The Belgian View of America

Last Saturday, Belgian TV journalists Coninx and Van Wijck hosted a panel on their TV show to analyze the results of the recent U.S. presidential elections.  Guests were Alison Woodward, American sociology professor teaching in Brussels, Tom Naegels, left-leaning columnist, and Karel De Gucht, Belgian Foreign Affairs Minister.  I made a transcript of their conversation, so that my American readers may know what is being said about them on Belgian state-funded television.  (bittorrent of the segment, 115Mb, in Dutch)

Next time you are wondering where some Europeans get their ideas about America, remember that many of us get nothing but this kind of "information" on our TV screens and in our newspapers.

Read on and marvel at journalist Alain Coninx openly wondering if Americans are "retarded" for being so religious, professor Alison Woodward claiming we have state-churches in Europe and Karel De Gucht, our Foreign Affairs minister, stating that the outside world barely exists for most of middle America.  And according to Frieda Van Wijck, the other journalist, most Bush voters cast their ballot out of religious motives...

Key:

VW = Frieda Van Wijck
AW = Alison Woodward
CX = Alain Coninx
DG = Karel De Gucht
TN = Tom Naegels

 

VW:  Mrs. Woodward, you are American and sociologist.  What surprised a lot of Europeans, I think is that the Americans who chose for Bush are mostly newborn Christians and evangelicals.  That the choice for Bush had mostly to do with religous principles.

AW: I think it mostly had to do with moral principles. There have been opinion polls and this election was half about the economy and half about the war and moral questions about the war.  And I think these moral issues have had the upper hand in the outcome of the election.

VW: Is America such a religous country then?

AW: One of the biggest differences between America and Europe is that America is indeed a very religious country.  There have been surveys, the European Values Study (?) about the values of people in the world and the Americans are always distinct from the other countries, the developed countries, based on their religion.

CX: We have to be mindfull what we say, but are they a bit retarded? When I hear they don't accept the theory of evolution...  Some at least.

AW: Some.  That is the biggest problem.  Some don't accept it.  I wouldn't call it retarded neccessarily.  Of course America is also one of the biggest scientific powerhouses of the world, so there are a lot of Americans that are not "retarded".  But in the population that believes in the traditional fundamentalist version...

VW: Why is it that Americans are so religious anyway?

AW: There are different theories.  One is that there is a kind of market-principle at work with religion in America.  In Europe we have state-churches (ed.: We do?), in American you can choose your faith like your house.  People change their religion as adults.  39% of Americans have chosen for newborn Christianity, and many of these people have converted to another religion as adults.

CX: Maybe there is nothing wrong with that?

VW: No of course not, but...

TN: No there is nothing wrong with that, I think. It doesn't make sense to talk about it anyway, because as long as people don't break the law everybody chooses which values to adhere to.

DG: What you also have to take into account, is that in America faith has become a consumption article.  Many of these churches preach via TV and local stations, which explains why many people regularily change churches.  It has become a consumption article, and he who has the most charisma as preacher attracts most members, and they also pay for this.  Two thirds of Americans are member of a church, pay for a church.  So it is embedded for a part in moral conviction, which also has to do with the closed character of America.  America is a very closed country, turned inward, not turned to the outside world.  It also has to do with the commercializing of the faith which plays into, in a sort of perfidious way, what is the mainstream undercurrent of the Americans, namely commerce, activity and taking your own initiative.  It is really plugged into that.

VW: What I also found surprising is that there were so many people who got their information from the internet.  Are good newspapers not available everywhere in the U.S. then?

AW: No, not really.  You have seen the large middle part of America that went largely for Bush, and that is also where print-media is not wel represented.  The "good" newspapers are on the coasts: the LA Times, the Washington Post, the NY Times.  And those are not spread in the middle, except if you have a special subscription.  So most newspapers are local products, made with things from the wire services like Reuters or AP and now and then a NYT article.  But people don't read "the big news".

DG: And the TV channels (?).  CNN is mostly about international politics, but even NBC is way less about international politics, barely even.  So in the middle of America, the outside world doesn't exist or hardly.  The only thing that exists is their commander in chief that wages war and attacks Afghanistan and Iraq as reprisal for 911.  That's the image that lives with the average American.  While reality is somewhat more nuanced, of course.

CX: Too little Enlightenment, even there?

DG: Maybe also too little information.

CX: That goes together?

DG:  Look, we've had this discussion four years ago about counting votes.  Back then everybody wondered how it was possible in such a developed country that is at the top of technology that they couldn't count votes.  And now they almost had the same thing in Ohio.  That shows the two sides of America: on the one side an incredibly developed society, cosmopolitan, on the forefront of technology and next to that you have a large number of Americans that live very rurally, who still live from agriculture, are turned inwards and for who the outside world hardly exists.

VW: How did they then have such a record turnout for this election, Mrs. Woodward?

AW:  It has been said that the Republicans have organised an incredible machine during the last eight years.  They were already successful in the last elections, and now they have translated this into an enormous organisation, also in the small and middle-size towns in America.  It used to be that the Democrats were best in driving up turnout, but now Republicans have also played their (?), with their voters: primarily old people, certainly people of the church.  Going to church is the biggest passtime in the U.S.

VW: That was the idea of Karl Rove, Bush's adviser, to go to the evangelicals?

AW: Yes, the so-called architect of the election, with a very organised machine coming from various church-communities and volunteer-centres they have gotten people on the streets and got S.U.V.'s to drive retirees to the ballot box.  An impressive machine on the day of the election.

VW: Has the American electorate changed a lot in the past 20 years?

AW: America changed a lot during the past 20 years.  Demographically speaking there has been a shift.  Among other things, in my day when I lived there, the African-Americans were the biggest minority group and now the Latino's are a bigger group than the African Americans.  They now make up 14% and the African-Americans only 12%.  The white American is more and more under pressure.  The scared white man is a reality in the U.S.  He now really is a minority compared to all the other ethnic groups that have come in during the last 20 years.   Every year  more than one million immigrants come to the U.S.

VW: And are they predominantly Democrats or Republicans?

AW: It's mixed.  Cubans tend to vote Republican.  They are businessmen, are well educated, have a decent income.  So the Latino vote is split fifty-fifty.  Mexican-Americans vote predominantly Democratic, and then there are upper-middle class Latino's that will vote more for a Bush.

DG: It also seems a bit too simplistic to just look at the makeup of the American population and the fact that it is for a large part conservative.  There are at least two other things in play.  First the figure of Kerry as opposed to the figure of Bush.  Kerry is... a farmer isn't appealed to by Kerry... he is a lawyer from Boston that can plead fantastically, but who is a way to pycnic type, that is not "round" enough, even litteraly.

VW: The man didn't have much charisma, of course.

DG:  He didn't have charisma.  Put Clinton up against Bush, and I'd like to see the result, because now it is 51-49.  People call it a big landslide for Bush.  No, it is 51 versus 49.  That is my second conclusion: there is a clear split in America, fifty fifty, and which way it goes has a lot to do with the candidate that is proposed.  Kerry clearly wasn't the right candidate for the Democrats.  The question is, where was that candidate?  Where are those potential presidential candidates?

CX: A woman?

VW: Hillary?

DG: If Mrs. Clinton... it would be progress for history if a woman became president of America, but Mrs. Clinton, according to me, doesn't stand a chance to become president of America.

VW: Not even in the next election?

AW: No, certainly not.  The women in America, our electoral system, is clearly anti-woman.  You have 14% of the senate that is female.  So here it is not much better.  The house of representatives, I think, is 13% women now, a slight gain.  But with the governors it went backwards. We have seven [female] governors in the U.S. and so I don't see a female president becoming a reality in the next ten years, and certainly not Hillary Clinton.

CX: Good.

VW: Here it is much better, but we have other problems...

CX: Yes, in the Netherlands for example...

(here the next segment follows, a debate on the murder of Theo Van Gogh)

Comments

[Thomas Galvin]

That transcript was unbelievable. It was maddening and then after a while, it started to make me laugh.

This "educated" group came across as highly uninformed and prone to reacting to stereotypes - the kind of accusation that liberals always hurl at conservatives.

I found your blog via a link from Michelle Malkin. It's a great blog and I've added it to my blogroll. Keep up the good work!

[Joseph Murphy]

I would like to thank Belgian state-funded television for the above comedy skit.

I believe this article, by Michael Coren, a Brit living in Canada, pretty much explains why George Bush was re-elected to a second term as president.

Sat, November 6, 2004
The 'hicks' bit back.

The icons of glamour and glitz all said John Kerry was the only choice for people with any intelligence -- but Middle America didn't care, says Michael Coren.

By MICHAEL COREN

Ben Affleck changed the world this week.
No, of course I don't mean that a tedious movie star actually changed international events. I mean that he personifies why George Bush and the Republicans won the election.

They won because Middle America bit back. Simple as that.

Middle America bit back. The abused, the marginalized and the mocked decided that they had had enough. Those taken for granted, those patronized, those treated with disdain voted to no longer play the silent victim.

For months a daft coalition of the extremely willing played their guitars, sang their songs and read their Hollywood statements about Iraq, oil, the evil George Bush and the foolishness of the American people. They would deny, of course, that they accused their fellow Americans of being stupid, but this is precisely what they did.

True understanding and enlightenment, it seemed, only came after you'd appeared in a sequel to a superhero movie or seen your last album go platinum. Bruce Springsteen might claim to be an ordinary working man, but ordinary working men don't have bank accounts the size of Rhode Island.

The assembled pop stars and actors meant no harm when they demanded that Americans vote Democrat, but what they were really saying was that only certain people really get it. Michael Moore got it. Rosie O'Donnell got it. Academics at universities got it. Howard Stern got it.
Yes, Howard Stern. America listened to Stern and his giggling sidekick explain why only a "retard" would vote for George Bush. In between fart noises and references to naked lesbians, this tired peddler of smut made fun of people who spoke with southern accents and voted on "moral issues."

The clever people at the mainstream television networks, the stylish types in New York and Los Angeles, the icons of glamour and glitz all said that John Kerry was the only choice for a person with any intelligence. As for those ignorant evangelicals, those stupid church-going Catholics, those family-values fools, those dumb redneck hicks, they weren't real Americans.
Then, in the smiling twilight of the new political morning, the unwashed told their betters to shove it.

They realized that their kind were smart and sophisticated enough to storm the beaches of Normandy and wrestle Europe from the Nazis and Asia from the Japanese fascists. They realized that they were suave and urbane enough to work the farms, make the cars, drive the cabs, do the work.

An epiphany.

Middle America experienced an epiphany. We are not bigots or yokels just because we believe in the family and in traditional virtues and values. We are not hateful merely because we support our troops and cry when we hear the national anthem.

Working-class Americans began to ask some questions. They wondered why wealthy, white entertainers, artists and, I'm sure, freelance manufacturers of organic yogurt, were announcing that they would leave the United States if George Bush won the election.

Imagine that. If democracy didn't provide the result they wanted, these selfish rich kids would run away to Canada or Britain.

Is that patriotism? Middle America didn't remember Republicans threatening to leave when Bill Clinton won a second term.

Middle America grew tired of the insults. We're not voting out of fear, they said, we don't accept every word we hear from the government and we're not so easily manipulated. Stop telling us that we don't understand what's going on.

We've raised kids and paid mortgages and we resent listening to lectures, especially when delivered by an actress with a vacant smile and a copy of Socialism For Beginners.

Tired of the critics.

Middle America shouted its impatience. It wasn't that it so liked George Bush, more that it was so tired of Bush's critics.

Middle America remembered a time when actors, singers and writers reflected the nation. These performers no longer aspired to reflect but to reshape it in their own narcissistic image.
John Kerry was too close to that clan, too much part of the culture of smug assumption.

It wasn't George Bush who was the victor last week, but men and women who stood up and announced to the self-defined elites that "the people" is not a concept but a flesh-and-blood reality. And one that bites back.

[MichelP]

Well, Belgium is a pretty religious country too -unfortunately it's now the religion of Islam.

Any chance of the Flemish and Wallons putting their differences aside long enough to realize there's a burglar stealing their house?

(AW: No, not really. You have seen the large middle part of America that went largely for Bush, and that is also where print-media is not well represented. The "good" newspapers are on the coasts: the LA Times, the Washington Post, the NY Times. And those are not spread in the middle, except if you have a special subscription. So most newspapers are local products, made with things from the wire services like Reuters or AP and now and then a NYT article. But people don't read "the big news".)

Ms. Woodward - who claims to be an American "sociologist"; clearly does not spend much time here. Here in Ohio, we actually do have some local newspapers, although their circulation is falling. Interactive cable TV started in Columbus, OH over thirty years ago. Most people have either analog cable (with about 70 channels), digital cable (with several hundred) channels, or satellite (with several hundred channels). Each of these include at least a dozen news networks. About 50% of the homes in central Ohio have broadband Internet access, most of the rest have dial-up. So somehow people here manage to stay informed. Pretty amazing, given that we lack ready access to the fine liberal wisdom contained in the "dead-tree" editions of the coastal papers.

[Doug]

It's scandalous that your Foreign Affairs minister is so absolutely ignorant about the United States. The views expressed on this television program are so wrong that I must conclude it is a deliberate deception, designed to manipulate the viewers. I wonder if such crude propaganda will work?

[Angie Schultz]

It's not really shocking that a foreign affairs minister would have so little understanding of the US. There are a lot of countries, and he can't understand them all deeply. What's shocking is that he (and all of them) gets on the TV and babbles on as if he knows what he's talking about, when he clearly doesn't. I see this time and time again in the European media.

I liked the part about the US being anti-woman. Earlier today I read a blog commenter who'd overheard some o' them racist redneck wife-beaters saying (with approval) that Condoleezza Rice was going to kick Hillary Clinton's ass in 2008.

About the newspapers: the wire services sell national and international (as opposed to local) news to papers everywhere in the US, as do the larger newspapers. That's why you regularly see Washington Post or New York Times stories in, say, the Houston Chronicle.

This is obvious from the most casual inspection of newspaper articles; you don't need to be a flippin' sociologist to know it.

As for state churches, in Britain they do indeed have a state church, the Anglican Church (though that may just be in England). The Queen is Defender of the Faith (for whatever that's worth), and there is Anglican religious instruction in state schools. This doesn't mean that you have to join the church or die, of course.

This article

http://www.fact-index.com/s/st/state_religion.html

has a table indicating that the following European nations still have established ("state") churches:

Andorra, Denmark, England, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Malta, Norway, Scotland, and Spain. Their information may be out of date, of course, or just plain wrong.

[Adriane]

This would not be the same Foreign Minister that wants the ever-generous citizens of Belgium to pick up the tab for his Porsche, would it?

[LVB]

One thing about the claim about "state churches": it is true. In Belgium, a number of religions are officially recognized by the state, and financed by the state! The wages of catholic, protestant, orthodox, jewish and islamic priests/rabbi's/imams are paid by the state, hence by the tax payer.

A parliamentary commission has identified a number of "sects".

See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27828.htm Section 2 point c about the state of religious freedom in Belgium.

[Maarten Schenk]

Luc,

Being recognized or given money by the state does not mean you are a state church by definition. A state church means that your head of state is also head of the church, like in England, or that church and state hierarchy are closely intertwined.

She was talking about Belgium here, remember? Albert II is not a bishop and cardinal Daneels is not the king, hence no state church.

[LVB]

I just wonder if you can have real freedom of religion when the state recognizes some religions, and some not.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/state%20religion

"A state religion (also called an established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state".

You're right, in Belgium the state does not *endorse* any religion, but it financially supports some religions.

[Angie Schultz]

> She was talking about Belgium here, remember?

No, she was talking about Europe.

"In Europe we have state-churches..."

[SCSIwuzzy]

I love that "all of the good papers" are the leftist rags like the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. How many people in the EU subscribe to papers written, editted and published hundreds to thousands of km away, maybe even on the far side of the continent?
And while the commentators are scorning the people who get their news from the internet, I've found most of the people that do so are better informed about world and national events than the people who subscribe to the "good papers" and leave it at that.
This whole thing says alot more about the "elite thinkers" over in Belgium than it does about America :)

Does Alison Woodward originate from America? In that case it's an American who's sharing that "info" with Europeans. Then don't blame the Europeans for being wrong informed. In the other case I keep my mouth shut.

[arizona9]

What I love is the contunued myth making about the religious right. Evangelicals didn't vote in higher percentages than they did in 2000. In fact, they were exactly the same. What these idiots don't realize is Bush managaed to pull people who voted for Gore in the last election. Look at the numbers in New York, Connecticut and even Massachusets-in every case Bush got more of the vote than he did the last time. New York and Connecticut are NOT the bible belt. But, hell, it's so much easier to bash Americans than deal with the facts.

[JAB]

It always amuses me when I hear Americans don't understand Europeans. Perhaps we don’t, but that surely works both ways. So let me confuse you a little more.

Because the first Americans left Europe to escape religious prosecution, we still have strong religious traditions. That's just a part of our culture, but not our government. And the majority of people in the States are not devoutly religious contrary to what some would have you believe.

To really understand us, you must understand our Constitution. For example, you may find it strange that the Constitution of the United States does not grant rights or freedoms to individuals. Yes, it was written to establish a government, but moreover, to limit the powers of that government over individuals. Because certain individual rights are inalienable, our founding fathers believed no government can grant those freedoms. All humans have the right of free speech by virtue of their very existence. How can a government give you a right you already have? That no government has the right to take those individual freedoms away is what Americans cherish.

So, in that way our Constitution leans heavily toward the rights of the individual. Hence, this country has always balanced the rights of the individual versus the good of the many in a way that favors the individual. The reason: to protect the individual from the tyranny of the mob which is what pure democracy can often become. Perhaps you can understand why we tend to stay somewhat conservative on issues of welfare, individual property rights, etc.

I often hear Europeans talk about the U.S. being a democracy. It is not. We are a Constitutional Republic with strong democratic principals. What you may also find strange is that nothing in the Constitution gives any American the right to vote for a President. Only the individual States have that right. Today, we have the Electoral College. The Constitution says that a state can pick their electoral voters any way they choose. That’s up to the state legislature, not the federal government. For example, if the State Legislature of Ohio voted to send the first 20 people named in the Dayton telephone book to the Electoral College, it would be perfectly legal. In reality, that won’t happen.
I know most Europeans find this odd, but there are good reasons for having the Electoral College. One is so smaller states have a say in Washington.

As a country we have always been a dysfunctional family, even beginning in 1776. We have always disagreed, and that’s not going to change. So this last election was just an extension of our political process. But during our elections -- the time when Europe is paying close attention -- they always seem to get a distorted view about us. The Hollywood crowd you see on television hardly represents America. They are far removed from the mainstream public. And the British newspapers are absolutely clueless as to who we really are. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote our Declaration of Independence, once said that those who don’t read newspapers are better informed that those who do. How true!

What newspapers don’t tell you is this: According to a recent Gallup poll, of all the college graduates who voted this election, 58% voted for Bush. Contrast that fact to another, that the vast majority of Hollywood stars never went to college, and many never finished high school. That’s exactly why, for the most part, they all think alike. Most people in American think of Hollywood as being nothing more than our national collection of court jesters, Michael Moore included.

So why will American remain conservative? The Democrat Party, the oldest party in America, has also been the most dysfunctional party in American History. Will Rogers once said, “I don’t belong to any organized political party . . . I’m a Democrat.” It’s not likely they will organize soon. And when they do, they will have to run more conservative candidates. Don’t count on that happening for a long while.

[JAB]

Regarding the comments about Americans being retarded because they don't read the New York Times, 1.6 million do buy it. The other 293 million of us do not. In recent months fact checking at the NYT before a story is run leaves much to be desired.

And no, most Americans are not interested in Europe. In fact, most Americans are about as interested in Europe as most Europeans are interested in America. Otherwise, Europeans wouldn't ask such ignorant questions about America.

[Erik]

Dear Europe, What you send out to others ( America, Israel, Evangelic Christians, freethinkers, etc.) will come back to you with a feriousity the will top other historical debacles your society has created. That seed (Muslimfascism) in the fertile degenerate European soil has burst into your new "Euro-Third Way," day. My prayer, save those exceptions (you Blessed Fighters and Freethinker bloggers from all over the world, whatever your backgrounds) who prove the rule. And you can change the world.

[beo]

JAB - I couldn't have put it any better. One thing to add though: the Americans living along the Left Coast and in New England don't understand America much better than the Europeans. The problem is that they have never even visited the "heart of America." I'm from Oklahoma. I've traveled to every state in the US, half the provinces of Canada, Mexico, Britain, and France. I feel qualified (at least a bit) to make rational, reasoned judgements about such places and peoples. Far too many people in Europe (and parts of the US) receive their only information about the world from the media. The people in this "interview" don't have a clue what happens in Texas or Missouri or Colorado, because they've never even been there. They are receiving the filtered, opinionated viewpoints of other ignorant people and assembling them into the canonical "truth" of what must be. The "American" sociologist admits to not having been in the US for a while, and when she was, odds are REAL good that she lived in an extremely liberal section of the east or west coast. The notion that these so-called "cosmopolitan" people who never leave their bubble of like-minded ignorants would call ME ignorant or backward is beyond astounding. The hypocrisy is amazing, but the irony is amusing. Yet, they still don't get it, and likely never will. I welcome any European (or New Yorker, for that matter) to come visit "middle America." I'd love to give people tours of the real world.

[JAB]

beo,

Thanks for your comments. I'm a conservative who grew up in the deep south, so, like you, I'm keenly aware of how corrupted the perceptions of main street American can be.

[Desider]

1) Ummm, the NY Times really ain't that great either.
Frequently panders to Bush and his slanted statistics.

2) Germany has a (10%?) church-tithing handled by the state,
makes it easier getting valuable church support when you're
in trouble. Don't know if that makes it a state-church or whatever.

3) Americans hate others telling them what to do. It's cultivated
to a highly neurotic stage. Can cause Americans to attack, be
careful feeding.

4) CNN international is the enlightenment compared to CNN in the
domestic US. Hard to find a real critique of US operations abroad.
Any analysis of Afghanistan for example starts with "of course it's
so much better now", forget about analysing that premise to see if
it's really true.

5) Of course Republicans like painting "Red" states and pretending
it's only liberals insulting conservatives. (Who started the
"Fellow Traveller" business anyway?). Fact is there's either a large
minority (40%+) in most states or even a majority for some Democrat
candidates in those same states (a number of states went for a
Democrat governor and Democratic legislatures, for example). Alabama
is not completely knee-jerk bible thumper.

6) It is curious for some of us that a country that worried in 1960
whether the Pope would tell the President what to do is not worried
about Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson saying what to do. Or Jesse Jackson
for that matter. None of these have a perfect track record by any means.

7) Perhaps the American media is not so much anti-woman as anti-Democratic
candidates' spouses. Hillary Clinton (lesbian), Howard Dean's (why won't she
go on the campaign trail?), Kerry's (why won't she leave the campaign trail?),
Tipper Gore (well, she might have deserved it with her over-the-top parental
guidance stickers). Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Elizabeth Dole, no problems.
Nancy Reagan a bit, but her "Just Say No" and involvement with firing Donald
Regan/arranging the cabinet involved her in more than being a spouse.

8) Nice for world-wise conservatives to understand that anyone supporting Kerry
was from the coasts, was part of Hollywood or a shielded news announcer, who constantly
insult those on the other side and want terrorists to win.

"For months a daft coalition of the extremely willing played their guitars, sang their songs and read their Hollywood statements about Iraq, oil, the evil George Bush and the foolishness of the American people. They would deny, of course, that they accused their fellow Americans of being stupid, but this is precisely what they did."

A nice example, especially since this one follows it up with "Middle America experienced an epiphany. We are not bigots or yokels just because we believe in the family and in traditional virtues and values. We are not hateful merely because we support our troops and cry when we hear the national anthem."

Brilliant. Now explain how turning a surplus into a huge huge huge deficit helps your family.
I remember traditional virtues and values in Alabama as taking care of your own house, which
might mean spending within your means. Supporting our troops would mean taking care to make
troops fight for good causes and making sure they had all they needed when they went to war.
I.e. Planning. We did it in WWII, and everything turned out well, even though costly. We didn't
do it in Vietnam, and well, at least some think it went badly (only those Kerry supporters, I
guess). I had thought Republicans were against government invasion of privacy, but the PATRIOT
ACT turns that on its head. I had thought that Republicans were against nation building, but
boy was I wrong. I thought the Republicans were against government subsidies, but recent increases
in handouts to oil, agriculture, steel, airlines seem to counter that theory. And I thought that
Republicans were against big government, but most of the jobs in the "job recovery" have been
in the government sector.

No, you're not stupid - you certainly know how to organize and turn out votes.
But until you answer all the contradictions in your supposed political stances, how you
seem to be working against the very values you pretend to support, we can imagine
that you're not terribly sensible. You're welcome to answer the questions or you
can simply pretend someone's insulting you and act defensive.

PS - where I come from, we forgive the sinner, but we may not give him the keys
to the truck. At least we didn't back then.