0
   

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

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 07:47 am
In his Op-Ed about apocalyptic Christians today, Nicholas Kristof supplies a wonderful example of the spirit I'd like Democrats to show as they take on those of their fellow citizens who make the red states red: stand your ground, but don't treat them as retards who need your guidance, or enemies who need to be beaten with a hardcover copy of Bill Clinton's autobiography until they like him.

In today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote:
For starters, it's worth pointing out that those predicting an apocalypse have a long and lousy record. In America, tens of thousands of followers of William Miller waited eagerly for Jesus to reappear on Oct. 22, 1844. Some of these Millerites had given away all their belongings, and the no-show was called the Great Disappointment.

In more recent times, the best-selling nonfiction book of the 1970's was Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth," selling 18 million copies worldwide with its predictions of a Second Coming. Then, one of the hottest best sellers in 1988 was a booklet called "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988." Oops.

Being wrong has rarely been so lucrative.

[...]

So I challenge the authors to a bet: if the events of the Apocalypse arrive in the next 10 years, then I'll donate $500 to the battle against the Antichrist; if it doesn't, you donate $500 to a charity of my choosing that fights poverty - and bigotry.

Gentlemen, do we have a deal?

Full article

(And just to give the competition credit where credit is due, I'll note that Kristofis recycling an idea from the late Julian Simon, a conservative economist and one of my personal heros. Simon used the same tactic to make a point against Stanford's Paul Ehrlich, whose Malthusian scaremongering bears interesting parallels to the Second Comings that didn't happen)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:49 am
Blatham wrote:
You ought to walk into a religious studies survey course at any university, finn. Liberals as far as your myopia might peer. Or pick up a book by someone like Elaine Pagels, professor, Christian and as intelligent a lady as you are ever going to bump into.

I dont see much "disdain for all things religious (and particularly Christian)" here either.

I thus suspect that Blatham's response, which included this bit here, will prove Finn's point only to those who were set on believing it in any case.

But I guess that anyone further to point this out will just be labelled as "trying to curry favour with Blatham" ... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:59 am
Thomas, quoting the Economist wrote:
Back in 2000, Al Gore tried to revive southern populism with his talk of fighting for "the people against the powerful". ("There aren't many Tom Joads in the exurbs," says Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council. "If you're fighting for anything, it's probably a parking space.")

Still plenty of Tom Joads left in America, if not in the exurbs. And plenty of 'em that the Democrats are not currently reaching. Take West-Virginia. One of the poorest states in the country. Has been struggling especially in this latest economic crisis time. Traditionally Democrat, too. And yet still they voted for Bush Jr.

If the Dems start talking straight again and lose the Barbra Streisands (and, OK, the Blathams ;-)), they can still win them back - can still win the elections again thanks to the Tom Joads of the country. Becoming even more "liberal", in the European sense, and trying to win elections through appealing to the exurb prosperous with some combination of cultural "enlightenment" and economic Republicanizing is not gonna get you anywhere soon, is my conviction.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 09:07 am
finn

I happen to be rather fond of you, though I am taking some strong painkillers right now.

Nimh and king arthur have it. I could likely sicken you with a lengthy spiel on what I think christian thinkers and tradition has gotten right.

As to taking these issues seriously, yes I do. As to taking myself seriously, sure, who doesn't?

Was about to paste in the Kristoff piece that Thomas added earlier.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 09:56 am
http://home.earthlink.net/~jleec/_uimages/fallingcat.gif

Quote:
We welcome back to the area Senator Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.), who has been spending so much time here in Little Rock lately that she's practically joined the church choir! "I'm here spending time at my husband's library," she told the Lamp when we caught up with her after a Sunday camp meeting, "and of course, I always take time to worship God in as evangelical a way as is feasible, given time and location constraints. As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative, if you want to know the truth, so it's nice to be 'home' again in the South, which I really consider my quote-unquote home even though I live in New York most of the time. Well, Washington, D.C., most of the time, actually, but if I'm not there I'm in New York, of course, but always thinking about being here, in the South, my spiritual home, where I shared so many wonderful evangelical . . . moments and . . . events.

Hillary Clinton: interview appearing in "Light the Lamp!", the monthly newsletter of the Holy Flame Pentecostal Church of Little Rock, Ark.


http://www.boltlightningprotection.com/images/EM94044.jpg

:wink: Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing :wink:



Mr. Green Cool Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 10:14 am
Quote:
How silly this is. Who, after all, would be the converse of 'intelligent sia'? The unbright ians. There's a community of achievers to clambor towards.

But you intend, of course, a cliched hack at the educated. Education makes you stupider and if you stay uneducated, well boy you are then really at the peak of intellectual achievement. So puff up with pride, Mr Everyman, for not reading.

You ought to walk into a religious studies survey course at any university, finn. Liberals as far as your myopia might peer. Or pick up a book by someone like Elaine Pagels, professor, Christian and as intelligent a lady as you are ever going to bump into. And then compare her book to one by Falwell or Robertson or Grapham. Disdain is an appropriate response for that group of three dwarf-minds.


Contempt for all things Christian? No, I didn't read it that way. I read it as contempt for any brand of Christianity that doesn't measure up to the snooty, presumed-to-be-intellectual, arrogant, condescending liberals who consider the only Christianity worthy of respect is that which fits with their own elitist views. John Kerry unintentionally projected that elitist image. The vast majority of Americans are more comfortable not with intellectual elitism but with the more down-to-earth using kind of religion as is portrayed by the president. And think that this is party only to the uneducated at your peril.

Be contemptuous if you wish. But it will cost you many hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes at the polls.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 10:19 am
Quote:
Contempt for all things Christian? No, I didn't read it that way. I read it as contempt for any brand of Christianity that doesn't measure up to the snooty, presumed-to-be-intellectual, arrogant, condescending liberals who consider the only Christianity worthy of respect is that which fits with their own elitist views. John Kerry unintentionally projected that elitist image. The vast majority of Americans are more comfortable not with intellectual elitism but with the more down-to-earth using kind of religion as is portrayed by the president.

Be contemptuous of that if you wish. But it will cost you many hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes at the polls.


By which you mean, 'religion that doesn't let Ideals get in the way with Real Life.'

You can have your hundreds of thousands of votes. Ideals will win out in the end.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 10:21 am
You're assuming those hundreds of thousands have no ideals Cyclop. I can assure you they do. And they voted them this past election and will continue to do so.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 10:23 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Be contemptuous if you wish. But it will cost you many hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes at the polls.



Shhhhhhhh .... over the last decade, that's cost 'em scores upon scores upon scores of millions of votes ... why tip 'em to it? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 10:25 am
Funny how their Ideals drop by the wayside when it comes to supporting War, and the other policies of the prez....

Isn't 'thou shalt not kill' an Ideal?

How about 'the meek shall inherit the earth?'

Or 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you?'

No, you're thinking more of the 'I'm afraid of faggots marrying' and 'I'd rather keep my money than actually be fiscally responsible or help people' sort of ideals, right? Right.

The biggest problem with Chrisitianity in America is the gigantic numbers of hypocrites who refer to themselves as 'Christian' but never actually attempt to act in a Christ-like manner...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 10:26 am
Quote:
Shhhhhhhh .... over the last decade, that's cost 'em scores upon scores upon scores of millions of votes ... why tip 'em to it?


We'd rather not have the votes, thanks very much.

If in order to get those votes, we have to support the backwards, regressionist policies that the Republicans do, you can keep them; better to be out of office than to compromise one's principles of what is right and wrong.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 10:43 am
Oh good. Just keeping thinking that way Cyclop. We can look forward to the Republicans staying in power for a very long time and you can be happy with your principles.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 10:54 am
Quote:
Oh good. Just keeping thinking that way Cyclop. We can look forward to the Republicans staying in power for a very long time and you can be happy with your principles.


Oh, I doubt it. People don't like to change; they fear it. But they will once it becomes neccessary.

And the farther and farther we slide into problems as a nation, thanks to the inconsistencies between what is said by the Republican leadership(who all profess to be good Chrisitans, and yet never seem to vote that way, ever), and what is done by the Republican leadership, the more obvious it will become to people that we need to make changes.

I'm willing to wait. Unlike you, I'm not willing to do 'whatever it takes' to get votes.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 11:11 am
I'm with Cyclops acctually. Besides, any compromise by the democrats on any of those issues would likely cost them more base votes than it would gain them swing votes. The republicans will rule alone for a while, that's just the way two party systems work.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 11:20 am
I think the only way that Bush won was by attracting Democrat voters to the GOP side and I think the whole idea of what Americans do value and consider most important is what turned the election. It certainly was not the forceful personality or charisma of the candidate that did it.

There is so much partisan vitriole among the immature and/or angry, it is difficult to separate out these core values from the party and/or candidates and look at them honestly and objectively. If we could do that however, my guess is that we all really do want the same things and share appreciation for those things most important to us. When a party projects a reverse image through its rhetoric, media personalities, Hollywood parties, or whatever, it does turn thinking people off. Most people are not willing to overlook that just to support a candidate.

I wish both parties would get back to the point that ether candidate can win without a great deal of angst or handwringing from either side. I am old enough to remember when we could do that. But it would have to put aside the blame game and politics of personal destruction and focus again on the principles of government we hold and which candidate most closely represents them. This assumes that both or all candidates reflect the core values of the majority of the American people.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 11:26 am
I would submit folks in general tend to vote more based on what has been done - what they see as the concrete impact of government on their own lives, and the congruence - or lack thereof - of evidenced Administrational policy with their own preferences - than what has been said, and further submit it precisely is what The Republicans have done and what The Democrats have said that have brought the two parties to the current relative standings.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 11:28 am
blatham wrote:
And then compare her book to one by Falwell or Robertson or Grapham. Disdain is an appropriate response for that group of three dwarf-minds.

I agree.

blatham wrote:
Unlike the rich Catholic and Anglican traditions, the protestant community in America has produced no religious philospher worth a pinch of coonshit. The best they've got is Alvin Plantinga, and that's not saying much.

I'm not sure I buy into the logic of this. It sounds a bit like saying: "Unlike the rich mammal tradition, the birds of the world have produced no ornithologist worth a pinch of coonshit. The best is my parrot, but that's not saying much." Or in other words: As an ex-Lutheran atheist, I don't see why the merits of a religious denomination should be measured by its ability to produce theologists.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 11:32 am
I agree in part with that Timber. But there is also an element of fear and outrage involved. Most Americans don't think vulgarity and obscenity has a place in the election process. Most Americans don't think it's okay to kill a baby that is emerging from the womb or to scrap a millenia of tradition to redefine marriage. Most Americans don't think it's okay to malign or shortchange troops on the battlefield and most Americans believe in God and think religion is just fine just about anywhere so long as people have the right to accept or reject with impunity whatever religious beliefs are portrayed.

When you have a party that projects or implies the reverse of these things, you have a party that is out of step with the majority of Americans. And that party is unlikely to win many elections.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 01:48 pm
Quote:
I'm not sure I buy into the logic of this. It sounds a bit like saying: "Unlike the rich mammal tradition, the birds of the world have produced no ornithologist worth a pinch of coonshit. The best is my parrot, but that's not saying much." Or in other words: As an ex-Lutheran atheist, I don't see why the merits of a religious denomination should be measured by its ability to produce theologists.


thomas

Now, there's an odd analogy. In terms of taxonomy, it puts some biggg distance between held religious beliefs and philosophic or reflective thinking about those same beliefs. see here But that is my argument...that north american protestantism, and particularly the evangelical community, is and has been uniquely unhappy with such reflection.

What's measured isn't ability to produce theologists, but rather the presence of traditions which encourage critical analysis of held beliefs. The converse of that is, of course, literalism and obsequiousness to authority. Earlier, on this or another thread, george argued that evolution doesn't necessarily pose any problem for theism so long as one doesn't assume their reading of scripture is the only possible reading because god steared the pens of those who wrote it (reflecting the Catholic church's long history of trying to wrestle honestly with new ideas about the world). George's post was a response to another who had argued against evolution because it contradicted scripture (reflecting the American evangelical community's long history of literalism and anti-intellectualism).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2004 09:13 am
Blatham --

I don't know how familiar Americans are with Berthold Brecht, who happens to be one of my favorite dramaticians. In one of his plays, "The Life of Galilei", there is an exchange between him and his student Andrea. It takes place after Galilei revoked his astronomy under pressure from the Catholic Church. Andrea is disappointed because he had expected his master to stand up and fight for Copernican astronomy, damn the inquisition. The exchange culminates in the following two lines.

Andrea: "Hapeless is the country that has no heroes."
Galilei: "No, hapeless is the country that needs heroes."

This seems to sum up nicely how we disagree about religions which have no intellectuals. The doctrines that make religions valuable are immediately obvious to me without much intellectual elaboration: Love your neighbor, respect your elders, don't steal from, nor lie to, nor cheat on, nor kill each other, and don't covet other people's stuff. Conversely, it seems immediately obvious to me that everything else is best discarded without much intellectual elaboration. In either case, intellectual elaboration of religious questions seems like a waste of brains and time to me. Worse: The perceived need for such elaboration indicates that the religion is in trouble, just like it indicates trouble when a country is beginning to need heroes.

So when evangelical Americans feel they don't need such elaboration, I agree with them rather than count it against them, as you appear to do. (But I grant you that I would disagree with them about the stuff to be discarded of.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 12:05:20