Dems respect diversity but how deeply?

@hightor,

I like and respect President Obama. He is the example of what I am talking about.

A successful Democratic party will say... we may not agree on anything, but we respect you as a fellow American, we are listening to you and we want to earn your vote.

Right now neither party is saying anything close to that (at least not to me). This thread is asking whether the Democrats respect diversity. My answer to that question for the Democrats in 2019 is a pretty definite "No".

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

The diversity question is whether the Democrats can accept and represent people who aren't in lockstep agreement with their ideological positions.

You said "It sounds like you're better off with the Republicans."

That's the wrong answer.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

What the Dems are doing to free speech, Ilhan Omar, and in effect, Muslims’ ability to criticize AIPAC or Israel is plenty of ammunition to prove they are becoming intolerant of brown people and Muslims.

Of course, Republicans are just as bad.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This thread is asking whether the Democrats respect diversity.

"Respect" does not equal endorsement. No political organization can respect (endorse) every single issue that happens to be in the public eye at that moment. People who vote for Democrats tend to represent a more diverse demographic, in a larger proportion, than those who vote for Republicans. That doesn't mean they will, across the board, accept the imposition of Sharia law or support every aspect of @metoo. Really man, just accept that you're an independent and no longer find either of the major parties compatible with your views.

Quote:

A successful Democratic party will say... we may not agree on anything, but we respect you as a fellow American, we are listening to you and we want to earn your vote.

I wonder when a successful Republican Party will say anything like that.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Really man, just accept that you're an independent and no longer find either of the major parties compatible with your views.

I am a traditional Democrat. Years ago, I worked on campaigns... door knocking and phone banking for Democratic candidates. I have never voted for a Republican for national office.

I guess it doesn't really matter what you think I am. I certainly want to vote in the Democratic primary (I can do that as an "unenrolled" voter in Massachusetts). However, the Democratic party (along with the Republican party) is getting more extreme, more dogmatic and less welcoming to people who disagree on anything.

I didn't leave the Democratic party. They left me.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The diversity question is whether the Democrats can accept and represent people who aren't in lockstep agreement with their ideological positions.

You said "It sounds like you're better off with the Republicans."

That's the wrong answer.

Why is that the wrong answer, exactly? You don't agree with the party's positions, so why would you align yourself with it?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I agree with some of the party's positions. Do you want my vote or not? There are tens of millions of voters who don't agree with all of the positions of either party.

The party that gets their votes will likely win.

Hillary Clinton was beaten by Donald ******* Trump. Trump has never had support from more than 40 percent of the American public. Trump won because Hillary Clinton drove people away. Clinton versus Trump was a race to the bottom that Clinton won. Clinton did a better job of offending people than Trump did.

You don't win elections by driving people away.

1 Reply

What's funny about this thread is that the partisan Democrats aren't really arguing that the Democrats respect diversity. Instead they are arguing that the Democrats shouldn't respect diversity.

Would anyone like to make the argument that the Democrats should reach out to a broader cross-section of middle Americans?

2 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

"Respect" does not equal endorsement.

This is a key point. One can respect the Amish without endorsing their use of corporal punishment or the casting out of community members. One can easily respect (I certainly do) the role that church groups play in keeping kids out of gangs without endorsing some theological aspect of the faith. There are a million examples one might add here.

There's another related point here that, for me, is of central importance. If I imagine a religious individual who chooses to cut himself off from the world and to live in a cave or a forest as a means to abide by or better understand his relationship to whatever, then I believe I have no valid reason to involve myself in his choice and his existence.

But as soon as a religious person or group involves themselves in the broader community so as to proscribe the activities of that broader community, then they become fair game for criticism, satire etc in the same manner as any other group in the community.

In this sense, I grant faith groups no special pass or unique status in their operations merely because parishioners believe and are certain that they are special and god is their buddy. Tough luck, boys.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I agree with some of the party's positions. Do you want my vote or not? There are tens of millions of voters who don't agree with all of the positions of either party.

The party that gets their votes will likely win.

Hillary Clinton was beaten by Donald ******* Trump. Trump has never had support from more than 40 percent of the American public. Trump won because Hillary Clinton drove people away. Clinton versus Trump was a race to the bottom that Clinton won. Clinton did a better job of offending people than Trump did.

You don't win elections by driving people away.

Vote for the party whose positions you agree with mostly. If you feel offended by any of them, don't vote for them.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What's funny about this thread is that the partisan Democrats aren't really arguing that the Democrats respect diversity. Instead they are arguing that the Democrats shouldn't respect diversity.

Would anyone like to make the argument that the Democrats should reach out to a broader cross-section of middle Americans?

Heh. Who are the partisan Democrats on this thread?

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

What the Dems are doing to free speech, Ilhan Omar, and in effect, Muslims’ ability to criticize AIPAC or Israel is plenty of ammunition to prove they are becoming intolerant of brown people and Muslims.
Of course, Republicans are just as bad.

Condemnation of neonazis like this Omar creep is hardly harmful to free speech.

0 Replies

Democracy at its best is government of the people. A two party democracy only fulfills this if the parties reach out to build wide coalitions of people that overlap in the middle. If parties are working to earn voters (rather than expecting voters to fall in line) then the system works.

Right now we have one side saying "vote for us because the other side are racist Nazis who want to keep you from healthcare". The other side is saying "vote for us because the other side are socialist illegal immigrants who want to take your guns".

Neither side is working to represent my interests, they are playing to the extremes and relying on fear of the other side to win votes.

And yes, it is very clearly both sides. I am someone the Democrats should be reaching out to you earn my vote.

If a two party system makes any sense the parties must exist to serve the voters, not the other way around.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What's funny about this thread is that the partisan Democrats aren't really arguing that the Democrats respect diversity. Instead they are arguing that the Democrats shouldn't respect diversity.

1. I will definitely be voting for whoever the democratic party nominates in 2020.
2. If that democrat is (far left), I will vote for that person.
3. If that democrat is (center left), I will vote for that person.
4. If that person is (left of center), I will vote for that person.
5. If that person is a liberal/progessive, I will vote for that person.
6. If that person is a moderate, I will vote for that person.
7. If that person is a man, I will vote for that person.
8. If that person is a woman, I will vote for that person.
9. If that person is younger, I will vote for that person.
10. If that person is older, I will vote for that person.

To put it simply, I will vote for whoever wins the democratic party nomination.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

But I still feel that Democratic control of the government will lead to better policies than anything the GOP would try to do.

That is the most important point.

This point needs to be repeated over and over and over again.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Vote for the party whose positions you agree with mostly.

AGREED.

That is so easy.

It's not rocket science.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Traditionally it is the Dems who promote diversity as a positive response to racism and narrow-mindedness they perceive on the right, but how deep does their respect/appreciation for diversity really go?

In many ways they are opposed to traditional Christianity, and do they really appreciate traditional Jewish and Muslim religion or do they only appreciate secular ethnic cultural traditions, such as traditional foods, dress, music, etc.?

In short, are Dems really capable of appreciating and/or respecting deep religious beliefs, which may contradict certain political interests they hold, as part of respecting diversity? Or can they only respect and appreciate diversity as long as it aligns with their political program(s)?

https://able2know.org/topic/484499-1

0 Replies

@Real Music,

I think this is awesome!. It means I have more leverage over the Democratic party than Real Music. (And note, voters having leverage over the Democratic party is a good thing. Democracy is supposed to give the leverage to the voters rather than the parties).

Real Music has stated clearly that the Democratic party can take their vote for granted. They don't have to worry at all about what Real Music feels about any position or wants as far as policy. This is vote that is not in play.

I will insist that the Democrat party earn my vote. They need to convince me that they are listening to my positions. They need to show me that they respect me as an American. I understand that it isn't realistic for them to agree with me 100%, but I want them to avoid positions that I consider extreme and I want to know that they respect my position even if the chosen candidate doesn't agree with it.

Real Music has it backwards. The voters are not subservient to the parties, the parties are beholden to the voters. The Democratic party has a responsibility to find a candidate who can reach out to a broad portion of the American electorate. If the Democrats chose another bad candidate and then tells me to vote for them because Trump... I am not doing that again.

Real Music is giving up the power to insist the party represent their position. Actually I am perfectly fine with that.... it gives me more leverage to get a Democratic candidate that I find acceptable. Because, I will not vote for another unacceptable candidate.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

No one party can please everybody. Party planks and platforms are developed to appeal to various interest groups. I'm not particularly motivated by some of the issues which seem to animate discussions in the party these days but on the issues which particularly concern me there's no comparison between the Democratic position and the Republican position on, for instance, climate change and environmental concerns in general.

Quote:

I think this is awesome because it means I have more leverage over the Democratic party than Real Music.

I think you're fooling yourself. Your choice to vote for another party or not vote at all is hardly "leverage".

Quote:

The Democratic party has a responsibility to find a candidate who can reach out to a broad portion of the American electorate.

True, but the primary system doesn't insure that that will happen. When you have over a dozen people running it's very likely that perfectly good candidates will be sacrificed early on in the process. I don't see how the Democratic Party, as an institution, can find an ideal candidate when it is the voters, not even Democratic voters in open primary states, who actually choose the candidate.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Further, it is difficult to really make sense of what appears to be your underlying notion - that faith is under attack from the left.

I'm not even all the way to accusing the left of a war on religion, though that could be another discussion. What I've really noticed is more subtle. E.g. religion is treated as an ethnic identity instead of a deeper cultural system. So if there are some Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and Atheists in a school or organization; then democrats are satisfied and even elated with the diversity of representation; but that doesn't mean that there will be active application of faith within the organization, except maybe in terms of recognizing different religious holidays on an aesthetic level.

Let's say, for example, that a deep-believing Buddhist expresses concerns about attachment within the organizational culture, or a Muslim with idolatry, or others with other sins. The concern with sin will be regarded as 'meddling' with others who don't share the same beliefs and neutralized. Basically, diversity is used as a way of telling anyone to shut up about their concerns unless they are universally shared among everyone. That benefits liberalism as a culture of permissiveness against traditional religious restriction.

So what if religious diversity became more about incorporating more restrictions and awareness of sin into multicultural life instead of making it less by neutralizing it? In short, why not honor Islam AND Buddhism AND Judaism AND Christianity by having interfaith agreements about how to coordinate different restrictions against sins of all faiths? In fact, we might discover that we share common enemies and that every religion isn't just an arbitrary set of taboos and restrictions for the sake of elites gaining power over the oppressed, as the left/liberalism sometimes construes religion generally.

0 Replies

Dems respect diversity but how deeply?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know