gunga, the problem as I see it isn't so much The Democratic Party, but rather lies with the leadership of The Democratic Party. The further left they swing, draggin' the Party with 'em, the further they distance The Party from The Mainstream. I don't really perceive The Electorate as becomiing increasingly conservative to any significant degree, I see The Democratic Party becoming increasingly more liberal than The Electorate.
Have to dis that idea Timber, seems to me the Dem leadership is stuck in the "Clinton Republican" mode while the street dem has moved back to the traditonal liberal agenda.
georgeob1 wrote:
Unfortunately, in the debris of the Ottoman Empire, we are still dealing with the consequences of European greed and folly. The difference now is that our "loyal" European friends no longer feel directly threatened, so they have reverted to their normal hostility towards this country. This is the real underlying reality, McTag and I find it remarkable that you don't recognize it.
This was an inaccurate conclusion of quite an accurate, if partial, and interesting history lesson.
It was the greed and folly of the present US administation's actions which turned this european against them. And you are surely not suggesting that the trouble in Saudi and surrounding states is just between the arabs and the europeans, or is the consequence of purely european actions?
georgeob1 wrote:Finally, modern variants of secularism have evolved from the absence of religion to opposition to it, and also to ever more intrusive, but secular, doctrines about how people should live their lives. (The contemporary religion of political correctitude is just as intolerant as any of the old ones. Consider the ease with which you let out the phrase "
all those Stepford-wives christians make me afraid for its future
". Would you have felt as comfortable if instead of "christians" you were to say, "homosexuals", or "women", or "Hispanics"?)
The main point I was making here is that the religious right, the born-again kind, believe they have a monopoly on truth and rectitude, if not on tolerance and understanding, and now indeed they have a leader who apparently believes he is a instrument for God's will. (Papal infallibility in a non-catholic, heaven be praised.)
The other groups you mention do not go that far.
Puritism is alive and well in the US. It has been renamed conserative republicanism. And I agree that ill not be a democratic republican. Bush and his whole group can kiss my rear end.
gungasnake wrote:The only happy ending in this picture to be had as I see it, is for the democrat party to be destroyed, and the choice on ballots become Republicans vs libertarians or some such, i.e. for the dems to be replaced by some new blood.
Hey, I wouldnt mind an America where the choice was between a Republican and a Green/Progressive party - with the Greens winning, of course.
Lol - in yer dreams!!!!
Well - mebbe in a generation?
rabel22 wrote:Puritism is alive and well in the US. It has been renamed conserative republicanism. And I agree that ill not be a democratic republican. Bush and his whole group can kiss my rear end.
me too...and slip me the tongue....
One thing that Dems must do is stay in the fight. Write or call your Congressman and both your Senators on EVERY issue. Let them know, Democrat or Republican, that we are out here, that we matter and we intend to hold their feet to the fire.
Joe
I think a lot of us have reached the ranty stage, here's my rant, seems to belong here as much as anywhere else...
I got an email from the Democratic party asking for my feedback and asking for my ideas on where they should go from here. I'm SO sick of that. I mean, I think I have good ideas, yeah, and the very soul of Democracy is expressing the will of the people, yeah, but I think a big weakness of the Democratic party is that they are going around finding out what people want and then figuring out which existing person fits best into that mold. If the fit is awkward, oh well, it's the mold that is important.
That ain't right.
It's not going to get people fired up, get them to cross party lines. People DON'T actually know what they want. Stop thinking they're so damn smart, especially in aggregate.
Here's what I mean. Did anyone in the late 80's say, ya know, what I really want is a TV show about nothing? Just four neurotic Jewish characters nattering on about their boring lives. Yeah, I'd just love to see that.
No, Seinfeld came on and people didn't know what the heck it was. It had terrible ratings.
But NBC stuck with it, Jerry and Larry stuck with it, and it became a total phenomenon. People didn't know they wanted it, but once they saw it -- something with a vision, that stuck to that vision even in the face of cluelessness and antipathy -- they loved it. A whole bunch of people who on the face of it had NOTHING to do with those four characters and who never would have predicted, ahead of time, that they'd love it absolutely loved the show.
THEN Seinfeld had its own imitators, mold-stuffers. They didn't work. They didn't have the guiding vision.
I want the Democratic party to do the grassroots stuff, stay grounded, stay relevant, while nourishing and encouraging the visionaries in their party. And when one emerges who has an especially strong and compelling message and way of delivering it, let that person guide voters' tastes rather than vice versa.
"...let that person guide voters' tastes rather than vice versa."
Yeah, tell them they are too dumb to know what they want and that they should want what the DNC wants. That is a winning formulas for sure.
Sozobe
I hated Sinfield when it cameout. I hated it when it became popular. I hate it in reruns more than ever.
rabel22 wrote:Sozobe
I hated Sinfield when it cameout. I hated it when it became popular. I hate it in reruns more than ever.
By all means, stand up for that which you deeply believe.
Would you believe Rabel and I finally agree on something? I can't say I hate Seinfeld, but would rather....oh.....do ironing or clean an oven or something.....rather than have to sit and watch it.
I've seen the show and that's about all I can say about it.
I taped it, then ran the tape backwards. If you do this, and listen carefully, you can make out "join the Nazi party" quite clearly.
I tried that and only heard "noij eht izit ytrap" perhaps I wasn't listening carefully. The weird thing was that when I put on head-phones I heard "paul is dead"
Oddly enough, I can remember a time when Democrats had the same moralistic, holier than thou attitude about themselves much like the Republicans, which is why I am an Independent. Political correctness and no flexibility finally caused a general backlash. I expect to see the same thing happen to the Republicans in the next four years.
Each generalized movement I've ever seen has gone too far and alienated its followers. I'm just waiting for the Repubs to commit that kind of political suicide. It will happen--hopefully within the next four years.
McTag wrote:
It was the greed and folly of the present US administation's actions which turned this european against them.
I don't see any greed involved here, but do recognize that Europeans accuse us of folly. However, my basic point was that antipathy for the U.S. has long been a part of the thinking of European governments and ruling establishments. It was submerged during the two world wars and the subsequent Cold War only because the Europeans then had something much worse to fear. That is now gone and attitudes have reverted to their 'normal' state. It is not new: Bush just provided an excuse for its emotional return.
Quote: And you are surely not suggesting that the trouble in Saudi and surrounding states is just between the arabs and the europeans, or is the consequence of purely european actions?
Not at all. For those areas that were part of the Ottoman Empire, I believe the fault lies squarely with Britain, France, and Germany. That includes Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq. (Zionism was a minor movement until after WWII).
Arabia is a different case. It was under the loose control of the Hashemites of Medina, who were displaced during the '30s by Abdul Asis (Ibn Saud) with help fron the Wahhabis of Yemen. Britain and the U.S. competed with each other for influence with the new leader - the U.S. "won". (interestingly the British agent in charge of their effort was Kim Philby's father.) So America should take the blame for the Saudis.
McTag wrote:
The main point I was making here is that the religious right, the born-again kind, believe they have a monopoly on truth and rectitude, if not on tolerance and understanding, and now indeed they have a leader who apparently believes he is a instrument for God's will. (Papal infallibility in a non-catholic, heaven be praised.)
The other groups you mention do not go that far.
I believe the "born again", "religious right" have become a straw man for religion and religious people generally. The terms are defended by protestations that they apply only to the extremes, but the useage usually suggests otherwise, particularly when the issues being discussed are related to families, abortion and similar issues. The western world is entering a very secular age in which previously accepted religious and Christian norms are rapidly being cast as archaic at best or representive of extreme fanaticism at worst.
I don't think that Bush has ever expressed any thought or taken any action that would suggest he sees himself as "an instrument of God's will". He has certainly been characterized that way, but as I see it, without any evidence to support it.
Such questions as abortion and the organized harvesting of embryonic stem cells from human zygotes do indeed raise moral, ethical, and legal questions quite independently of religion, Christianity - even of the Evangelical kind. I find the shrill secular rejection of any kind of debate or discussion of these matters to be intolerance of a degree to make even Savonarola proiud.
