Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Specifics please, rather than a claim which no one has any reason to accept.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Precisely in what ways is the modern democratic party more 'left' than it was in Adlai Stevenson's time?

This is a useless question because Foxfyre's left wing extremist democrats do not exist in the empirical world, but rather in a mythology that validates her (and others) world view. The current Republican/conservative world view is defensive. They are protecting themselves form a perceived world that is both immoral and dangerous. That was the twin messages of the Bush/Rove campaign strategy, we will protect you from a dangerous world (terrorists) and we will set the world right (banish abortion gay's etc). I return to an observation by Kristin Luker in Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. The driving force behind the anti abortion movement was a feeling of vulnerability and marginalization. If the most vulnerable (the unborn child) can be terminated then possible I (the marginalized) can be also.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Specifics please, rather than a claim which no one has any reason to accept.[/quote

[color=darkblue]Only people familiar with the history of the Dems in Congress in the last 50 years or so.[/color]

Southern democrats who held most all the committee chairs (majority or minority as the case may be), Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House, etc.

0 Replies

Well Blatham, most of the democrat politicians are well to the left of me -- and I'm a very moderate, well-balanced guy.

Nanci Pelosi thinks the Democrats need only to do a better job educating the ignorant masses. To me that kind of thinking crosses an important line.

0 Replies

Foxfire wrote:

Quote:

Their children, therefore, frequently have no Christian (or other religious) memory and put little or no importance on religious belief. That pendulum will swing again....it always does....but the perception that there was a huge religious influence in this campaign I believe just won't hold up under close scrutiny especially among those 'new' voters.

Sorry, I've been away. But this post caught my eye just now. And I must comment. I'm one of those baby boomers (1946, can't get much more baby boomer than that) who didn't return to church. But I saw the danger of the swing back........I sure didn't want my kids to start wearing little white gloves with a Bible in their hands ready to beat me (and the world) over the head with it. So I made sure they had a very good vaccination. I took them to the most liberal Protestant church I could find when they were in their latency ages..........(7 to 12) I took them there regularly for as long as they wanted to go.......until they begin to say they didn't want to go anymore or they began to object about going. (It didn't take them very long.) Now they are the kind of liberal young people I am proud to call my children. So no back lash here. But I will say that they have plenty of fellow college friends who aren't back lashing either. The young people of this country are our hope for the future. We'll make it out of the Dark Ages yet.

Quote:

A couple or three decades ago, the Christian Coalition headed up by folks like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson et al were strongly activist and experienced such an overwhelming negative backlash that they stay pretty quiet these days. We saw nothing comparable in the last several campaigns.

After all the "overwhelming negative backlash" of the 80s, Ralph Reed and Karl Rove all but shut down the Christian Coalition since the CC was the primary force that helped Clinton get elected. The political action of the CC is now conducted by the Family Research Council. The FRC is much more careful about the way it involves itself in political action.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC

There is no mention on their site, that I can find, of the present board of directors or of the founding BOD. So I've sent an email to FRC requesting this information. However, when I check for other information, I find this:

From PAW's Right Wing Watch:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4211#3

Family Research Council

801 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
www.frc.org

President: Tony Perkins
Date of founding: 1983
Membership: 455,000 members.
Finances: $10 million (2000 revenue)
Staff: 120
State groups: 40
Publications: Washington Watch (monthly) and Family Policy (bimonthly). Ed Facts (available via fax, e-mail or internet on a weekly basis). CultureFacts (available by fax or e-mail). I.E. (Ideas & Energy) monthly newsletter provides articles on political, social, and cultural trends for high-school students. Also produces numerous issue papers.
Radio: Ken Connor's "Washington Watch," a daily radio program hosted by FRC's president.
Affiliate groups: American Renewal, Family Policy Councils

FRC's Principal Issues:

Since the early 1990's, FRC has emerged as a leading conservative think-tank championing "traditional family values" by lobbying for state-sponsored prayer in public schools, private school "vouchers," abstinence-only programs, filtering software on public library computers, the right to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.

FRC's objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America's domestic and foreign policy.

FRC has dedicated itself to working against reproductive freedom, sex education, equal rights for gays and lesbians and their families, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FRC supports a school prayer amendment and would like to ?'disestablish' the Department of Education.

FRC history:
FRC was originally established by Dr. James Dobson, of the behemoth right-wing group Focus on the Family, to lobby for "traditional family values" in Washington, DC. In 1988 the group was led by Gary Bauer, former head the Reagan Administration's Office of Policy Development and Reagan's chief adviser on domestic policy. The ambitious Bauer set out to make FRC the voice of social conservatives in Washington, DC.

Under Bauer, FRC became a division of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family from 1988 until October 1992, when IRS concerns about the group's lobbying led to an amicable administrative separation. When Ralph Reed stepped down as executive director of the Christian Coalition, Bauer emerged as an emerging star of the religious right.

Bauer's leadership helped establish the group as one most well-known conservative lobbying groups in Washington, DC. In 1999, Bauer left FRC to run for president of the United States. After his failed bid for the presidency, in 2000 Bauer returned to American Values, a group he had formed years ago but had been dormant for several years.

In 1999, Attorney Ken Connor was tapped to be FRC's next president, a seasoned anti-choice activist from Florida. Connor stepped down as FRC's president in August 2003.

FRC appointed former Louisiana state Rep. Tony Perkins as their new president in September 2003.

Perkin's Louisiana legislative background includes:

author of legislation requiring public schools to install filtering software.

author of American History Preservation Act, which "prevents censorship of America's Christian heritage in Louisiana public schools."

authored legislation providing "a daily time of silent prayer in Louisiana public schools."

author of the first Covenant Marriage Law.

0 Replies

I know what you mean, george, but at the same time, 70% of Bush supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda.

A third of them believe that WMD's WERE found in Iraq.

More than a third of them believe that a substantial majority of people in the world supported US invasion of Iraq.

That's all from a recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, referred to by Bob Herbert in this column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html

(I haven't found the original report yet -- thought I did, but I haven't.)

So, yes, a whole lot of people who supported Bush also have absolutely empirically wrong ideas. If they realized the ideas were wrong, would they have voted differently?

I think we all instinctively cringe from the idea of elitism, talking down, calling the other guys dumb, etc. But at the same time, 70% of Bush supporters believe that the US has clear evidence that Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda! We can't be shy about wanting to do something about that, wanting to make sure the correct information is just as accessible as the incorrect information.

0 Replies

Where did that 70% number come from? I don't know anyone that thinks that.

WMD's WERE found in Iraq, just not the quantities we expected. Most, it is believed, were secreted into Syria.

0 Replies

I edited the link and comment about the link, but already had in my post where the 70% number came from -- "a recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland."

I'm looking for it now.

Note that it's 70% of Bush supporters -- if that means Bush voters, it's 70% of the 51% percent of voters, and voters are about 50% of the population, so that gets down to what about 17% of the population?

0 Replies

I don't know about "clear evidence", and I didn't find the number itself yet. But I went to the Iraq page at pollingreport.com, looked up the questions about weapons of mass destruction, and compared them with the Republican/Democratic breakdown of the question "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?". A comparison of thse figures makes Sozobe's assertion look about right.

0 Replies

Found it.

Go here:

www.pipa.org

Find this:

Quote:

The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters
A PIPA/KN Study
[October 21, 2004]

Report of Findings
Questionnaire
Press Release

And click on "Report of findings".

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well Blatham, most of the democrat politicians are well to the left of me -- and I'm a very moderate, well-balanced guy.

Nanci Pelosi thinks the Democrats need only to do a better job educating the ignorant masses. To me that kind of thinking crosses an important line.

That moderate well-balanced guy was my friend. You sir, are no moderate well-balanced guy. To paraphrase.

Actually, I do think you moderate george. But your rhetoric isn't. Most of all though, I love that you continue to speak of 'elites'. Given your family connections (cousin to a very powerful democrat, your father a congressman), your education (Jesuit, classical), and your business connections (you recounted a meeting with Cheney), whenever you talk of some powerful, controlling and somehow undemocratic elites, it is the tastiest of ironies. You lean upon yourself, and one day, will fall through.

0 Replies

Georgeob1 a moderate? <feigns shock>

George may be one of the most intelligent posters on this board, but he is also, nuts like gunga excepted, the single most conservative poster on the entire board. "Arch" is the prefix that comes to mind. George makes McGentrix and Foxfyre look wishy-washy, exactly because he is so consistent in his thinking.

<smiles>

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Georgeob1 a moderate? <feigns shock>

George may be one of the most intelligent posters on this board, but he is also, nuts like gunga excepted, the single most conservative poster on the entire board. "Arch" is the prefix that comes to mind. George makes McGentrix and Foxfyre look wishy-washy, exactly because he is so consistent in his thinking.

<smiles>

Extreme consistency. Moderate lunacy.

0 Replies

ps

The irony noted above has a reflection in the "we hate government" party who just happen to yearn for governance, and who control the presidency, the senate and the congress. Self-hatred.

0 Replies

I guess I asked for it. The "arch" part got to me. Could it be true? I'll confess to a little hypocrisy (it is something like mayonnaise - not good for you but it makes everything better.) I do have a tendency to be a bit ... vigorous and emphatic in debate - but that's more because I love the sport of it than a desire to dominate. If I appear overbearing and bombastic ..... well, shove it.

But I do make a distinction between people of all economic situations who both purport to know what is good for other people and propose to impose it on them, and others who rely on some relaticely objective construct for minimal moral restraint and advocate freedom and choice outside that.

Blatham, don't confuse the world of Irish Catholic, Jesuit educated, Military, business types with elites. Just a moderately successful working stiff whose effervescent personality elevated him temporarily beyond his proper sphere. However I do take your point about leaning.

0 Replies

Here's an interesting perspective. I agree with it.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0445/schanberg.php

Quote:

Cast Away
by Sydney H. Schanberg
The Great Divider
Bush talks unity, but his olive branch is a sword
November 9th, 2004 12:15 PM

Stare for 30 seconds at the blue-state/red-state map of the continental United States and you might get a cold shiver, for the stark grouping of the colors looks as if we're having a second Civil War. It's not that bad?-but it's bad.

excerpts:

Quote:

Speaking to those Americans who had not voted for him?-more than 55 million of the 115 million who cast ballots?-he promised to extend an olive branch. But there was a catch. "I'll reach out," he said, "to everyone who shares our goals."

Quote:

His reach extends, therefore, only to yea-sayers, not to anyone who might express reasonable dissent from a Bush policy decision.

Apparently, dissenters are blue people. They do not understand red. They do not have faith. They must be ignored, defeated, or converted.

Quote:

They [the Democrats] must go into all those heartland rural and suburban areas of the country to find out why so many of the working-class, churchgoing people who once were glued to the Democrats' issues have now turned away?-alienated, some say, over a sense that the party that gave them Social Security and the G.I. Bill and affordable mortgages doesn't relate to them anymore on social and cultural issues like sex, marriage, and small-town virtues . . . The relentless Republican mantra about "family values"?-whether sincere or not?-has capitalized on this disenchantment.

Quote:

Some of the Republican preachments have an ideological, radioactive glow. The Grand Old Party maneuvered successfully to put propositions banning gay marriage on many state ballots. Voters in 11 states?-including pivotal Ohio, whose electoral votes got Bush over the top?-approved the referenda. In those states, churches with socially conservative congregations were central in getting out the vote. Evangelical Christians?-of whom Bush is one?-were the core of this voter drive.

Quote:

Our founding documents and their authors all spoke of God and religion, but they said these were private things, to be protected by the Constitution. No man's religion was to be forced onto those with other beliefs. America was built as a refuge from religious persecution. That's the reason for our principle of separation of church and state.

Quote:

Just before the election, James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and a major figure in the Christian conservative movement, told The New York Times that George Bush had made the Republican party pay attention to the movement. Speaking of God, Dobson said: "I felt he wanted me this time to pour myself into this, no matter how much pain or stress or physical inconvenience, to try to influence this election. God may have chosen a different track. I don't perceive it, but he might."

Quote:

. . . It is not unfair to point out that President Bush repeatedly spoke major falsehoods in order to win public support for the invasion of Iraq. He has never acknowledged his twisting of the truth. How does this fit with Christian morality?

I know, george, you think the Secular Humanists are persecuting the Christians. But I don't agree. The intent of the Founding Fathers is clear in the Constitution. Insistence that religion not be taught or practiced in public institutions is both fair and necessary. Unless you would like to consider science as a branch of secular humanism, there should be no religion taught in our schools. As Schanberg says above, religion is a private matter and religious teaching or the lack of it should be left up to the family unit, not the government.

The Conservative Evangelical Christian movement is determined to impose their religious beliefs on everyone, not just in the US but on the entire world. They have used churches as their political tools. They've found a way to couch their claims in terms that do not alarm the average, non-toxic Christians. Many of the "family values" voters are unwittingly contributing to the demise of many of our basic civil rights.

The Democrats need to find a way to do the same. We must sell our values, which in george's words above include relying "on some relatively objective construct for minimal moral restraint and advocate freedom and choice outside that." We must sell this value (or re-sell it) in the same way the fanatics have managed to do. However, it may be too late already.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

But I do make a distinction between people of all economic situations who both purport to know what is good for other people and propose to impose it on them, and others who rely on some relaticely objective construct for minimal moral restraint and advocate freedom and choice outside that.

Have you gone libertarian all of a sudden?

0 Replies

I'm reading that PIPA report, it's interesting. I'll probably have a few comments on it, but one thing I wanted to share is that the question about WMDs was specifically about the Duelfer report, rather than a more general "were there WMDs?" Here's the question:

Quote:

As you may know, Charles Duelfer, the chief weapons inspector selected by the Bush administration to investigate whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, has just presented his final report to Congress. Is it your impression he concluded that, just before the war, Iraq had:

In response to that question, 57% of Bush supporters said Duelfer concluded that Iraq did have either WMD (19%) or a major program for developing them (38%).

So that's pretty objective and measurable -- what Duelfer concluded in his report.

And this is a humdinger:

Quote:

In fact, 18% of Bush supporters still believe Iraq had WMD or a major WMD program despite knowing the Duelfer report concluded otherwise.

0 Replies

Quote:

I hope they can be. I want to get back to the time when I can passionately support my candidate, but will still feel good about it if the loyal opposition wins.

_________________
--Foxfyre

I agree only the opposite.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

The intent of the Founding Fathers is clear in the Constitution. Insistence that religion not be taught or practiced in public institutions is both fair and necessary.

While I admire the strict division of church and state that is currently being practiced in the USA, I disagree that "The intent of the Founding Fathers is clear in the Constitution", the intent being "Insistence that religion not be taught or practiced in public institution". If you read the State constitutions that were in place when the Federal Bill of Rights was written, you will find that the non-establishment clauses in the States' Bills of Rights at the time meant non-establishment of one Christian sect in preference to another. It did not mean non-establishment of Christianity in preference to non-Christian religions or to agnosticism, which you think is what "non-establishment" means. The truth of Christianity in general was taken as a given in most State constitutions with non-establishment clauses.

For an especially instructive illustration of this, compare the following two paragraphs of North Carolina's 1776 state constitution, which evidently weren't seen as mutually exclusive by the Founding Fathers of North Carolina.

In North Carolina's first State constitution, some of America's founding fathers wrote:

A declaration of rights

[...]

XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

[...]

XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any presence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, of has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship: -- Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment.

In other words: North Carolina's founding fathers didn't think that keeping non-Protestants out of public office constituted an establishment of religion. I cannot see any state constitution consistent with your view of the First Amendment, and cannot find any evidence that the Federal non-establishment clause was seen at the time as revoking State non-establishment clauses. I wish the US constitution said what you believe it says, but I think it doesn't.

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know