Stupid Mormons vote for Bush
That's what was on the front page of the Washington Post.
Ok, the headline was actually "Utah Town Has Question about President: "What's not to like?", but it might as well have been "Only Utah hicks are stupid enough to vote for our president--twice."
The article starts out with a scene where a woman goes into a small diner in Randolph, Utah, and orders a patty melt with Dijon mustard on the side. That prompts a, "We get some weird ones" from the cook, and the counterman says after the customer leaves that he doesn't know what Dijon mustard is. Doesn't care to, either.
That's how this article sets the scene. People who are so insulated from the world that they don't even know what Dijon mustard is, much less about Medicare and the War on Terror. And that's why they voted for Bush. Because they're ignert. And with all of the news around the world tonight, the Post puts them on the front page.
Yeah, that's objective.
I finished reading Katherine Graham's autobiography recently (her father bought the Post in the 30s, her husband ran it, and after his death, she brought it to the pinnacle of it's success during Watergate. Now her son, Don Graham, runs the newspaper), and I gotta say, it makes me worried about where we get our info. She talks about her personal relationship with LBJ, and how angry he was that the Post didn't come right out and endorse his candidacy for president. K. Graham insists that he should have been able to read between the lines of the newspaper, and realize that they were endorsing him, without having to come right out and make an official announcement. And yet she declares that she was entirely objective when it came to Watergate. Um, heLLO! Not that I'm saying that Nixon deserved to be defended, but the double standard and the hypocrisy is just a little much.
Anyway, sorry for the political rant, but it kind of bugs me when the media picks out the most sterotypical hicks who are insulated from the world to say, "These are the only kind of morons who would support our President!" It would be as if they took pictures of hip, wealthy New Englanders who skiied all winter in their lodges in Vermont and said, "These are the only people smart enough to vote for John Kerry!" It's just offensive, all the way around.
The funny thing is, I doubt the people in Randolph, if they even ever see this article, will care one way or the other. The Post is trying to make this huge point about their lifestyles, and they won't be bothered one bit by anything this newspaper prints. They'll just go on eating their patty melts, sans Dijon mustard, voting for the next Republican candidate. And they will go on having the gall to say that every bad thing that has happened in their life is not President Bush's fault.
Wow. Such ignorance is astonishing, eh?
posted by Heather O. at 1/31/2006 09:08:00 PM
25 Comments:
Amen to that!
"The funny thing is, I doubt the people in Randolph, if they even ever see this article, will care one way or the other. The Post is trying to make this huge point about their lifestyles, and they won't be bothered one bit by anything this newspaper prints. They'll just go on eating their patty melts, sans Dijon mustard, voting for the next Republican candidate."
So you agree that they are hicks and kind of stupid? You just wish they didn't like the same guy you like?
I see nothing wrong with being a hick or being stupid. I just don't understand why anyone would put Bush into any position of power. But they did--I can live with it. I just wish the Democrats would quit acting so dumb and get their act together before we do this again.
Who exactly is the person in power that is behind the curtain? The country is at war with other powers and one we did not start. I think people who don't see that are the ones with their heads in the sand. D-train, what exactly do you despise? Blanket statements like yours do not work. It is easier to blame and poke fun at than offer any solutions, kind of like Kerry, Kennedy, Palosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Dean, and on and on. So you said nearly everything; what is the 'few' things you do not despise?
I agree that this article was far from objective and Finkel "dumbed down" these small town people to make his point.
That is unfortunate because I happen to agree with his larger point that Bush portrays himself in a way that makes small-town people (a large political base) identify with him ... although the reality is that he has little in common with them and he does not serve their interest as president.
That said, Heather, PLEASE don't stop reading the Post! My dh just took a job down there and my kids and I are getting ready to move from NY. I love DC and I DO NOT want to move again for a long while!!!
Hmm, Oh where to begin.....
First off, where in the article does it mention how many LDS live in Randolph?
Second, I think this article is just a blue trying to figure out how a bunch of reds live.
Having lived in DC and Randolph, I didn't think it was a big deal---and I voted for President Bush.
I think your treatment of this article is emotional, read the article again.....I agree with Jen when she points out the larger point of this piece.
Intresting. The fact that everyone has such a huge issue with a 15 year old kid who doesn't know what dijon mustard is. Come on people get a life. I personally did not even vote for the last election, so I have no valid claim to argue with who the president is, Bush or otherwise. The point is the people in Randolph are mostly happy people. Granted, they may not have to deal directly with all of the issues that are brought up, but they have many trials of their own. Just let them have their opinions and leave it at that. No one in Randolph asked to be put on the front page of the Washington Post, it just happened. The article talks about one person who went to Iraq. I know him personally, and he is a great individual. There are more than just him serving or who have served in the military. This fact was neglected by the article. My point is, most of you have never even heard of Randolph, let alone even been there. So you have no idea what kind of people they are. We will continue to mind our own business, how about you doing the same.
"No one in Randolph asked to be put on the front page of the Washington Post, it just happened."
I'm sure that's true. I have no doubt that the people in Randolph have no hidden political agenda, and I can't imagine they called up The Post and said, "Hey, we have something to say!" I just think it was a low trick to portray these people the way the paper did, and then give not so subtle hints that they are stupid, and therefore not smart enough to realize that Bush is a monster.
And I'm not getting all riled up for a political debate here--heaven knows I've had enough of those. I also think it's a good thing when people have conflicting political opinions--it adds healthy opposition and often makes people re-examine their own views, which can't be all bad. I am just a little bugged that a newspaper that has so vehemently claimed objectivity can so obviously be anything but.
I'm still going to take The Post, though. I like the comics.
O.K., so I've got a degree from USC in International Relations, a law degree and I teach political science at the local college. BUT . . . I live in a small town just across the border from Randolph am I now a hick? Oh, and I voted for Bush. Twice. Does that make me stupid? My first question after reading the article was "why in the world was a reporter from the Post in Randolph?" but he was probably there for the same reason the patty-melt gal was there . . . on their way to Jackson Hole.
Regardless, I think the point that was missed by the author was not that these people are insulated from the world and have no idea about national or international issues, its just that in a small town, whether Randolph or my own, we look first to taking care of our own and don't expect the government to do it for us. If someone is homeless, you give them a place to stay, if they're hungry, you feed them. If they need help, you pitch in and if they're in pain, you comfort. Wouldn't it be great if the entire nation looked to each other like we in small towns do? What would the Democrats do if we took care of our own?
On a side note, Heather, I'm quite confident that the people in Randoph are going to know about this article, because I'm going to give a copy to the head of the Randolph grapevine after work tonight. ;-)
The difference between Iran and the other members of the NPT is that the leadership of Iran is the one claiming the divine right to "wipe Israel off the face of the map", and "we will be God's hand in destroying America (and West)". These are direct quotes. Also, the U.S. leads the U.N. in censoring Iran, not vice versus. So, with Iran voicing these threats, who would wait for "a real move toward nuclear weaponry" (your quote) when it may be too late? One more thing, just to be clear; I do not vote party lines, I'm not a Bushleaguer (P.J.), or anything like that. The U.S. needs to support itself and not worry about the world. I am solidly with hairyshoefairy on that one. So, in my point of view, there is no need for a United Nations, or any treaties for us to follow. What's your take?
Simply because I love a good debate I'll add two things to what Heather said:
1. First of all, Heather, you made a gross assumption in your title that simply because these people live in Utah that they are Mormons and therefore the Wash Post was saying that all Mormons are stupid and vote for Bush. I don't know the specific town that was talked about in this article, but I do know that plenty of Non Mormons live in Utah due to the beauty of the surroundings and the generosity of the people there. So unless this town is offically all Mormon, I think it's a reach to say that the Wash Post was stereotyping Mormons in this article.
2. I totally agree that the news is not objective - but no news we get these days is objective (and I'd argue that news in and of itself has never been objective). I saw countless newscasts during the election when Fox News (an oxymoron at best) painted some rich white New Englander as being liberal and therefore worthy of being villified. I'm a firm believer in reading the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times as I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Honestly, I don't think the average reader of the Washington Post would pick it up. There's what, only about 3% LDS in the DC metro area? Savvy readers might, but I don't think most would....Heather's title isn't supported by the article contents.
Heather O.,
A sincere question: Would you be as incensed about this article if it was worded exactly that same, but the town in question was Glendive, Montana instead of a small town in Utah?
I'm not defending the Post per se, it's a left-leaning paper and portraying the opposition as uninformed is hardly a one-party trick (FoxNews, I'm looking at you).
I think what you're reacting to is less the timbre of the article and more that you're concerned that people will stereotype all Mormons, including you, as backward and ignernt (you left the second 'n' out *g*) because the popular perception is that Utah = Mormon.
A fair concern, in my opinion, but not one I'd worry about too much. I can't imagine that most of the Post's readership has a high opinion of people in the red states to begin with. FoxNews was just bashing people at Columbia University for being anti-military and over-liberal; again, no shock to their audience
I bet money those people knew exactly what dijon mustard is. I bet money it was reverse snobbery on their part, looking down on the hot shots.
It's an example of the stupidity of the paper that they equate a non-knowledge of condiments with stupidity.
Very smart, well educated people can be stupid, just as easily as uneducated ones.
Bush--at the moment, I'm taking my time to decide.
"A sincere question: Would you be as incensed about this article if it was worded exactly that same, but the town in question was Glendive, Montana instead of a small town in Utah?"
Honestly, well, probably not. I haven't lived in Utah for well over 10 years, but I still feel connected to it. And of course, the title caught my attention, so I read the entire article, wheras if it had the word "Montana" in the headline, I probably would've just scanned it.
So I admit to an immediate knee-jerk reaction, but I don't think I'm overstating how ridiculous the article was. And no, it didn't specifically single out Mormons, as my title to this post might suggest, but as was pointed it, they did talk about the one Non-Mormon and the 3 African Americans as their idea of "diversity". Clearly, the Post was making a point that this small town knows nothing about diversity, and treated their statements as a bit of a joke.
Linus' Blanket said,
"Honestly, I don't think the average reader of the Washington Post would pick it up. There's what, only about 3% LDS in the DC metro area? Savvy readers might, but I don't think most would....Heather's title isn't supported by the article contents."
Wow. You clearly don't spend very much time in DC, do you. I would say most people who take The Post pride themselves on being savvy readers, and I would also venture to say that there are more than %3 LDS here. We're everywhere! My title of this post might have been stretching it, but don't underestimate the average reader of The Post!
Jamisue--thanks for your comments! Always great to have you around.
I am one of the "ignernt" people who live in Randolph. I thought the article written by Mr. Finkel in the Post did a pretty good job of portraying us as a bunch of "mindless idiots". I mean everyone knows that Dijon mustard is...right?
I am not stupid! I take my voting seriously! I've voted in every election I could since I was old enough to vote. I vote for the candidate that I think will represent me and my ideals the best. In the last two elections, I felt that George Bush did this the best. I'm a registered Republican voter but if I thought a Democrat would represent me better I would vote for him/her. If the Democrats want my Republican vote they better throw someone other than Gore or Kerry at me for a choice.
I was offended by Mr. Finkel's comment that the War on Terrorism hasn't touched us because we haven't had to attend funerals because of it. More than one young man from this area has served in the military. Mr. Finkel chose to write about just one of them. This community has always supported our country's effort during war and peace time. Mr. Finkel should have taken the time to visit the war memorial located directly in front of the courthouse so he could see just how many young men and women from this area have given their lives for the cause of freedom.
We aren't stupid! We are proud loving people who choose to take care of our own (that's why there aren't homeless people lying around the streets)and who refuse to blame the government and George Bush for every bad thing that happens in our lives.
Since this article appeared in the Post, I've read many blogs that link to it. Many of them are very unfriendly about the people of Randolph. Several people have commented that they are glad they don't live here. To those people I say....you live where you want to live and I will live where I want to live. I've been to Washington D.C. and frankly....I'd choose Randolph over it anyday.
I'm not stupid because I live in Randolph. I'm not from another planet. I certainly don't go through life with my head buried in the sand avoiding the issues. Oh and guess what? I even know what Dijon mustard is!!!
Anonymous fron Randolph-
Thanks for your comments! And hopefully you realize that I don't think you're stupid. I think The Washington Post is stupid for printing the article and portraying your town that way.
Ah, thank you d-train. Well said. I must put my head in the sand and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
I must admit though, I am genuinely confused when people say they like President Bush. Not voting for him the second time made me feel a little better (although it does no good in Utah). Really, what do people like about him?
I don't know if most people necessarily liked him. I think they thought he was the best option. I know I did. The alternative left me with the impression of a sleazy conman. Just my impression. I thought Bush was the better option.
Agree with anonymous
"I vote for the candidate that I think will represent me and my ideals the best. In the last two elections, I felt that George Bush did this the best. I'm a registered Republican voter but if I thought a Democrat would represent me better I would vote for him/her. If the Democrats want my Republican vote they better throw someone other than Gore or Kerry at me for a choice."
As far as Randolf. I live in DC and what I've discovered by interacting with many people here is that unless you are a lawyer and heavily into politics you are an idiot. Forget any education you have or anything along those lines. If you are not politicking you are an idiot and you opinions are worthless. So don't worry about it Randolf it's a prevelant theme here! Also if you are into law and politicking and haven't made it to the national arena you are still an idiot (not my opinion so don't get mad a me, just saying).
As a former resident of Randolph, Utah, I was incensed at the WAPO article.
I decided to post my response on my own blog. You can view it here if you would like.
I happen to love this president, does that mean that I have my head in the sand... I don't think so. I happen to have a nephew that is serving his second tour in IRAQ, so don't you dare tell me that I have my head in the sand. I voted for him twice for the pure and simple reason that this man believes in God, he has faith, He believes in being inspired, he is not afraid to stand for what he thinks is right. Has he back pedaled on the war, no, is he perfect no, but I tell you I would rather have a man in office that has a shown faith in God, than a man that belittles anyone that has faith, and that is how I have felt about the last two democratic challengers.
As to the Newspaper article, what do you think people think when they see a "Utah Town"? MORMON'S, that's right, is there anywhere else in the nation where religion is such a dominate focus in anything? So you tell me what reader's are going to think, I don't even think they will think Hicktown, but those "stupid" mormon's that vote republican. I have heard it plenty here in this state, that US dumb mormon's and our support for President Bush. You wonder why we are so sensitive. Just live here for awhile, and any democrat calls a conservitive republican stupid for voting for Bush, you get kind of tired of hearing it after awhile.
Yeah a rant, so sorry.
I am the MOTHER of Tigersue's nephew, and frankly let me say that I continually wonder about the "intelligent" people that know what Dijon mustard is, or that just disagree with "everything" that this president does, but hey support a man who voted for something before he voted against is, or trashed his fellow servicemen CONTINUALLY through all these years, OR even better, a charming adulterer that COMMITTED perjury on the stand and then had OTHER people do the same thing, but HEAVEN forbid that we actually LIKE this president
I mean.. we STUPID mormons from Utah, (actually BORN and raised in the to the left heaven of Canada, so I KNOW the insantiy that someone like the condscending, insulting people on this thread would continue to espouse for us) Yeah.. we prefer a president that gets on his knees to pray, rather than getting young interns on their knees for something other than prayer.
"Sorry if I sound bitter, but I am sick of this President and his lies."
Wow. That's what I was saying 8 years ago. You know, when our President actually was impeached for committing a crime.
...and if you think Clinton wasn't spying on people, then you, also, have your head in the sand. Every president has listened in since the technology was available. This isn't new. It isn't good, but it isn't new.
You folks are gonna love me.
d-train, that was a COMPLIMENTARY INSULT. You went right back to saying exactly what you disclaimed, only just a little "lighter"; insulation is only likely to produce support for Bush. Oh, thank you. That's so much better.
Who is anyone so adept at dispensing insults and not being called on it (until now) to say the Post isn't insulting anyone? Hello, hypocrisy? And despite the reasoned responses to this (among them outrage), the hypocrisy continues. Liberals, your new presidential candidate is SHUT F. UP.
You also contradict yourself. On one hand you say there are intelligent people supporting Bush and on the other hand you say the best way to support him is to put your head in the sand.
a spectator: You're twisting words. Heather is saying that not caring about insulting histrionics is a wise course of action. You can't win against it. You also give a COMPLIMENTARY INSULT in your sentence ending with "stupid". And this all isn't to say that I'm not perhaps stupid, or mabye just idealistic enough to suppose I could effectively rebut such low tactics.
Now again d-train you declaim. No, it wasn't just an analogy. It was a scathing insult.
And you're right, Heather may not have wanted a detailed political debate here. So shut up. You're spouting flames worse than anybody's.
There are some extremely strong arguments that the EU is an absolute joke that is impossible to negotiate with. Hello, France and Germany sold arms to Saddam in exchange for oil. Which two nations have been some of the most negatively outspoken agianst the Iraq invastion? Yup.
Your argument about the NPT supporting Iran seems to make sense. Take note however that the dictator of Iran unequivocally declared his intents recently in stating that the Israeli people should be wiped off the world map. Goodbye, "security interests". Hello, genocidal maniac.
And what "real move" towards nuclear weaponry? That's been happening for years! Where were you?
Don't comment further. One view has been presented, now another, and I know from experience someone as capable as you in starting up a "conversation" so harshly with such insults is not going to retract their view. We know what you think now. So shut up.
jen, if a president has to come from the same background as his constituents to do a good job, Bill Clinton seriously messed some things up. That's an erroneous argument. I don't see Bush doing any self-portrayals either. He is who he is.
shazaam, you are wrong. The article is a blue insulting reds. It hones in on the fact that one person doesn't know something (as if mustard is somehow extremely relevant to presidential politics) because between the lines is the message which they don't have to write: myths and biases of "ignorant" do it for them.
anonymous, you ask us to mind our own business at the same time that you don't mind the Washington Post not minding it's own business by probing to such insulting depths.
jamisue, you also offer COMPLIMENTARY INSULTS. This seems to be the order of the month, or something - without mustard. The point you miss about people you live right near is that they are not "insulated from the real world" - their world *is* the real world, and I agree with the points you make about small-town virtues.
louis: Thanks for the point on Iran's genocide agenda.
d-train prattles on: "but I'd just point out that the right is just as guilty of fear politics and demagoguery as the left is of pervasive cynicism and addiction to opposition." - yeah, like your COMPLIMENTARY INSULT. - which you wisely retract. Halleluhah and it's about time. Your summary of nuclear arms reduction efforts was useful.
anonymous, that doesn't quite work. If the folks in the article weren't mormons, the article would point it out, because most folks in Utah are mormons, and the assumption that they are is what the article plays into, as well as other assumptions about small-town people. Stricly you are right that the Post didn't stereotype: they don't need to. They just need to say a few basic details and let the stereotypes they conjure fill out the insults.
hairyshoefairy, good observation.
linus's blanket is wrong.
chad too: You say "I can't imagine that most of the Post's readership has a high opinion of people in the red states to begin with." - that's exactly what the Post plays into. They don't have to argue that small-town red-staters are devoid of reality: that astonishingly predomenant liberal myth is something they need only subtly play into. The whole idea is already there. That you don't see this of the liberal court discredits you to criticise Fox's representation of liberals.
annedb, you are wise.
anonymous from Randolph, you rock.
heidi: that was a COMPLIMENTARY INSULT.
david b., tigersue, you rock.
noelie: Nice contrast. Very nice.
bx10475: You are lost. Kerry is not a war hero. You say it is well-documented but you don't say where. Read UNFIT FOR COMMAND. Kerry invented the stories that got him all his medals, and scores of his veteran comrades swear to it. If a president has to serve in a war to lead a nation, throw out half the presidents in history dude. And I don't think you're very sorry that you are bitter. And you don't have the time to make your case because you don't have one other than undocumented surmises.
jeremiah: Your hypothetical question about Fox pulling the same subtle stabs doesn't work because Fox actually understands and appreciates small-towners. That said, though actually for that reason, the answer to your question is no: if Fox did that, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's about the source and the method. As I've said the details play into stereotypes. Additionally, the lack of details that would counter the stereotype maintain the stereotype.
When a conservative station reads the names of the dead, they play patriotic music. When a liberal station does it, they play a dirge.
You say: "Would a story about how the minority of Americans who support Bush are religious, uncynical, small-town, patriotic people be an attempt to paint these people as stupid?" - no, not unless it mentioned some small and obvious thing someone dind't know. Saying someone doesn't know something conjures the unspoken rhetorical question of "well if they don't know that, what do they know?" - with the snide, brutal answer of "not much." The other things you ask if Randolph folks would like the paper to write the paper didn't write; it's moot.
In your last paragraph you state your subjective viewpoint as fact. So much for pretensions of lacking bias.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home