to cut off money for the unpopular war and risk leaving troops in the lurch.
2 things about that lede are wrong. 1) The Democrats are "divided" only by comparison to the monolithic, unthinking Republicans; remember, their bills have been passed by a Congress in which their majorities are not overwhelming. The only division, really, is between Democrats who want us out of Iraq immediately and those who want us out of Iraq later. 2) No plans put forward by any Democrat to date "risk leaving troops in the lurch". That Republican talking point is simply absurd and highly ironic, given that it has been the Republican Administration and its Halliburton cronies that have consistently provided the troops with little to no training, rest, safe equipment, or even a plan. The troops aren't going to be left in any "lurch" because they will be coming home, unless President Smirky ignores the wishes of a growing majority of the country and diverts other funds in order to keep them in harm's way.
Clicking through to the article itself is illuminating as well. How exactly, did anything from the "Meadow Free Press" find its way to the top of the pile of Google News articles? Is this rag from eastern Idaho really a representative newspaper of world opinion? The number of glaring technical errors in the article (I hope they are simply electronic glitches rather than typos!) were striking; it was virtually incomprehensible in spots.
I suppose, if Google is randomly selecting the papers they highlight, having the Meadow Free Press pop up might be kind of nice (aside from its obviously damaged perspective), in a folksy kind of way, and if Google is using some sort of proprietary statistical algorithm to divine what articles are the most popular in the country to show on their "front pages", they can be excused from charges of internal right wing bias. If that is the case, however, we are in bigger trouble than I even thought, because I notice this kind of slanting often in Google News. If these are indeed the articles most people are getting from their newspapers, it's no wonder at all that it has taken soooo long to persuade our citizens that the Republicans are destroying this country. It is clearly past the time for progressives, liberals, Democrats, and other sensible people to begin creating their own media outlets, at all levels; objective journalism is dead.

Proud to be from Glendale

What really got me to write again was a simple (and truly simple-minded) letter to the LA Times dated April 10. Ken Artingstall from Glendale writes, and I quote the letter almost wholly here:

The United Nations now reports that global warming is "irreversible but could be moderated by large-scale societal changes." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), in a position to effect such changes, says "it is not too late to slow it down. We must base our actions on moral imperatives free of political interference." This is the same speaker who triumphantly passed a budget that eliminates all the Bush tax cuts after 2010, setting the stage for a huge tax increase. What will "large-scale societal changes" to attack global warming entail? Command-and-control government regulation of the economy and even more taxes, among other things. To all the fanatical global warming disciples and pro-big government Democrats, be careful what you wish for: A collapsing economy will surely be one of them.

Let's break this letter down, shall we?
1) Mr. Artingstall's comment about the new House budget is comprised of 4 clauses (if my decades-old memory of what constitutes a clause is correct), 2 of which are false. A) The Bush tax cuts were created to end after 2010, in a cynical ploy to both explode in a future Administration's face and grab ignorant Democratic votes in Congress; Pelosi had nothing to do with "eliminating" them; and B) This "sunset clause" was widely publicized at the time of passage, so only ignoramuses or ideologues like Mr. Artingstall could claim that the return to the previous tax levels represents a tax increase perpetrated by Democrats. Given inflation, the amount paid in taxes by those lucky few who have benefited from these lower taxes for 10 years will no doubt be less in real dollars after 201o than they were in 2000 anyway . . .
2) Mr. Artingstall's wholesale and reprehensible denial of global warming notwithstanding, his conclusion about what the UN means by "large-scale societal changes" is wholly unfounded by anything other than his own ridiculous biases against responsible governance. Did Mr. Artingstall quote anyone other than the voices in his head when he decided that the societal changes might entail "more taxes" or "command-and-control" government regulation (whatever that means)? Of course not; people like him are ideologically opposed to using facts, logic, or even simple human kindness when determining what to say or do. It is entirely likely that our government will decide to spur investment in alternative fuels by encouraging businesses through tax breaks or even direct subsidies, but we already do that for the oil companies! It would be a simple matter to redirect those breaks and subsidies elsewhere or for other purposes, with no (gasp!) tax increases.
3) Mr. Artingstall is so out-of-touch with reality that he concludes his letter with one of the oldest canards in politics, in combination with one of the newest. Where in politics, exactly, are these "pro-big government Democrats", Ken? You clearly haven't noticed that it is the Republicans who have grown government since Reagan took office 26 years ago, with the largest growth occurring under Smirky and the rest of the felons currently in power. (See here also.) And how exactly can you define "fanatical global warming disciples" so that it includes the majority of citizens, not just globally, but even in the woefully misinformed US? Wake up, Ken--it is you that is the fanatic. Get a grip.
This is hardly unusual thinking for Glendalians, I'm sorry to report. This city is home to some of the most conservative thinking in all of LA County, it seems, judging by letters to the editor of the local rag. I just thought it was time for someone to point that out, and as someone who lives there, I apologize to the rest of you for it.