Lola is correct that the proper context in which to address this issue, at least on this thread, is to consider it in the light of a recovery strategy for Democrats following the election. Here are extracts from Lola's quoted piece above from "People for the American Way", which I believe encapsulates their argument;
Quote:If the President nominates someone who shares the extremist judicial philosophy of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - as he has repeatedly said he would do - he will make a mockery of his professed desire to earn all Americans' trust and support.
In addition, we must challenge the triumphalist rhetoric of Religious Right leaders. It is true that turnout efforts targeting millions of conservative Christians contributed to the victories of President Bush, hard-right members of Congress, and anti-gay ballot initiatives. But it is wrong to view the election outcome as a sign that a majority of Americans accept the Right's claims that "values" equates to a right-wing social and economic agenda. Polls show that most Americans do not embrace the Religious Right's agenda, and that war and terrorism concerns led many voters to support the President even though they disagree with much of his agenda
People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation are especially well qualified to expose the real agenda behind that rhetoric and help mainstream and progressive Americans take back the discourse on values.
This is, of course a solicitation for contributions to pay the salaries of the activists who make up this organization, so it should be evaluated in that light. The argument consists of three points;
1. Justices Scalia and Thomas - and those who hold similar views on contemporary issues - are extremists.
2. While the leaders of the ?'Religious Right' were able to increase "conservative Christian" voter turnout in support of the President and Conservative members of Congress, the majority of Americans do not support their agenda or the ?'values' issues they advocate. Only concerns about the war and terrorism led them to support the President.
3. People for the American Way are well-qualified to oppose the ?'Religious Right' and expose its real agenda to an American majority that naturally opposes them. Send Money.
OK by me if the Democrats buy this advice - I think it will keep them in the minority.
I believe labeling Scalia and Thomas as "extremists" requires a very significant relaxation of Lola's definition of just who is the extremist enemy here. There are lots of people who are neither fundamentalist Protestants, Evangelical, or even particularly religious at all who generally align themselves with ideas put forward by these two gentlemen.
The second point appears to deny what most analysts have come to regard as one of the basic outcomes of the recent election - namely that the majority of Americans are truly concerned about the so called ?'values agenda', and that it, in addition to concerns about the war, and a sense that Kerry wasn't quite right for the Presidency, were among the principal factors leading to the Bush victory. Moreover this denial flatly contradicts Lola's suggestion that there is something particularly ominous in the political activities of the leaders of the "Religious Right" - it says clearly they don't have the support of the majority of Americans, as ?'confirmed by polls'.
I find an element of "profiling" here that is more than a little hypocritical. Moreover the demonizing and denial implicit in all of this does not suggest to me that Democrats will learn anything useful or beneficial to them from the results of the election. "The people have spoken and the people are wrong - we must educate them better", does not sound to me like an effective precursor to the development of a new, successful strategy. Perhaps I will send a contribution to People for the American Way.
After reading that missive (twice) I'll make it my mission to encourage every liberal I know to support them as well. Wow...talk about "not getting" it.
