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

Who the Media Research Center is should not be relevant here. All the information posted is fully verifiable from numerous other sources even to MRC's assessment of them.

The point is to illustrate that the Dems in no way sat idly by and just let the election of 2000, 2002, and 2004 happen. They were fighting tooth and nail the whole way and they were fighting pretty dirty a lot of the time.

But they were fighting on the side opposite of a majority of the American electorate so they have steadily been losing ground at all levels of government in all parts of the country.

That's what this thread is all about., The Dems who continue to think just opposing/fighting Republicans will turn it around are, in my opinion, doomed to failure. It hasn't worked in the last 10 years and it is highly unlikely to work now.

The Dems need to get back to their traditional roots and again become a progressive party with ideas that can be debated. They can't accomplish much by simply opposing George Bush and the GOP.

I want them to do that so that we really do have a choice in the next election. In this past election we had the choice of pro-Bush or anti-Bush. The Dems need to do better than that.

Speaking my opinion about what is best for America, if the Dems start coming up with some good ideas, it will force the GOP to develop better ones to compete. All Americans then benefit no matter who wins the next election.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But they were fighting on the side opposite of a majority of the American electorate.

Inaccurate. A majority of the American electorate voted for the Democratic candidate in 2000.

That is far from the only thing that's inaccurate in your posts, but you refuse to learn anything that contradicts your belief system, and I tire of sowing silk purses on sow's ears. See my signature line for more guidance in this area.

0 Replies

Let's see. The Dems lost the presidency, the House, the Senate, most of the governorships, and a lost ground in most state legislatures in 2000, lost again in 2002, and lost even more ground in 2004. Maybe in your state there was just one race on the ballot PD? Be sure to put a few nickels in those purses.

0 Replies

Realizing that nothing would please you more than for America to continue its downhill slide toward a one-party state, I invite you to enjoy your ride to the ideolgical slaughterhouse.

I'm pretty sure that neither the purses sewn to your head, nor the nickels inside them, will do you much good once you reach your destination.

0 Replies

A group like the MRC, which cites 10 media errors, all of which support one party's point of view, does nothing more than provide grist for that party's mill.

Pasting it here isn't going to convince anyone of anything new. I would say the same for a group that listed 10 errors, all on the part of the Republicans. I might enjoy reading it, but I'd know it's propaganda.

0 Replies

No, D, all the events were real and were widely publicized and widely posted from various sources here on A2K. They were just gathered up in a bunch by MRC and I posted them as an illustration of how McAuliffe was full of it. You can believe that all these events did not happen or not. You can accept the the Democrat party has not been the oppressed, meek, silent little mouse that McAuliffe pretends it has been or not.

The Democrats have not been losing elections because they were too meek or mild or unwilling to ight. They've been losing because they have been fighting. . . on the wrong side from most of the people on most of hte issues.

But it's okay. If you don't want to believe that, at least the other party keeps winning elections. I would prefer a better choice of candidates, but we're doing okay with most of the ones who have been winning.

0 Replies

And God said: "Hate the liberals." And lo, the liberals were surely hated.

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/repjesus51.gif

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

let's take three "issues" and find a place where republicans and non-republicans ( i say that because i am no longer a republican and not yet a democrat and probably not alone. ) can hash out solutions to those issues that all can live with.

maybe if we can prove that it can be done on a simple net site, it will inspire the knuckleheads in washington to miss a lunch or two and give it a try.

Foxfyre wrote:

I like DTom's suggestion. Pick an issue or issues that so far have no solution on the blocks and see what we can come up with.

My three picks for starters:
1) Illegal immigration/protecting U.S. borders
2) A mediocre and/or inadequate education system
3) Social Security - all government control or privatize some of it?

blatham wrote:

dtom

As a separate and unrelated issue, that ought to be done on a unique thread.

But I'll toss in a couple of tips...
-address one issue only
-make it an issue not presently the subject of party or media concern (folks will just paste in their ideologies)
-choose a question that will require some concrete research

Lash wrote:

I'm down with it. Any other takers?

(What issue hasn't already been felt up and cast aside by politics?)

Okay guys. I tried to be serious this time. hope we can have fun and learn something together.

Immigration - Discussing Non-Partisan Solutions

0 Replies

I still maintain that the core problem of the Democrats is that, faced with a Republican Party, traditionally defenders of the interests of the prosperous, making an agressive move ever since the 80s to shift the whole focus of discourse away from economy toward culture, they didn't just fail to fight back and drag the spotlight back to its electorare's day-to-day struggles - no, they positively embraced their newly ascribed identity as cultural champions of libertine values. The Republicans fought the Culture Wars with vigor and cunning, forsure - but it might still not have worked if the Democrats themselves hadn't, in turn, led by the sixties generation, redefined its core identity as cultural rather than economic. No longer FDR's (or hell, William Jenning Bryan's) party of ensuring a decent life for working folk, it became, by its own choice too, primarily the party of abortion, secularism, gay rights, etc. Sure, most Democrats still believe in the New Deal as well - but they make the choice of their party's identity every time they decide to get all worked up about, say, a stone bible by the back door of a courthouse, instead of outing the story of yet another man who was fired for daring to get involved in a union, because his company feels confident that the Bush administration will side with it if the case ever comes up.

Now I share the liberal points of view on all those cultural points - thats not the point. I just dont understand how the liberals welcome those points taking center stage in every single day of news and debate so eagerly, when a) it's an obvious vote loser and b) - really - is gay marriage really more important in the average American's life than social security or the minimum wage?

The responsibility comes in three steps. 1) is the obvious one, the one of well-organised Christian-conservative backlash, the one in which the echo chamber of talk radio and blogs discovers ever new "outrages" of anti-Christian political correctness or liberal hedonism and cultural relativation. But 2) is where the liberals themselves ever again eagerly take up the gauntlet and 3) is where they fail to come up with narratives of their own, stories that illustrate how the poorest 10% of America, for example, now is exactly where it was in 1980 - improvement in living standards and purchasing power, zilch. Because they're not interested? Because they wouldn't know?

The result of the whole process showed up in yet another factlet I came across today - which is how I came to posting on this thread again:

Quote:

A 2001 study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress found that, of the 88 congressional districts that Republicans won from Democrats between 1994 and 2000, 59 had incomes below the national average. Among the 46 seats that Democrats won from Republicans, 29 had incomes above the national average.

Forsure, still the Democrats do best among working class Americans and worst among the richest; and the Republicans, best among the very wealthiest and worst among the working poor. But the Democrats have been losing working class districts left and right - picking up in return only a smaller share of nicely prosperous property. This is a losing strategy, not just because there's less to win in that corner of the electorate and still a lot of working folk to lose, but because it means that the resort to well-to-do, libertine-minded voters will exponentionally shrink your chance of properly winning back your core electorate. Not just because of how you'll be associated with them - but because once in, those new electorates will never allow you anymore to return to properly progressive economic policies. It's not just that those wealthier voters will often have little affinity with the problems of a factory worker, waitress or cleaner and thus little skill in talking about them or little interest in engaging themselves about them - its that in the end, they probably wouldnt accept any kind of progressive income politics anymore that might hurt them in their wallet. No, fight the good fight on the division of church and state, thats whats important (to us)!

Its not just the Democrats. This rant is not just about them. The same has happened - if anything, more sharply still - with the Socialdemocrat and Labour Parties here. I can see it in my party too, the Green Left. We have a local action group. What do they focus on? Air quality. Bicycle lanes. Protesting against new police tactics of preventive stop + search, or against shopkeepers who put photos of shoplifters in their window. Preservation of the city's smaller greens (mostly in richer neighbourhoods). But when the Green Left was also the only party in the council to stand up for the inhabitants of a working-class district threatened with massive demolition/eviction, the activists were disinterested - full agenda, you know.

Where did the Left go, is what I wanna know?

<end of rant>

0 Replies

I agree with the above. I think this is the core in some ways:

Quote:

but because it means that the resort to well-to-do, libertine-minded voters will exponentionally shrink your chance of properly winning back your core electorate

The fact is, campaigns need money to be effective. And what seems to be happening is that the Democrats are wooing wealthy donors in whatever ways they can, just as Republicans are. Snazzy cultural issues work better for wooing than stickier boringer issues that really affect working-class people.

Small donations from a large number of people was the story of the election year, (though of course matched by Soros and such), hoping that can help shape things towards the working class again.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I still maintain that the core problem of the Democrats is that, faced with a Republican Party, traditionally defenders of the interests of the prosperous, making an agressive move ever since the 80s to shift the whole focus of discourse away from economy toward culture, they didn't just fail to fight back and drag the spotlight back to its electorare's day-to-day struggles - no, they positively embraced their newly ascribed identity as cultural champions of libertine values.

I don't agree completely, but I just surfed into a priceless caricature of that mindset at The Left Coaster, a weblog. I thought this thread might be a good place to share it. The piece starts with the observation that the religious right is energetically pushing 'Intelligent Design' theory in schoolboards across the nation these days. Then it goes on to suggest a winning strategy for the Democrats:

Quote:

Undoubtedly, the liberal urban elites in our party, led by Michael Moore and Eli Pariser, will scoff at these latest efforts. But we believe that this attitude is dangerously misguided. By fully embracing the theory of evolution, Democrats risk alienating millions of voters in our nation's heartland who would otherwise be attracted to our party's agenda. Therefore, instead of turning their backs on these Red State evolution skeptics, we strongly encourage Democrats to embrace the "evolutionary middle."

What exactly is the "evolutionary middle," you may ask? Well, one thing it most certainly is not is a wholesale embrace of creationism. After all, we do realize that, however much we at the DLC may dislike it, the Democratic party will never turn its back on the scientific community, let alone rational empiricism. Instead, we believe that the "evolutionary middle" involves accepting the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, but loudly and insistently reminding our Red State brethren that it is, after all, only a theory.

Read on

0 Replies

I don't see evolution as being that big a part of the dem debacle. What the dems did wrong was to go after the treason vote in a halfhearted way. What they really needed was the ultimate treason ticket:

http://www.designeduniverse.com/pics/arnold_iscariot.gif

0 Replies

Interesting enough piece. However the Democrats and the authors of the blog as well appear to rather consistently underestimate the intelligence, perception, and common sense of their "red state" antagonist.

While it is true there are a few primitive literalist creationists about, the fact is that most of the controversy afoot on creationism involves the scientific community itself. Just as cosmologists had to come up with a discrete period after the big bang during which the laws of physics didn't apply ("inflation " is the term they used) in order to explain the disproportionate size of the universe, compared to its age, biologists are grappling with problems associated with the complexity of life forms relative to the age of the earth and the rate of spontaneous organization attainable in their evolutionist models. No intelligent observer doubts that evolution occurs, just as no one doubts the current expansion of our universe, however in both cases there is good reason to doubt that we have a complete understanding or model for the processes themselves.
The real dogmatists here are not the creationists: they are instead the unquestioning and complacent consumers of contemporary secular doctrine.

I doubt that the Democrats will escape the embrace and control of the collection of single issue zealots who have misdirected it for the past few decades. Certainly Hillary Clinton will give this a try, and the formula used by her husband did work for a while. However the forces that elected Howard Dean to the party chairmanship and those leading Democrats in the House and Senate don't appear to me to be willing to adopt even the appearance of a compromise.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Interesting enough piece. However the Democrats and the authors of the blog as well appear to rather consistently underestimate the intelligence, perception, and common sense of their "red state" antagonist.

I agree. That's why I said I don't agree (with nimh) completely. I don't think the point of the satire is about evolution v. creation per se. It's about the way Democratic leadership has decayed into opportunistic, unprincipled grovelling for swing voters. Instead, as I understand the author, he thinks Democrats should make up their minds about what they think is right, then campaign for it. With that I fully agree. As an aside, I think this goes the core of why the last election defeat was so bitter for the Democrats. They had sacked the candidate they wanted (Howard Dean), and they compromised the cause they believed in (principled opposition to the war on Iraq), in favor of who they thought was the more electable candidate with the more electable position. Then their candidate wasn't elected. The Democrats cheated themselves to win, then lost anyway. Very frustrating.

georgeob1 wrote:

No intelligent observer doubts that evolution occurs, just as no one doubts the current expansion of our universe, however in both cases there is good reason to doubt that we have a complete understanding or model for the processes themselves.

To my knowledge, 'Intelligent Design' theory is rejected by schools not because evolutionary biologists can claim complete understanding. Only because they can claim infinitely better understanding than their creationist competitors, who haven't demonstrated any understanding at all yet. (Of course, none of this would have to be the big deal it currently is, if only American liberals honored John Stuart Mill's heritage enough to support school vouchers. I believe gungasnake's creationism is a big mistake, but I can respect that it's his mistake to make on behalf of his children. Likewise, I expect gungasnake believes I am making a big mistake with my trust in Darwinist evolution; and I hope that he, too, can respect that this is my mistake to make on behalf of my (yet to be conceived) children. Let's just voucherize the school system, let different schools teach different things to the children of different people, and move on!)

georbeob1 wrote:

I doubt that the Democrats will escape the embrace and control of the collection of single issue zealots who have misdirected it for the past few decades. Certainly Hillary Clinton will give this a try, and the formula used by her husband did work for a while. However the forces that elected Howard Dean to the party chairmanship and those leading Democrats in the House and Senate don't appear to me to be willing to adopt even the appearance of a compromise.

I hope you're wrong, but I'm afraid the problem is harder than finding a compromise. It's about sorting out what Democrats were right and what they were wrong about, then take a principled stand on what they think is right. This is inherently hard, because political mechanisms are made for building consensus and forging coalitions, not for examining reality.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I don't think the point of the satire is about evolution v. creation per se. It's about the way Democratic leadership has decayed into opportunistic, unprincipled grovelling for swing voters. Instead, as I understand the author, he thinks Democrats should make up their minds about what they think is right, then campaign for it. With that I fully agree. As an aside, I think this goes the core of why the last election defeat was so bitter for the Democrats. They had sacked the candidate they wanted (Howard Dean), and they compromised the cause they believed in (principled opposition to the war on Iraq), in favor of who they thought was the more electable candidate. Then their candidate lost anyway. The Democrats cheated themselves to win, then lost anyway. Very frustrating.

Very interesting. The dilemma the Democrats face is that (at least in my view) Dean was unelectable under any conceivable strategy they might have deployed. They did come fairly close with Kerry. Ironic and, I agree, very frustrating for them.

Perhaps one of their problems is that the notion of "principled oposition to the war in Iraq" just won't sell to an American electorate as either principled or as practical politics. On the contrary, given the lessons of the 20th century, the electorate (at least a slim majority of it) knows that such principled opposition embraces all the "principles" of Chamberlain and Daladier in resisting Facism in 1938 and all the practicality of lloyd George and Clemenceau in restoring the equilibrium of a war ravaged Europe in 1919.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
No intelligent observer doubts that evolution occurs, just as no one doubts the current expansion of our universe, however in both cases there is good reason to doubt that we have a complete understanding or model for the processes themselves.

To my knowledge, 'Intelligent Design' theory is rejected by schools not because evolutionary biologists can claim complete understanding. Only because they can claim much better understanding than their creationist competitors, who haven't demonstrated any understanding at all yet. (Of course, none of this would have to be the big deal it currently is, if only the Democrats honored John Stuart Mill's heritage enough to support school vouchers. I believe gungasnake's creationism is a big mistake, but I can respect that it's his mistake to make on behalf of his children. Likewise, I expect gungasnake believes I am making a big mistake with my trust in Darwinist evolution; and I hope that he, too, can respect that this is my mistake to make on behalf of my (yet to be conceived) children. Let's just voucherize the school system, let different schools teach different things to the children of different people, and move on!)

I fully agree with your conclusions concerning education and how we can (or should) move on and live together, despite disagreement. At the same time, I think you are being a bit unfair to (at least some) creationists by saying they haven't yet demonstrated any understanding at all, or even that they have less than their opponents in this dispute.

I know of no objective reason to doubt the current application of either superstring theory, with its 11 (or is it 12) dimensional model of the universe, or of evolutionary models for describing processes which we can observe in the world. However there is ample reason to doubt the completeness of either theory for describing how we got to where we are. That is not to say that biblical descriptions are the answer, or are to be preferred. Instead the question is how does one acknowledge and deal with the indisputable incompleteness of current theory? Does one assume that continued research will find an answer within the confines of current theory, or does one admit to other possibilities? In considering the quantum mysteries of the double slit experiment, does one accept alternate universes as an answer or acknowledge that it MAY lie beyond real understanding? (I do not argue against continued effort to understand and unravel these mysteries, rather how to deal with the dilemma until we have an answer.)

I'll confess to the belief in God, a creator. Why? Because it seems to me to require a shorter leap of faith than the assumption that our minds can "grasp this sorry scheme of things entire". In keeping with Occham's principle, I take the shorter path. I have discussed this at length with many friends, sometimes under the most pleasant of circumstances and refreshed by very good wine, and other associates (I'm no physicist or biologist, but I do know a good deal and even have a few of these types who work -or at least pretend to- for me). Never have I seen anyone persuaded in either direction, but one can reach an acknowledgement of shared uncertainty at the edge.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I fully agree with your conclusions concerning education and how we can (or should) move on and live together, despite disagreement. At the same time, I think you are being a bit unfair to (at least some) creationists by saying they haven't yet demonstrated any understanding at all, or even that they have less than their opponents in this dispute.

Far be it from me to be unfair to anyone. So tell me, which creationists have demonstrated that they understand something that merits teaching in schools, and what is it they are understanding? I agree the scientific knowledge of the universe is incomplete. I have no problem when high schools have philosophy classes where the consequences of this incompleteness are discussed, and I also have no problem when these classes read texts by people like Augustin and Thomas Aquinas. But this is not what the evolution vs. creation debate is about. This debate is about what the best explanation of our origins is. And I am not aware of knowledge creationists have demonstrated on this issue.

I shall be happy to be corrected.

(And besides, I don't think string theory is fit to be taught in schools either. But that's an entirely different subject.)

0 Replies

Damn! I'm unfair to people every day. However, I have reconciled myself to it.

I am not well versed in the identities in the various protagonists in the creationism vs. evolution debate, so I can't answer your challenge. (Even old Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that his argument by authority carried less weight than those from design or uncaused cause.) Indeed the debate itself doesn't interest me much - neither side can prove its case in a closed form way..

I suspect that beneath all this we do agree on the fundamentals. I agree that science should be taught as science, and philosophy as philosophy. Theology or religion has no particular place in the intellectual disciplines of science. However the science that is taught should truly reflect the fundamental principle of science, and that is the limits of what we truly know. It is not necessary for good science to claim ground that it has not yet occupied, or to deny the possibility of things outside of or beyond science. Unfortunately this is too often done.

The dogmatists on both sides of this issue should back off.

I agree with you too about string theory - too mathematical. Sort of like an apprentice engineer who has just mastered ordinary, linear differential equations, assuming he is ready to design an improved suspension for BMW.

0 Replies

A fascinating exchange Thomas and George. The one thing that may be overlooked here is that the vast majority of the red state folks who vote to make their states red are not Creationists in the sense that evolution is rejected. Polling data shows that 90+% of Americans do believe in some form of deity, and the majority of those are Christian. Evenso, a very large majority of those making up the so-called 'Christian right' do not want Creationism taught as science in the schools and do want the theory of evolution taught.

These rational Christians comprise a huge voting block. They would be quite happy if the schools would not tear down the faith of their children and, if it came up, would simply explain that many who believe God created the universe believe that evolution fits into the process of creation.

The strict Creationists who want Creationism taught and/or evolution rejected are the radical fringe and are in a tiny minority. Unfortunately, they get most of the press.

Where the Democrats go wrong is vilifying all the religious right, accusing them of trying to 'cram their religious superstitions down our throats', etc. and giving the strong impression that they consider the religious and their faith to be unacceptable.

The majority of the 'red' people in the red states are more than willing to live and let live, but they are unwilling to be consigned to 'inferior' status or to have their First Amendment rights respective to religion infringed in any way. When the Democrats give the impression that anything related to religious faith will be scoured off the face of the earth if they obtain power, they will lose a lot of votes on that one point alone.

0 Replies

Perhaps what is happening here is that, on both sides of the issue, the protagonists are attacking caricatures of the other side representing its extreme and least defensible elements, instead of the concerns of the respective majorities. I suspect that this is an element with which the Democrats must grapple .as they try to find a way to integrate the interests of their various single-issue core constituencies into a palatable, integrated platform that might better appeal to the majority of Americans. Of course, I hope they fail..

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know