posted
So. It took me a while to come to terms with what happened last night and since. Some time was spent listening to Rage Against the Machine. A few tears were shed. But I think I understand now, and part of that has been to realize that the Democratic Party I've allied myself with so long has failed this nation.
Some have criticized the Dems for losing touch with the American middle. Since Clinton, I don't see any credibility in such arguments. From the other side, Nader and his crowd have accused them of leaving their liberal base behind. But I can't see how that could explain Kerry's loss, when the Democratic base turned out in full force this year and Nader was barely a blip on the nation's radar.
The Democrats were neither too far to the left nor too close to the center this year. They did the best they could on a center-left platform and were beaten. From this we can derive a moral: liberalism as it has been will no longer function in the USA. A few common explanations have some truth to them. The traditional interests behind the party -- civil rights, organized labor, feminism -- no longer pull enough weight to win national elections (for various reasons: women's rights are in good shape, blacks are losing their status as the nation's main minority, and unions are dying).
But here's the real problem with the Democrats: their most important issues are not the people's main issues. This doesn't mean that the American people disagree with the Dems about labor, or health care, or civil rights. What it means is that many of the people who care about these issues care more about the issues the Republicans are running on: terror and religious values.
These are the forces behind (neo)conservatism as it is today, and the forces that most desperately need to be opposed: authoritarianism, secrecy and the erosion of our liberties in the name of security; the urge to turn the war on terror into war against Middle Eastern nations; and the movement to close off lifestyle choices that don't fit into the subculture of fundamentalist Christian believers. These are the issues behind what has been called the "culture war" in America, and for those who value them, they are of the utmost importance. The Democrats' mistake has been to reach out with programs like health care and Social Security to the elderly and the Southern and Midwestern poor, those who are too wrapped up in the culture war to care.
Here's what needs to happen. Those who oppose international aggression, domestic authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism need to start fighting the culture war. New alliances need to be drawn. Civil libertarians and internationalists need to be willing to abandon many of their traditional bases, because these voters are already lost to them. They need to reach out to everyone who is willing to oppose neoconservatism: that includes libertarians, moderate conservatives, and Nader's folk as well as the Democratic base. These people need to set aside their differences, as the culture warriors on the other side of the divide have. They need to do it in the next four years. Otherwise George Bush's chosen successor will win.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Those who oppose international aggression, domestic authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism need to start fighting the culture war."
Yeah, I realized this a few months ago. Even as recently as a year and a half ago, I was arguing that even talking about a "culture war" made that kind of thing more likely, and saying that it was unnecessary. I did not realize then, and only realized around November of last year, that certain factions were determined to hold this war whether I and people like me showed up or not -- and that if I kept insisting it was unnecessary and divisive and counterproductive to think that way, all that would happen is that we would lose.
Of course, this is a little problematic for me because I am, after all, pro-life, and abortion is one of those issues that's inexplicably -- to me, at least -- tied up in this "culture war." I'm not thrilled about that, and wind up wasting a lot of my energy arguing with natural allies. But I expect that kind of thing is inevitable any time you try to form a new faction.
posted
You want the dems to pander? How do you propose they bridge that culture gap you speak of? It seems to me unless the democratic party really DOES abandon its own moral values it cannot turn those folks who voted for Bush to their side, if they supported Bush's moral values. And apparently most of Bush's supporters voted for him on the basis of his moral/religious values.
In my opinion the dems should have played the fear card about the widespread hatred of Bush throguhout the world, and how if reelcted there would be a higher risk of terrorism.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It bothers me the way Democrats will often try to act like mini-Republicans to get the white male Republican vote. I never understand that. It's a bit like, and this will sound ridiculous, changing an anime to fit the tastes of people who do not like anime. Who never will like it. By doing that they alienate the people who support them. A checks and balance system is needed after all. Conservatives as a solid foundation and Liberals to trigger the radical shifts needed to keep things growing and evolving. Instead it's been breached and liberal has become a dirty word.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: hey need to reach out to everyone who is willing to oppose neoconservatism: that includes libertarians, moderate conservatives, and Nader's folk as well as the Democratic base. These people need to set aside their differences, as the culture warriors on the other side of the divide have. They need to do it in the next four years. Otherwise George Bush's chosen successor will win.
As a libertarian, I can tell you I will not be joining with any sort of anti-neoconservative coalition. In fact, in economic respects Libertarians are neoconservative. While I tend to disagree with Republicans regulating moral behavior (for example homosexual marraiges, drug prohibition, etc.), I think that many of these issues can not be won for any length of time and will eventually favor the Democratic viewpoint. On the other hand, Democrats efforts to make the nation more socialized, like Kerry's health care plan, will not only be harder to get rid of, but they will negatively impact me more. That's why I voted for Bush in this election and would never support any coalition that will lead to further socialization of this country.
posted
And Leah identifies why I was so depressed today, Destineer: that in a culture war, the good guys are outnumbered. In order for us to "win," we would have to attract enough people interested in another issue.
I suspect that the Democrats will have to become a saner version of the Libertarians. This won't depress me at all, but I think it will depress the fiscal liberals.
-------
"In fact, in economic respects Libertarians are neoconservative."
No, no, they aren't. Neoconservatives are, in fact, pretty much the opposite of libertarians in every way.
posted
I'll say it again: NOBODY LIKED OR PARTICULARLY TRUSTED JOHN KERRY.
Your sucky candidate lost to their sucky candidate. Yeah, there were a lot of religious people voting and a lot of bigots (the two camps overlapping not a little bit) but it's not like people not supporting John Kerry means that there is no chance for American liberalism. If your superior candidate lost to George Bush, than the call to all out culture war might make sense, but I really doubt that this would have happened. The main factor as to why the democrats lost this election is that 1) nobody except for hard-core Democratic partisans thinks that they are the good guys any more and 2) John Kerry was a pretty bad choice to run for President.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, this is a little problematic for me because I am, after all, pro-life, and abortion is one of those issues that's inexplicably -- to me, at least -- tied up in this "culture war."
I somewhat feel your pain on this one, Tom. I wouldn't call myself "pro-life," since I'm not sure what the law should do about it, but I am quite convinced that abortion is killing and therefore wrong. Like you said, we must make concessions in any political alliance.
quote:It seems to me unless the democratic party really DOES abandon its own moral values it cannot turn those folks who voted for Bush to their side, if they supported Bush's moral values. And apparently most of Bush's supporters voted for him on the basis of his moral/religious values.
But there may be enough who voted for him purely on economic grounds to swing things our way, if we ally with these people. Business interests that aren't connected with religion or war. Wealthy people who don't want to be taxed.
quote:As a libertarian, I can tell you I will not be joining with any sort of anti-neoconservative coalition. In fact, in economic respects Libertarians are neoconservative.
My point is that the Dems (or someone else, if they don't have the stones) should make concessions -- big ones, if necessary -- to libertarians on issues of economic policy, in order to form a coalition against neo-cons.
I disagree with you about the economy. I think a laissez faire policy (which is not Bush's policy, his is to spend liberally while cutting taxes and subsidizing business) would be bad for America. But I care more about basic freedoms and avoiding unjust wars. I would pay the price of laissez-faire capitalism, and I think other liberals should be willing to pay the same price.
posted
Sorry RRR, I was definitely engaging in hyperbole. I'm pretty sick of the Democrats running candidates that are neither popular nor particularly well credentialed and then blaming their losses on other people. I was thinking that this election they'd be forced to own up to the fact that they are failing as party and not as the effective and pure representatives of an ideal.
So freakin' many people I talked to yesterday and today said "I didn't really like either of the choices, but I went to vote anyway." The head democratic pollster went on PBS during the election and talked about how even people who said that they were voting for John Kerry on average said they had more confidence in George Bush than John Kerry.
But no, it must be someone else's fault, so let's engage in more petty divisiveness.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, making concessions to Libertarians on economic grounds for the sake of political gains is just a bad idea. People who make the least are those who voted most heavily for Kerry. These are the people who depend on the social services whose end concessions to the libertarians would signify. A demo-tarian alliance would lose more democrats than it would gain libertarians.
The group that swung this election is the value voter, not the economic conservative. The values voter is the one who hasn't voted in large numbers, but voted ths time because of enormous concentration on their issues by the Administration. This worked really well because their issues don't conflict with the Republican issues. Kerry tried to gain centrists. Bush piled up his base.
I supported Howard Dean in the primary, and I still think he could have done a great campaign. Could he have won? Who knows. I will say only that I wish Karl Rove was on our side. Howard Dean used a very similar strategy to Bush, appealling to the base, not giving a flip if centrists who usually don't vote continued to not vote. The question is, are there enough people on the left to, if energized, balance out and defeat the right. I think so, and I hope so.
I agree, though, that Kerry clearly wasn't the man to do it, though I backed him with all I had.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neoconservatives are for trade barriers to enforce US dominance economically. They support tax cuts irrespective of spending cuts (nearly the complete opposite of fiscal conservatism, in which all tax cuts begin with spending cuts). They are for large increases in military spending on research. They support the restriction of contracts to american companies rather than allocating them based on best bidder.
Just to name a few ways.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an issue of character. Clinton screwed us. I love bubba, but we inherited the man's sins, and believe it or not, it makes Cheney look trust worthy and Rumsfeld competent.
We need to win back the women. Forget guys. Forget nascar dads, forget football guys, forget dudes in general. We need to win back women, and to do so, we need a deeper moral vein built on considered judgements. We need Barack Obama or Tony Blair. We don't need to move to the left or the right, just deeper, not politically, but philosopically, right where we are.
quote: My point is that the Dems (or someone else, if they don't have the stones) should make concessions -- big ones, if necessary -- to libertarians on issues of economic policy, in order to form a coalition against neo-cons.
Hey, that sounds great to me! If Democrats become a "saner version of the Libertarians", they've got my vote! And probably a great deal of other Libertarians. The only reason I didn't vote for Badnarik for president was because he was far too exteme. While I sincerely hope that will happen, I rather doubt it.
quote: I disagree with you about the economy. I think a laissez faire policy (which is not Bush's policy, his is to spend liberally while cutting taxes and subsidizing business) would be bad for America.
I'm aware that it's not Bush's policy. I'm also aware that Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. I hope that this will change now that he has no fear of re-election, even if it doesn't, it's gauranteed to be less socialized than Kerry's plan.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Neoconservatives are for trade barriers to enforce US dominance economically. They support tax cuts irrespective of spending cuts (nearly the complete opposite of fiscal conservatism, in which all tax cuts begin with spending cuts). They are for large increases in military spending on research. They support the restriction of contracts to american companies rather than allocating them based on best bidder.
I stand corrected! I was confused by the term neoconservative. It sounds like ultra-conservative, but it appears to be a different subgroup. Thanks for the info. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pretty sick of the Democrats running candidates that are neither popular nor particularly well credentialed and then blaming their losses on other people. I was thinking that this election they'd be forced to own up to the fact that they are failing as party and not as the effective and pure representatives of an ideal.
I agree, that's part of the problem. But Bush is neither an inspiring guy nor very distinguished, and yet he gathers massive support. I would say that the two candidates were about even where personality is concerned -- both suck. So in a way you're right. Another shining star like Clinton could rally people to him. But where can another like him be found?
All I know is, there were nine candidates in the Democratic primary this year, and I don't think any of them could have won this election. Maybe Wes Clark, maybe Edwards, certainly not Dean. But I doubt any of them could've done it.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Libertarians aren't going to become democrats. They are always going to look askance at public education and unions. We don't need to become less moral, we need to become more moral.
It's about culture, not money. We need to start being discriminating in a positive way. We need become more morally sophisticated and true.
We need to be able to articulate the unity of all Americans as they are Americans, for a core belief in the power of Government to help people live more moral and fulfilling lives.
We need to take chances, and more importantly, we need to think. We need to start speaking well in terms of responsbility, belonging, and desert. We need to change our vocabulary and come out hard against drug use. We need to refuse to spin and only tell the truth.
posted
If this is the "stance" they are taking, then you are going to stand to lose alot of elections before winning any.
Anti-Abortion, Pro-HeteroMarriage, and stopping Moral decay and judicial attacks on religions are all (with some small exceptions) big issues for relgious people.
If you intend to adopt those and fight against those as a whole party, you will lose alot of the African American vote and Latino as well.
You can try walking both sides of the fence, but that's what has gotten the democrats in to the problem they face now.
Unless RACE stops declining as an issue, (when affirmative action is the main racial card to play, it's becomming less and less a non-issue) which it may or may not, those of racial minority are going to look for other reasons to vote. If their next priority falls to religion, you lose them by holding values against theirs.
This election defined pretty well the republican party and conservatives in general.
I think it's high time for the democrats to decide what face they are going to put on as a party because as it sits, just not being the "other guy" isn't enough to get people to vote for you.
I think the next 4 years are very important to the survival of the democratic party. Their actions as minority in house and senate will be closely watched. I will be watching them closely as well.
posted
just to make it clear, the neoconservatives are the ones lining up behind Bush. His administration is made up of neoconservatives. The only real holdout of actual conservatives in the Republican party is in the Senate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberalism has nothing to do with it, actually. It's really all about campaign strategy - the Democrats just don't understand what you have to do to win an election.
The same mistake has been made in every election since Clinton: In 2000, 2002, and now in 2004 the Democrats were afraid to believe in things.
You cannot win an election unless you (a)believe in something, and (b)convince the people that you are right. The Democrats are reluctant to do that at every turn. They began it with Clinton, and because Clinton was popular (even though they lost Congress) they continued the strategy.
In 2000, Gore barely had a blatform, beyond a continuation of the vague Clinton successes of the 90s. The people were not very convinced, even though Bush had almost as little of a platform. In 2002, the Democrats were reluctant to criticize Republicans because they all saw the polls that showed everyone agreed with the Republicans. As a result, they made no case, pretended to be slightly more moderate Republicans, and everyone continued to agree with the Republicans. Now, in 2004, the Democrats decided to cast away those who actually wanted to make a case for their liberal ideas (like Dean) and instead pick somebody who would flip-flop and be hard to pin down. It's pretty clear that the reason Kerry won the primary is because he had less substance, and because the Democrats were under the impression that less substance is better when Bush is so bad. But, yet again, Kerry waited far too long to make a real case, and ended up convincing few.
The good news is that the Democrats seemed to be figuring out their mistake, led largely by Howard Dean. He catapulted to the lead because he was willing to stand up to Republicans in a way the other candidates would not. Then they picked Kerry instead, and he waffled around for many months. At his convention the Democrats said very little of substance - only that Kerry was a war hero. Finally the Republican attacks forced Kerry to realize he needs to take a stand. And once he did take a stand, he got a lot more popular - he was back in the race. But it was too little, too late.
The Democrats don't have to become Republicans to win. They don't need to pander to Christian extremists or some southern stereotype either. All they need to do is hold the right views on important issues and not be ashamed of holding the positions they do - not be ashamed of the liberal viewpoint.
That's how Republicans are gaining ground. Bush doesn't come out and pretend to moderate, and he definitely doesn't come out and attempt to hide his true positions. He just comes out and insists he is right.
But Democrats would rather simply gather minorities, women, and the working class together to win without having to make a case. That simply is not going to work - that coalition is no longer secure.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just from looking at the electoral map, it seems the "liberal" or at least the Democrat flag is waved pretty much solely in parts of the country considered "urban", "metropolitan", or "cosmopolitan".
The northeast was a solid blue block, from Maine down to Maryland. The west coast was a solid blue block. And Illinois. Pretty much everything else was red.
The ideas and ideals spawned in the big cities of the northeast and west coast have not spread very far beyond their starting points. These two regions of the country are pushing so far forward socially (in terms of current social political issues) that they're leaving the rest of the country behind.
This division has created geographic boundaries for the culture war. Though the struggle exists everywhere, it often comes down to the northeast/west coast vs. the south/heartland.
It also doesn't help that the Republican candidates in New Jersey are often more liberal minded than the Democratic candidates in Mississippi. The social consciousness of these regions are just very, very different.
What I think needs to be done is that liberal minded thinkers from the northeast and west coast, instead of fighting against the south and midwest, should reach out to them.
If liberal minded people with more socially open viewpoints would move out into these areas, establishing pockets of social acceptance and safe zones against religious fanaticism, maybe those small centers of thought will grow. It would almost be like political missions, or ambassadors.
If even a few hundred thousand people from New Jersey and Massachussettes would move out to the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana - all of those states would have had wildly different results. But no one wants to do that.
And who would? It's comfortable in the more open minded parts of the country, and, quite frankly, more economically sound. And every time an open minded kid flees his backwater town for the big city, the situation gets worse.
Real change could come if that flow was reversed a bit, and people from the city started flowing back into these backwater towns.
Just a pipe dream of mine. You may all go back to your regularly scheduled posting.
posted
Dest, The Democratic party doesn't stand for any coherent ideology any more. At least, not in the opinions of a lot of people, including mine. "Liberal" has taken on the connotations of people who love to raise taxes, don't care about morality or religion, and are just personally weak. This is in large part because of the PR campaing the Republicans have been running since the mid-90s, but it's also because the Democrats have done nothing to successfully fight it or present an alternative view.
Instead, in my opinion, they've mostly sat back, confident in their own superiority. The thought seems to me "People should be voting for us, because we're the good guys." And it's apparently ok to sneer at people who either support the Republicans or don't automatically support the Democrats.
The Republicans have been honing their message and researching their tactics. I personally think that many of those tactics are unethical and bad for the country, but they've been putting in to shape the image that people see.
The deomcrats as a national party seem to be content to stand for what John Kerry pretty much seemed to be content to stand for "We're not those guys." Confident that all right-minded people share their contempt for the Republicans, it seems like they think that's a good unifying theme to stand under.
The George Bush is an idiot thing is a good example. I've floated the idea before that George Bush's malapropisms were a tactic that the Bush campaign/administration deliberately let happen (not saying that George was faking it, more like he wasn't at all careful about it). Because, you know what, when people started sneering at him because we made grammatical mistakes they were not only taking away attention from actual content, they were also making George a sympathetic figure to all the people out there who really hate it when the "intellectual elite" (often the smart kid in grade school or whatever) looked down on them because they made some mistakes. The Democrats fit right into this role as the nerdy kids gloating over their apparent superiority. Most of the people in this country don't like that nerd. I don't like that nerd and I was one of the really smart kids.
I could list all of the mistakes the Democrats made during the Presidential campaign, but even for me that would make up a really long post. The Bush administration has been on the job for alomost four years now and have made quite a few practical and moral blunders. And yet, for a party and campaign that was all about being the anti-Bush, there was remarkably little successful effort to capitalize on these. Leaving aside the anti-abortion, anti-gay issues, the centerpiece of this election was the war on terror/Iraq war. After the President's performance here, people went into the polls thinking that he was much more likely to do a better job on these than his challenger. That's a huge problem. Nobody made a convincing case to the electorate for why George Bush shouldn't be allowed to continue in this. The Democrats just believed that he made so many mistakes and were pretty much content with that, while delivering little carping attacks on it instead of a comprehensive, well-thought indictment of his conduct of these wars. The same is pretty much true for any of other places were George Bush was very vulnerable. I mean, he was an incumbant President who couldn't run on his record, but there was so little effort to focus on this.
John Kerry said some pretty stupid things on the campaign trail. "Global Test". Yeesh, I knew what he was trying to say, but I also considered that they were deliberately trying to throw the campaign away as some sort of Skull and Bones plot when he said that. The setiment was good; the execution awful.
And, during the second debate, John Kerry was handed a perfect attack on a silver platter. George Bush has been running on the platform of "Often Wrong, Seldom in Doubt" and was asked to admit three mistakes that he made, but he was completely unable to do so. I mean, he turned the soft underbelly of his governing style right there, but John Kerry, as he did in so many other cases, failed to even think about attacking it. Instead he said some "blah blah blah" about Iraq.
I'm a big fan of liberalism. I think schoolchildren should be duct taped down and forced to read J. S. Mill's On Liberty. But you know, the Democrats are not my party. They don't share my values. I don't even really know what values they do have, and whatever they are, they've down a really poor job of getting them out there. What they are coming across as are smug, condescending people who are content to be heroes only in their own minds.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, lay it out there for me, I voted Democrat for possibly the last time ever, try and save me...:
What does it mean to be a Democrat in this day and age?
What is the Democratic platform? If I vote Democrat, what am I really supporting?
And finally, the big one, What have the Democrats really done for those issues once they got into office. Let's save over the last 16 years, just to be fair?
Go ahead, convince me that I should still be a Democrat. Or most importantly, that the party I used to believe in, is still worthy of my belief.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a hitherto sealed report that Clinton called Kerry and told him to go out hard in support of the gay marriage ban in those eleven states. Kerry said that he wouldn't do that. Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm finding this to be a really good thread so far. Good insights by a lot of people and not a lot of name calling. I wasn't around here for the last few days, so I haven't seen whatever the ugly threads are that people have seen. What I see here is a return to the kind of insightful political discussion we haven't had since around the time the Iraq conflict began. Too many times to mention I found myself nodding and thinking either "Wow, he summed up exactly what I believe" or "Huh. I hadn't thought of that. What an interesting thought." Kudos to everyone here (insofar as my kudos are worth anything.)
There seem to be two reads on why Kerry lost and what the democrats need to do about it. One is that he lost the entire south and heartland and needs to try harder to find a middle ground--me less liberal. The other is that democrats should stop trying to be moderates and solidify their support base--be more liberal. I have a third theory . . . what do you think of this?
I think Kerry spent the last few months pretending to be a republican as much as possible, in an attempt to appear moderate and take swing voters from the republicans. Maybe the reason this failed was not because those voters cannot be swayed, but because they did not believe him. There were a lot of spurious claims about Kerry's alleged "flip-flops," but in fact, if you looked at his voting record since entering congress, there were in fact some contradictions between the kind of congressman he had been and the kind of president he was promising to be. I don't think southern and heartland voters perceived him as a moderate; they perceived him as an extremist who was lying. So is the answer to be more straightforward in ones extremism? One way or the other, I think extreme liberalism was rejected this week, in those states. But there are democrats who are moderate. Many of them manage to hold power in the south. I look at the democrats who have won presidential elections in recent history: Clinton (Arkansas), Carter (Georgia), and Johnson (Texas). IIRC, Dukakis was a northeasterner, and was perceived as extremely liberal. I'm not sure where Mondale was from. Gore was from Tennessee, but he spent eight years out of office in Tennessee, as VP, and I don't think Tenneseens or anybody else perceived him as a southerner by the time he ran against Bush. To find the last northeastern democrat who won the presidency, you have to go all the way back to Kennedy, and I think the political landscape is undeniably different now than it was when he won.
As I said, I think a lot of good points have been made here, but maybe this is a worthwhile point as well. A neoconservative probably won't carry any states in the northeast or California, while someone who is perceived as a Massachussetts liberal doesn't seem able to carry any states in the South.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not an issue of becoming more or less liberal, it's about depth. Seeing a deeper unity between the people of America.
Reread Obama's speech, or any of the great political speeches. Moving one way or the other isn't going do anything. We have a heartland full of christians who vote for the oil, tobacco, and whisky lobby. We can peel these people away from the sin industries, and back to the democrats, where they belong, through depth, not the breadth, of our philosophy.
posted
It's about the Democratic party getting together and saying, "Just who the heck are we and what are we wanting to do to make a better tomorrow." Then they need to sit together for a bit longer and say, "Okay, how do we get that out to the American people?"
Look, I used to give a Democratic candidate the benefit of the doubt. Now, I just have the doubt and darned few benefits.
Hyper-liberalism used to be the fringe of the Democratic party, just like the neo-Cons were for the Republicans. Now, the neo-cons are a much more public face than ever before, as are the hyper-liberals.
Bothe parties are appearing more like their extremes to the casual observer. I'd say that the Democrats have been losing their faithful and the Republicans will see the losses before too long.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: . Moving one way or the other isn't going do anything. We have a heartland full of christians who vote for the oil, tobacco, and whisky lobby. We can peel these people away from the sin industries, and back to the democrats, where they belong, through depth, not the breadth, of our philosophy.
Ohhhh, I see. You want your constituency to move to you, rather than you move to your constituency.
Yep, that's been working wonders. Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's not about me. Or you. Or anyone's opinion. It's a matter of understanding the Unity between people which is already there. We don't have to go anywhere.
quote:Yep, that's been working wonders.
It's also a matter of changing the dialogue from what "works" to what's "appropriate" or "called for."
Here is a little bit of moral leadership from today's press conference:
quote:And it's like earning capital. You asked do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.
It is my style. That's what happened after the 2000 election, I earned some capital.
I've earned capital in this election and I'm going to spend it for what I've told the people I'd spend it on, which is - you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.
posted
Now, when will he not be the the lone voice, but the concerted voice of the party?
And do you mind if we watch him close to see if his words match his deeds? I think the world of the guy as he goes in, but I've seen too many change for the worse before they come back out.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote above was from Bush, not Obama. It was meant to be irony. It's a fully inappropriate manner to think ethical government. _____________________
Obama, on the other hand, spoke about the importance of understanding unity that is already in the American people. It's cribbed from Kant. The great minds were all dealing with the same thing, some do it with clearer sight than others. Obama could have yanked these very good concepts from 100 great thinkers in the western tradition. I'm just happy he is looking in the right places. If he doesn't, someone else win.
The egg is on my face. I'm just not as quick and clever there. I mean, heck, I really should be expecting someone to switch tack and use an unattributed quote after proclaiming someone else's glories.
Yep, I'm the punchline for irony and look the fool. My bad. My bad.
Boy, I'm really just waiting for my next chance to play the fool. Can't wait. Let's see, 2008 is it again?
Maybe I'll be wiser by then.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people seem to have taken my point to be that the Democrats (or some new political force) should become more centrist or compromising of their principles in order to defeat the Republicans in '08. That's not my idea at all. My idea is this: conservatism has taken a new turn this century. It has become a force for international aggression, domestic secrecy and statism, and legislation of religious values (this last one has been part of the Rs' agenda for a while, but has only now come into its own).
These forces are the ones that most need opposing. My criticism of the Democrats is that they've done a poor job of opposing these forces by trying to appeal to the people behind them. What we need is a new alliance, committed mainly (though surely not only) to the following principles: we don't want to fight unjust wars, we deserve to be informed about what our leaders are doing, and we want to be free from unlawful police powers and state religion. The Democrats are not committed to these principles, and so they must change or be replaced by some new organization.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, Destineer. You are still talking about fighting against the Republicans. I'm saying that you have to forget the Republicans, and go after the Americans and do it a positive moral vision which includes duty, responsibility, and desert.
This isn't about raging against the Republican machine, even if that's called for. It's about displaying a deeper understanding about what it is to be an American, and doing it in moral terms.
quote:It's about displaying a deeper understanding about what it is to be an American, and doing it in moral terms.
I don't think that's incompatible with my idea. Part of what it is to be American is to be free and peaceful. The way I've said it sounds negative, but that's because the current powers-that-be have repudiated the positive values I believe in.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Is it? Freedom is a tricky thing. Does it mean license? Can I just do anything I want? And if so, where are my hookers?
In terms of peaceful, I like the fact that we went into WWII. I'm not even upset about Afghanistan, though, again I have an issue with post-war planning.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you ask anybody(rep., dem. or indep.) what a republican believes in they can tell you almost immediatly. Usually in ten words or less.
ex. lower taxes, small government, family values.
If you ask what do democrats believe in to the save group of people you get a mish-mash of answers. Some have to think about it. Some go on large diatribes. People don't know what democrates believe in anymore. At least not as concise and to the point as the republican are perceived.
Democrates cannot give up the south or the religous if they intend to win. They need to find votes in these areas or they will lose again.
I'm mostly a right leaning centrist. While I'm pleased with the results of this election, I am also concerned about the lack of (lessening of) checks and balances that the gov't. has at the moment. With both congress and the presidency clearly held by one party, there is a possibility of some terrible things. I'd say the same thing if the party's were reversed.
I think that for 2008, demo's shouldn't look at Hillary to save them. I think an obscure democrate that is well respected can rise to the top and do good for the party. Much like Dean did.
Last point. Don't try to elect a senator to the presidency. History shows that it doesn't work (for both party's).
quote: If you ask anybody(rep., dem. or indep.) what a republican believes in they can tell you almost immediatly. Usually in ten words or less.
ex. lower taxes, small government, family values.
::scratches head::
So why don't we have these things?
I think this shows your perspective more than it shows any objective reality. I think people can give the same overly simplistic descriptors for democrats. They believe in helping the less fortunate, taking care of the environment, tolerance for all, and doing these things as a society rather than hoping that some people will take it upon themselves.
-o-
The idea that being a democrat is inconsistent with Christian values is a pretty absurd one, and it's astonishing that democrats have not beaten that idea down.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think this shows your perspective more than it shows any objective reality
Exactly! The democrats have not communicated their ideas to the other side effectivly.
quote: The idea that being a democrat is inconsistent with Christian values is a pretty absurd one, and it's astonishing that democrats have not beaten that idea down
I'm not saying that Christian values are inconsistent with being a democrat. What I'm saying is the democrats simply ignored and wrote off the christian population, believing that they would not make a difference.
Posts: 98 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmm. I can't speak for republicans . . . or can I? Once upon a long time ago I considered myself one. I think I would have given the same answers then, or more recently when I considered myself centrist.
-o-
I think you're right, that essentially democrats have allowed themselves to be painted this way without even trying to defend it. They have assumed that the claims of evangelical Christians are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth addressing, and it has cost them.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you ask anybody(rep., dem. or indep.) what a republican believes in they can tell you almost immediatly. Usually in ten words or less.
ex. lower taxes, small government, family values.
How odd. Most of the non-Republicans I know would not list those things. And if they did, they would almost certainly make little finger-quotes in the air as they said them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in western Washington and I am by far the minority here. Most people I know can repeat what a republican believes in(I didn't say what a democrat believes a republican believes in ).
Small government, less taxes etc. etc. is almost a rallying(sp) cry among republicans. You hear it said at almost every gathering of the right.
Democrats don't really have a "motto" or rallying cry. At least not that I've heard (which is kinda the problem).
quote: And if they did, they would almost certainly make little finger-quotes in the air as they said them.
Thats what I'm trying to say. Any democrat can tell you what republicans are saying, even if they think it's silly or overdone or down right wrong. But they know what republicans believe in.
Democrates have "kinda" lost their identity and it needs to be found again.
Reagan redefined the republican party in the 80's and it's still the same party(for the most part).
Clinton tried to redefine the democratic party when he was in office, but it didn't stick. Democrats can no longer rely on just the "womens rights, labor and civil rights" people.
Many of those issues have been fixed (by democrates mostly). In a way, you sort of hurt your self by fixing the problems you focused on.
I'm somewhat saddened to see a party in such disarray. I don't think anyone expected the sweeping victory the republicans had (meaning house,senate and presidency). I'd like to see two healthy party's because that is whats best for the county.
These are just my musings and observations. I'm no expert. Tull
Posts: 98 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember the movie "An American President?" One line that sticks out is when the president asks his chief of staff "Do you think we're wrong?" and he answered "I don't think you win elections by telling the majority of the voters that they are."
Obviously the democrats are disconnected with the south and the heartland. Used to be Alabama went Republican in presidential elections but elected democratic state and local officials. This election, there were unheard of numbers of Republicans winning. They took 35 county offices formerly held by democrats.
I was actually shocked that at many of the local elections. While I'm for the most part Republican (I have voted for the occasional democratic candidate locally) it still seemed like an immense victory for the GOP.
Not a good sign for the dems, that a state like Alabama, already conservative, is leaning even MORE to the right than it normally does.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democrats have "kinda" lost their identity and it needs to be found again.
Reagan redefined the republican party in the 80's and it's still the same party(for the most part).
Clinton tried to redefine the democratic party when he was in office, but it didn't stick. Democrats can no longer rely on just the "womens rights, labor and civil rights" people.
You are right. How does this strike you? I think it's possible that the values of rural republicans and city democrats are more similar than rural republicans and city republicans.
Here is what I don't understand?
In conservative Christian America, what is more important, religion or family, because they aren't the same thing. Most of the interests coincide, but there are those issues where Christianity would have your Family do without in order that someone else may do a little bit better. And I think that that's the fulcrum. It's these clever issues where I wonder whose the master. What is exactly christian about the primacy of low taxes. Why does that matter so much? How can that be anyone's top issue. What exactly is christian about opposing prison reform. And if one is a Christian only when it doesn't interfere with their economic interests, a religion or a marriage or anything like that isn't worth the name it's given. Zell Miller is ready to bomb a thousand Iraqies, who may or may not be innocent, in order to protect his family. I just don't know if that's Christian. And once the democrats figure this out, everything else will fall into line.
_____________________
quote:Remember the movie "An American President?" One line that sticks out is when the president asks his chief of staff "Do you think we're wrong?" and he answered "I don't think you win elections by telling the majority of the voters that they are."
Belle, I don't think you decide right and wrong by figuring out what is going to win an election.
quote:there are those issues where Christianity would have your Family do without in order that someone else may do a little bit better.
I do believe in helping the disadvantaged, it's definitely a part of Christianity, and I do it through donations and volunteer work. I don't want the government doing it for me. I have more faith that my money will be spent the way I want it to be if I donate it directly to the cause than if I just give it to the government in the form of higher taxes.
Edit: You missed the point. You don't win elections by telling people they're wrong. You win elections by figuring out why they feel the way they do and addressing their concerns, not by labeling them bigots and hate mongers.
I of all people am not saying anyone should compromise on their beliefs of what is right and wrong. I'm saying that the dems will continue to lose if they continue with the attitudes they have now.
[ November 05, 2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do believe in helping the disadvantaged, it's definitely a part of Christianity, and I do it through donations and volunteer work. I don't want the government doing it for me. I have more faith that my money will be spent the way I want it to be if I donate it directly to the cause than if I just give it to the government in the form of higher taxes.
(emphasis mine)
I'm not sure that this moral choice is a factor of what "I want." Granted, I'm not a Christian, so I also don't think it's a factor of what God wants. It seems to be a factor of what is called for. I have to think about the matter at hand and what the matter calls for, which is not in the least bit influenced by my wants or opinions.
Look, if someone falls into the river, it's not an issue of whether I want to jump in and save them.
This isn't an easy issue, but I think goes back to American attitudes toward desert, responsibility and freedom. And what sense those words make. Once again, I don't know. The republican party has a firmer grasp on those concepts than the democrats. Democrat social scientists rely on all of these studies and data which don't mean a darn thing, and suck the heart right out of the message.
But I know enough to know that something is wrong with the way the Republicans view desert, responsibility, and freedom. These aren't binds of choice.
Personally, I don't care whether the Dems win or lose. I do care that they figure out how to be the right way, though. My favorite Democrat's only distinction is losing two democratic presidential general elections.
posted
I'm not sure that lowering taxes is a "christian value".
The reason the religious vote came out this time was mostly focused on the gay marrage issue, partially the abortion issue and the stem cell issue.
Republican beliefs do not equal christian/religious beliefs. The republicans have been able to show that their beliefs coincide more with religieon than the democrats have.
I believe that helping the poor etc. are important. I just don't want the government to do it. That, I believe, is the real difference between the two parties. It's not that republicans don't want to help (although our image is admittedly tarnished), it's just how the help is "done".
Posts: 98 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I would find it fascinating if someone who knew where to look would peruse the Bush and Cheney tax records and see if there were any signs of major charitable donations.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
).
