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

Quote:

Actually, just go for the "blood-sucking conservatives" you suggested a few pages earlier. It has a vibe of even-headed rationality to it that I really like.

Quote:

I prefer 'religious fanatic, evangelical, mean spirited, blood-sucking conservatives', myself.

Hilarious guys! Very funny indeed. Are you suggesting it takes one to know one? If so, you are absolutely correct........and don't you ever forget it. :wink: Twisted Evil

But as you so aptly seem to recognize, "blood sucking conservative" would hardly be a good political ploy. "Mean spirited" worked for Clinton. But we'll have to come up with something more original than that. But we have a few weeks to play around with that one. And yes, we do need a different candidate that Kerry. He's entirely too idealistic and ethical........we need someone who knows how to fight fire with fire.

I think your German compromise is an excellent one, Thomas......but I doubt we'll see it here for another 50 years or so. So in the meantime, we'll have to play the fanatic's game, only better. Those others who are of good conscience, like george, will have to ride it out like the play-by-the-rules crowd in the Democratic party and those who don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground about the behavioral sciences. (Sorry Finn.......but you're arguments don't interest me. People like you are a lost cause. And we're all better off to recognize that.)

And yes nimh, Jesus would have been a flop with the "compassionate conservatives" who can't seem to stop pointing their fingers self righteously in the direction of everyone but themselves. But I must admit, he doesn't go over very well with me either. So he'd be a real loser either way. What we need is a realist candidate and some political strategists who know what they're doing. Whether we'll get it or not, I don't know.

Another alternative is that, as the scene gets worse and worse, the middle, moderate folks will swing the other way. We'll see. In either case, we're all along for the ride, like it or not.

0 Replies

Quote:

Jesus most definitely would have lost against Bush. Some long-haired dude who, when talk is of foreign policy, extols the virtue of "turning the other cheek" and calls on the voters to share their riches on top of that - would not have gone over well in America.

This is very funny nimh. Laughing

0 Replies

Nimh.

I agree. How well would He do in the Netherlands?

Dostoyevski includes a wonderful tale concerning this notion in The Brithers Karamazov.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Personally I believe that abortion is murder and if personally asked or if it came up for a vote like the gay marriage thing did, I would vote against it unless for a medical reason. Where that leaves me as a democrat, I don't know.

That's interesting revel.

If abortion is murder, how can you support candidates who do not favor outlawing it?

Could you support a candidate who was not in favor of outlawing a husband's killing of his wife if he believes she has dishonored him?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Jesus most definitely would have lost against Bush. Some long-haired dude who, when talk is of foreign policy, extols the virtue of "turning the other cheek" and calls on the voters to share their riches on top of that - would not have gone over well in America.

Gosh nimh, you've already dismissed the 50 + million of American citizens who voted for Kerry? Aren't most of them for turning the other cheeck or sharing the wealth of the rich with the poor?

Whether a deity or not, it's a safe bet that he exuded charisma which would have been worth a couple of million votes, and I doubt he would be turning anyone off by his personal appearance. If he turned up in Washington DC tomorrow, I doubt that he'd have long hair and a beard, or wear robes and sandals.

I think you might be surprised by how well Jesus would do in a US election.

Oh wait...now I get it!

Your posting was supposed to be a rip on Americans.

I see now that you are satirizing our well known national traits for despising those who look different, war mongering, and greed.

How clever!

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Nimh.

I agree. How well would He do in the Netherlands?

Dostoyevski includes a wonderful tale concerning this notion in The Brithers Karamazov.

One book I have embarassingly still not read ... but will, still <nods>

As for how Jesus would do in the Netherlands? Well, I would think not all too well! Razz

That is, what would He think about legal weed, legal prostitution, legal gay marriage and legal abortion and euthanasia?

Oh forget it, even if he would accord them all we still wouldn't appreciate his sermons ... in the "new" Holland, we say what we think and we do what we say, and noone's moral preaching is gonna stop us from our right to do so! Razz

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Gosh nimh, you've already dismissed the 50 + million of American citizens who voted for Kerry? Aren't most of them for turning the other cheeck or sharing the wealth of the rich with the poor?

Yeah, I had actually already dismissed the blue-staters ... see my above post on why the Dutch wouldnt vote Jesus ;-)

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Whether a deity or not, it's a safe bet that he exuded charisma which would have been worth a couple of million votes

Thats true. But would he be a hit at fundraising? Schmoozing and hobnobbing?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Oh wait...now I get it!

Your posting was supposed to be a rip on Americans.

I see now that you are satirizing our well known national traits for despising those who look different, war mongering, and greed.

How clever!

Oh get over yourself already Finn ... come visit one of my threads on Holland and you'll find out that I'm an equal opportunity criticizer ... no need to feel, as we so colourfully say it in Dutch, "stepped on your ****" ...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Gosh nimh, you've already dismissed the 50 + million of American citizens who voted for Kerry? Aren't most of them for turning the other cheeck or sharing the wealth of the rich with the poor?

Yeah, I had actually already dismissed the blue-staters ... see my above post on why the Dutch wouldnt vote Jesus ;-)

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Whether a deity or not, it's a safe bet that he exuded charisma which would have been worth a couple of million votes

Thats true. But would he be a hit at fundraising? Schmoozing and hobnobbing?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Oh wait...now I get it!

Your posting was supposed to be a rip on Americans.

I see now that you are satirizing our well known national traits for despising those who look different, war mongering, and greed.

How clever!

Oh get over yourself already Finn ... come visit one of my threads on Holland and you'll find out that I'm an equal opportunity criticizer ... no need to feel, as we so colourfully say it in Dutch, "stepped on your ****" ...

Nothing to get over nimh.

I thought sarcasm in response to sarcasm was appropriate.

0 Replies

I've had major connection problems, skipping over a lot I'm sure, but one thing I'm really worried about is throwing out the welcoming-Christians baby with the capitulating-to-religious-right bathwater. I do think that the secular identification is hurting Democrats, and a willingness to speak in the bible argot -- helping the poor, etc. -- could help and most importantly is not against the core values of the party. It's not making things up, it's a matter of terminology.

As nimh got at here or elsewhere (I've had little tiny windows of access, totally lost track of everything), Jesus himself prolly would've been more likely to be a commie pinko Democrat than a Republican. There's nothing wrong with Democrats embracing that concept while staying true to their core values.

0 Replies

I honestly do not mean this contentuously, but honestly would like to know what most Democrats think their core values are and how they differ from Republican core values.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I've had major connection problems, skipping over a lot I'm sure, but one thing I'm really worried about is throwing out the welcoming-Christians baby with the capitulating-to-religious-right bathwater. I do think that the secular identification is hurting Democrats, and a willingness to speak in the bible argot -- helping the poor, etc. -- could help and most importantly is not against the core values of the party. It's not making things up, it's a matter of terminology.

As nimh got at here or elsewhere (I've had little tiny windows of access, totally lost track of everything), Jesus himself prolly would've been more likely to be a commie pinko Democrat than a Republican. There's nothing wrong with Democrats embracing that concept while staying true to their core values.

Democrats embracing Jesus.

Whoa, that's a concept I'm not sure I can get my head around.

What I'm more interested in though is learning of the core values Democrats must work to stay true to while embracing Jesus.

I guess if they embraced Jesus, they'd have to be careful they didn't lose their secularism, but what other values?

0 Replies

Oh, that could be an interesting discussion.

I think Republican values are more geared towards allowing people who have worked hard for their wealth to keep it, while Democratic values are more geared towards making sure that the basic needs of all citizens are met. Republicans are more towards legislating morality, Democrats are more towards legislating rights.

Hmm, I'll keep thinking.

Finn, just saw a bumper sticker -- "Christian Democrat: Yes, you can be both!"

0 Replies

I don't want to talk here about the difference to Europe ([again] since the 'Christian Democrats' are the biggest fraction int EU parliament amd .... conservative :wink: [but perhaps left to the US-Democrats Laughing

]), but even within the Social Democrats here, there a lots of practicing Christians (= people of Chrisian faith). The SPD actually has a Catholic and a Protestant Interest Group in the Federal Parliament.

0 Replies

You actually think that being a Democrat precludes you from being a Christian, or from following an other religion of your choice? What a strange notion.

On a slightly different subject, here is a cartoon animation:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/alberto.html

By their friends ye shall know them.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I think Republican values are more geared towards allowing people who have worked hard for their wealth to keep it, while Democratic values are more geared towards making sure that the basic needs of all citizens are met. Republicans are more towards legislating morality, Democrats are more towards legislating rights.

Soz, generalizations aside for a moment, I view things a bit differently than reflected in your hypothecation. I would opine Republicans are not so much, if at all, concerned with defending wealth or legislating morality. but rather seek to assure equal opportunity for and equal treatment of, all citizens, though with appropriate allowance and accommodation for the truly innocently disadvantaged, in accordance with the letter and spirit of The US Constitution, its ammendments, and The Bill of Rights. I see the thrust of Democratic Party philosophy slanted toward equal result regardless of qualification or contribution, "special rights" for subset demographics, and the mandating of entitlements largely funded through disproportionately shifting the tax burden both upwards as pertaining to individuals, and placing even more onerous obligations and restrictions on business.

This is not to say business should be free of regulation - that is an absurd notion at any level - but much legislation enacted over the past several decades has disadvantaged US business in both the domestic and global arenas ... disadvantage US Business largely has sougt to ammeliorate through improvements in productivity, distribution, and management efficiency. I submit it is not Republican Policy which has "Cost American Jobs", but rather that Democratic Policy has resulted in Business finding ways to do more with fewer people and to look outward for material resources available domestically but priced uncompetitively, due chiefly to ill-considered, short-sighted, feel-good, counter-productive legislated regulation and restriction.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Democrats embracing Jesus.

Whoa, that's a concept I'm not sure I can get my head around.

Why? There are several examples of how it could work. For one example, the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was to a large part organized and inspired by protestant ministers like Martin Luther King. For another example, if you look at up "Catholic Social Teaching" on Google, you will find that the official Catholic position on many social issues is very close to the Democrats' philosophy. (I like this description of Catholic Social Teaching from the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis.)

Quote:

I guess if they embraced Jesus, they'd have to be careful they didn't lose their secularism, but what other values?

I don't think so. Creationism is no more Christian than believing that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Taboos against homosexuality are imposed by the same laws in the Old Testament that also forbid you to eat shellfish, and modern Christians find it perfectly okay to eat shellfish. The belief that you can't "embrace Jesus" and believe in secular institutions is nothing but an urban legend.

With all this in mind, I think Democrats may well find their platform easy to market to Christians, if they find the right tone and the right messenger.

0 Replies

Thomas' proposition that the social policies advocated by most Christian churches, and, more importantly, many of the essential beliefs of Christianity, are entirely consistent with many of the historical views of the Democrat party, is accurate to a point. It is also true that the Republican Party's creation and initial growth was closely associated with a largely Christian Abolitionist movement in the Northern states. Overall the historical and contermporary associations are decidedly mixed.

Unfortunately over the last several decades a handfull of social/politicaL issues have seriously polarized the body politic on both sides of this issue. The Democrat 'progressive' elements in our society have morphed from active participation of religious groups to something quite irreligious and finally to something rather anti-religious in both content and prevailing attitudes. Unfortunately at the same time the self-proclaimed spokesmen of 'religious' views have more and more come to represent only a segment of the spectrum, an uncompromising fundamentalist, evangelical segment of Protestantism. All this was happening amidst a general decline in the practice of religion by Americans - perhaps not to the degree found in Europe, but significant nonetheless. Moreover the Catholic Church hierarchy was rather thoroughly (and justifiably) discredited by a long tolerance of abuses, mostly of teenage boys by homosexual priests. As often happens in such polarized circumstances a perverse application of Gresham's law of currency takes hold -- radical, intolerant, uncompromising attitudes on both sides drive out more sensible, moderate ones.

Overall I see this as much more than merely a tactical problem for the Democrat party. However, even in that limited interpretation - which is the subject of this thread, progress will require the development of more moderate and tolerant voices on both sides of a secular-religious divide that has unnecessarily separated Americans of various political persuasions. This will take some time, not to mention patient leadership and colaboration - more of both than I think are presently available before the next Presidential welection.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Democrats embracing Jesus.

Whoa, that's a concept I'm not sure I can get my head around.

Why? There are several examples of how it could work. For one example, the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was to a large part organized and inspired by protestant ministers like Martin Luther King. For another example, if you look at up "Catholic Social Teaching" on Google, you will find that the official Catholic position on many social issues is very close to the Democrats' philosophy. (I like this description of Catholic Social Teaching from the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis.)

Quote:
I guess if they embraced Jesus, they'd have to be careful they didn't lose their secularism, but what other values?

I don't think so. Creationism is no more Christian than believing that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Taboos against homosexuality are imposed by the same laws in the Old Testament that also forbid you to eat shellfish, and modern Christians find it perfectly okay to eat shellfish. The belief that you can't "embrace Jesus" and believe in secular institutions is nothing but an urban legend.

With all this in mind, I think Democrats may well find their platform easy to market to Christians, if they find the right tone and the right messenger.

Only because it seems, of late, that Jesus is to the Democrat Party as sunlight is to Vampires.

Now before anyone goes nuts, I do not think Democrats are godless heathens nor that Christian Democrat is an oxymoron.

I certainly can see Democrats giving a nod to Jesus as Senator Kerry and Governor Cuomo have often done, but embracing him?

As a sidebar. Personally, I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God and the Savior of mankind. I don't believe that embracing him or his teachings is required to lead this nation, or will make someone a better president if they do.

I do find interesting Sozobe's suggestion that in embracing Jesus, Democrats will need to be careful that they don't sacrifice any of their core values. I would just like to know what core values of the Democrats are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus, not because I am trying to set a trap for anyone, but because I'm curious.

Certainly wanting to make sure all citizens are taken care of is not in conflict with the teachings of Jesus, nor is a desire to legislate rights.

If there is a conflict, it may be in the rights Democrats want to legislate.

I somehow think that Jesus would come down on the side of banning abortion. I could be wrong, but I think not. With that in mind I am always interested in learning how Christian Democrats rationalize the conflict.

I know that folks like Cuomo will tell us that while he personally disfavors abortion, he will not impose his personal views on other citizens. Of course he has said this during the same period of time when he tried to impose his personal views (informed by his faith) of capital punishment on his fellow citizens in New York.

To me the argument is a dodge.

Legal sanctioning of abortions is something quite different from legal sanctioning of the eating of shellfish.

I don't impart any great importance to someone's calling themself a Christian (born once twice or three times), and while it may not be a political mistake for Democrat politicians to start calling themselves Christians, it certainly has a cynical tone to it that I find slightly offensive.

If the Democrats try to address their values-gap with mere packaging, they will fail.

The problem has not really been that Democrat values are not consistent with Christian teachings, it has been the seeming disdain for all things religious (and particularly Christian) expressed by Liberal activists, and intelligentsia.

The Democrats refuse to distance themselves from the Left, which is their perogative. Perhaps they would no longer be Democrats if they did. They will not win another presidential election anytime soon if they do not.

Demonization of the Religious Right by Liberals is not seen in the Heartland as condemnation of a small and select group of political/religious extremists. It is not seen as such, because it is not as such. The raving and ranting on the Left about the threat of a Christian theocracy in this country is not targeted on a small group, and spills over, intentionally and otherwise, on people who consider themselves mainstream Christians.

Democrats who try and wear the Christian mantle in 2006 and 2008, better walk the talk in addition to talking it. The Heartland Christians aren't fools who are simply looking for politicians who wear cross lapel pins.

0 Replies

In fact Finn, I don't think Middle America of the red states cares one way or the other whether their president is or is not religious or what religion s/he might favor. What they do care about is whether their president is respectful of and tolerant of the religious faith of the Middle Americans of the red states. Any politician who presumes to favor further restrictions on the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution or who endorses or accepts support from any groups who do is very likely to run into problems with those people.

0 Replies

Finn D'Abuzz wrote:

I do find interesting Sozobe's suggestion that in embracing Jesus, Democrats will need to be careful that they don't sacrifice any of their core values. I would just like to know what core values of the Democrats are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus, not because I am trying to set a trap for anyone, but because I'm curious.

Finn, I said exactly the opposite. That the nice thing about Democrats going ahead with the bible argot and embracing Christians is that it is IN KEEPING with their core values.

sozobe wrote:

I do think that the secular identification is hurting Democrats, and a willingness to speak in the bible argot -- helping the poor, etc. -- could help and most importantly is not against the core values of the party. It's not making things up, it's a matter of terminology.

(New emphasis.)

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know