Junk Mail

I just got an ad for a free, no obligation issue of the National Review. I didn't remember that the National Review was a right-wing nut case free for all, so I read the pamphlet they sent. Here's a sampling of the idiocy:

"If you care enough about what's happening in America to learn the truth about how our school children are being relentlessly brainwashed about global warming, or why single women will be the most 'popular girls' in the 2008 election... We cordially invite you to enjoy our next illuminating issue..."

Ah yes, I'd love to be illuminated on how global warming is some left-wing conspiracy. But what I'd really like to see some light shed on is this onerous reference to single women and the troubling tone of disdain in the mocking and belittling reference to them as 'popular' and 'girls.' Why is this a cause for alarm among the right wing crazies? I mean, I know they are crazy, but fearing single women? That's... even more crazy than I gave them credit for.

They finish the 4-page long diatribe against people representing dolphins at the UN, against "Left Wing Grannies Who Just Won't Shut Up," and against European countries supporting their Muslim constituents as if they were human, with this little nugget in a bold, red-lettered "P.S.":

"Single Females constitute more than a quarter of the voting population, angry as hornets and overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton."

I'm trying to figure out why THIS, among the many exaggerated "issues" that disgust the writer of this letter, is the most important one.

Single women. What could be so frightening about them? Could it be that they are women who have learned to make a living on their own? Could it be that they are educated? Could the sheer audacity of a woman earning a degree to support herself be so disgusting that it becomes the selling point of a national magazine, clearly geared toward those who prefer their women married and without their own vote?

Angry as hornets they are, those single women. You know, single women have for centuries been stereotyped -- first as witches -- then as hysterics, neurasthenics, and now angry hysterical neurasthenics who make money and have an education. In fact, recent scholars have pointed out that the witch hunts in Europe and the colonies were overwhelmingly directed toward single women with property. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this stupid little ignorant letter is a witch hunt, but I am saying its fear and anger towards independent women is nothing new and has sometimes been rather deadly for some women.

Just yesterday I heard David Mamet in an interview say that 50% of the population can't be wrong all the time; in other words, to be Republican or Democrat often means cutting yourself off from some good ideas. But how does this 50% resign itself to the this hate-filled spew? It is not a minority view; the National Review is often cited as the voice of the right. Not to mention, I hear this crap every day from the likes of Joe Scarborough, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Pat Buchanan. This can't just be disowned as a minority voice drowning out all the otherwise able-thinking conservatives. Where are those able-thinking conservatives?

Let's face it. Conservative means staying the course, keeping things as people wished they used to be. And the way things were --and are -- aren't all that good for a lot of Americans. Apparently, single women are too progressive for many conservatives. And as we hear everyday, there's a new swing voter out there: the "working class white male" who typically sways for Clinton or McCain. The media asks, how can Obama win this important vote? Last week NPR did a special on working class whites in Indiana. One man said, "I really don't like Bush, so I can't vote for McCain. Now I have to decide between a woman and a black." The National Review ad said what it was able to; 40 years ago that letter could have easily been up in arms that blacks were going to the polls now that the liberal government has promised to protect them with their "Civil Rights Act."

I think I disagree with Mr. Mamet.