Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derwood
I'm a voting Democrat and consider myself to be a Liberal. Yet I am very disappointed in some Liberal's stance on entertainment and media and it's affect on society. From Tipper Gore and the PMRC to Senator Clinton and the Grand Theft Auto fiasco, politicians who claim to be liberal have acted extremely conservatively with any form of entertainment that doesn't adhere to puritanical niceties. "Will someone think of the children?" is not a strong political platform.
So why are (some) Liberal's like this? Why can't these bogus issues be left to the Jerry Falwells and Pat Buchanan's of the political spectrum? When will Liberals actually act like open-minded, forward thinking people as their title suggests?
|
It's pretty simple, the GOP and Dems (mostly Southern Bible Belt) have constituencies that are wanting censorship. It's a case of protecting your political life and it's an easy issue to back. And in some areas this is a very strong political platform.
It's the same reason some Southern Dems are very much against AA or Gay Rights and why some Western state GOP are for AA, Gay Rights or StemCell. Their constituencies demand those prerequisites.
If a GOP wants to win any office in San Francisco for example, he has to break away from his party on the Gay Rights issue. That's one reason why McCain is called a maverick, Az. is a conservative state in some ways (wanting less Federal interference) but is very liberal in some aspects when it comes to rights (unless you deal with Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa (Phoenix)County).
If a Dem wants to win in Mobile, Alabama, chances are he should be pro-life and religious.
I believe this is why we see the 2 parties as much the same entity. They cross over lines as their constituencies demand and sometimes the differences between the parties is blurred because of this.
It's like Voinivich is a fairly social liberal GOP, his conservativism is more based on fiscal policies. Hence the trouble he has in Washington, but how he can garner support in Ohio.
The one thing parties really keep people from trying to realize are that, we, the people are not as a whole that far apart politically. I believe as a whole this nation is socially liberal and fiscally conservative in most areas. We are a Centrist nation, that's why presidential elections are so close, why the Congress is so close. Why politicians are "flip-floppy", they have to by their virtual nature be able to represent those that put them there if they want to get reelected.
However, the parties and the media representing them (the Limbaughs, Moores, etc.) cater to the extremes. To show the differences be able to harp on them and to try to gain ground. This is a double edged sword though. In some cases the extremes are wronfully defining the parties, and it is also very divisive and hate filled to the point where we are seeing politics truly rip us apart.
We have this media machine that argues you can no longer be socially liberal/fiscally conservative. That you have to be one or the other in both, and by nature we aren't, so we are at odds within ourselves and allowing our extremes to define us........... and that is a very, very dangerous path to undertake. It's divisive and as we are seeing it leaves the middle frustrated and torn.
In the end politicos have to be true to their constituencies and themselves. Unfortunately, the parties aren't seeing things that way as BOTH are trying very hard to erase the regional differences and dictate to the people what they want. We are allowing the extremists too much power and they are truly evil. They feast on themselves (moreso the GOP right now then the Dems.) we see this as they attack Frist, Voinivich, Dewine, McCain and so on, simply because they represent those that elected them and are being true to themselves but the party only see them as "breaking ranks" and being disruptive to the plans of the party.