Manx

irate has a good thread going on the voices around here "scapegoating" Evangelicals.

I see some other voices which disturb me in a similar fashion - the voices that claim Democrats need to appeal to certain aspects of our society that strongly believe in God in order to win elections.

This is indeed a very practical proposal. It is precisely what fiscal conservatives have done.

But is it the right thing to do?

In my mind, there are two flaws with the concept:

1- It is simply not honest. It wasn't honest of many fiscal conservatives to join together with social conservatives in order that each disparate group could gain their power and it would not be honest for liberals to being appealing to social conservatives in the same fashion. And if it is all just a lie, then once the liberals, with their new found "faith" to grab the social conservative vote, are in power - they either have to follow through with the lie, or end up losing the next election. Fiscal conservative were able to sacrifice their ideals in order to maintain the lie. As a liberal, I cannot.

2- It is appeasement. The lack of power of liberal Democrats is not that they don't appeal to the majority of Americans (which is so often touted by conservatives), the lack of power is attributable to the lower cause of concern among liberals vs. the higher cause of concern among social conservatives. To suggest that liberals need to either adjust their means of talking to these social conservatives, or worse, adjust their principles to align them more with these social conservatives is nothing but a destruction of the liberal philosophy. No one in this country can claim the majority of Americans are socially conservative - what we have seen with this election is ONLY that the majority of those who vote are either socially conservative or willing to sacrifice their opposing ideals in order to gain power fiscally.

It is my belief that the vast majority of American's are much more liberal than conservative when it comes to social morals. The problem is that the passion felt by the minority of social conservatives is more powerful than that felt by the liberals - and so they win the vote and get the power. There is no middle ground. There is no cooperation when it comes to whether a gay couple are allowed to marry and whether the state or country has the right to prevent that. There is no appeasement.

Unfortunately, that the liberals could not get up off their ass and vote two days ago is a sign to me that it is just impossible for them to ever compete with the social conservative.

But appeasement and lying is nothing more than caving in to ideals which a liberal simply does not hold. And there has been FAR too much talk of doing something like this around here. I certainly attribute it to the many conservatives around here who would like nothing more than to slowly but surely crush the philosphy of the liberal. But I also attribute it to the passive weakness of the liberal.

cthulu23

I don't realy think that you can quantify "passion." Pronouncements like that are doomed to fall under the category of intrinsically subjective. As to whether or not "liberals" can ever compete with social conservatives, I think that any student of history will tell you that such things are cyclical. As Arhtur Schlessinger pointed out, "there is a pendulum..."

Here's a question...are the fiscal conservatives on this board ever afraid of where the extreme social conservatives are taking the Republican party? Do you bristle at the prospect of more leaders like Oklahoma's Coburn?

KMA-628

In what way?

I can't respond without knowing what you are referring to. Also, I don't know where I stand in regards to your statement, so I may or may not be the "extreme social conservative" you are making a reference to.

Probably not, but without a clue as to where your barometer sits, I can't really respond.

In other words, I need a starting point (actually, several would be more helpful).

Manx

That is precisely what I said.
Someone else mentioned this to me. Unfortunately, the "pendulum" analogy that they and you have made is seemingly only supposed to apply to the U.S. itself. We have a whole world. On that scale, the American social conservative is infinitesimal, yet exerts such power. I do not believe the pendulum analogy applies to the dynamics of the U.S. political landscape anymore, atleast in regards to that landscape being in a bubble. The apathy of the liberal philosophy, coupled with the apathy of the fiscal conservative in aligning themselves with the social conservatives demonstrates that the global pendulum can swing, but the national pendulum broke off and fell into the sand.

Superbelt

Coburn: Gays and single mothers shouldn't be teaching in our schools

Single mothers should be forced to live in "community homes" (read: cloistered from the world)

cthulu23

As Superbelt kindly pointed out, my naming of Coburn as an example indicates what I was referring to.

Superbelt

COBURN WARNS OF "RAMPANT LESBIANISM."

From Politics1.com:

It seems that every time that former Congressman Tom Coburn (R) pulls close to Congressman Brad Carson (D) in Oklahoma's US Senate race, Coburn goes and makes another stupid comment. Well, there he goes again. Carson's campaign released a tape recording Monday they just obtained of comments that Coburn apparently made to an audience a few weeks ago. Here's what Coburn said: "Our [campaign] rep down here in the southeast area, he lives in Colgate and travels out of Atoka. He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that’s happened to us?" This pronouncement was apparently news to everyone in the Colgate area. "He knows something I don't know. We have not identified anything like that. We have not had to deal with any issues on that subject -- ever," said Colgate School Superintendent Joe McCulley. "I don't believe that [report] ... [our attorneys] haven't said anything to me about that," added the Executive Director of the Oklahoma State School Boards Association. These kind of frequent gaffes were what worried GOP leaders in DC when Coburn announced his candidacy -- and was what prompted them to back his failed primary opponent.

cthulu23

I'm sure that many thought the same of conservatism during the FDR era. Who needed Republicans anymore? They, of course, were wrong. If you look at American history at all, you will see that Americans do not tolerate the complete ascension of a single party for very long. I wouldn't expect this era to be any different.

KMA-628

Ah, I see. I am totally unfamiliar with Coburn or his comments.

From what you guys are saying, I would say that he represents a very, very small portion of the right. Just as the extreme left bothers most liberals, the extreme right makes us cringe as well.

I would say that, while vocal, they represent a very tiny percentage of conservatives. I personally do not even know anybody that would say anything like that (and I know quite a few on the Christian right and they wouldn't say it either).

As you guys dismiss your side's wackos, we dismiss these wackos as well.

/the fact that they get elected is concerning though. I would guess that this type of rhetoric doesn't come out during campaigns.

Edit: I just saw Superbelt's last thread. I would say your answer is in the last sentence

Manx

Unfortunately, we just had the highest voter turnout in decades - and the social conservatives won.

I no longer have faith in liberals getting off their ass. This last election was the perfect opportunity to do it, and they failed.

The pendulum is global now. It is up to Europe to reign in America.

But in the mean time - liberals need to stop this sudden thinking that they should appease social conservatives.

cthulu23

Outside of the suggestions of American conservatives, I haven't heard anyone suggesting that the Democrats should adopt the Republican platform.

Many of the people involved in the "highest turnout in decades" were "liberals." Bush only won by a few precentage points of the popular vote. I would say that many on the left did get off of their asses. They failed this election, but it was a close one. I can't imagine what you would have said after the Reagan landslides, yet Clinton was later elected. Let's not throw away the lessons of history simply because of a few losses.

cthulu23

Although I see your point about marginal wackos, there is the very distinct possibility that placating the religious right can lead to more Coburns. Our own atorney general has some decidely restrictive ideas about morality....what happens to the Republican tent when those elements are no longer willing to endorse any candidate that supports abortion, for instance (as I've read the majority of Republican do). Gary Bauer and Allen Keyes are two "non-wackos" (relatively speaking) that might serve as better examples of my point.

Manx

I guess we have different perceptions.

I have seen many liberals around here and in a number of reaction articles written by liberals that I have read that suggest the liberals need to "reach out" to social conservatives. Assuredly, the conservatives are saying exactly that as well. That is a suggestion that liberals, Democrats, should begin adopting the Republican platform.

cthulu23

Reach out doesn't necessarily equate to "become Republicans." I don't know what articles your referencing s I could be wrong in that assumption but I wouldn't worry to much about the Democrats straying too far to the right...they know that this election was far from the mandate that Dick cheney would like us to believe it was.

Manx

I am worried that Democrats will stray too far to the right. They have been moving to the right for years now. Even Kerry had some elements that were FAR too socially conservative - such as his personal anti-gay marriage belief.

Whether they know it was not a mandate is irrelevent to the fact that liberals did not vote enough to deal with the social conservatives. The suggestions have been that liberals need to adjust their message to make the social conservatives feel more comfortable with the liberals. Adjusting the message either means lying, because it is quite evident that liberals and social conservatives greatly differ in their intentions and desires, or the sacrifice of the philosophy of the liberal.

The former will just fail come next election, the latter is the destruction of the liberals.

Reach out does indeed mean adopt the Republican platform - in either word or deed.

As for sources, I have seen Atrios talk to this modifying the message to appeal, Kos, Salon. There are a number of highly visible liberal organizations speaking about their perception of this need to gain acceptance in the social conservative community. And there are a number of members of this forum which are doing the same.

cthulu23

I also feel that the Democratic party has strayed too far to the right. Instead of "adjusting the message" I think that we need to prove why the left's message is still more relevant to the common man than the right's. It's amazing how the "comon man" has been swayed by the very party that opposes basic worker protections.

If you think that Atrios or DKos are talking about moving to the right as a party, I have to take exception with that. I haven't seen anything on their sites that suggests we move to the right...they have just been vocalizing ways to change the strategy in the face of defeat. Surely we don't want to do everything the same way next time?

maypo

Regretably, politics is a numbers game. A dirty, dirty game.
Kerry's anti-gay marriage views were very likely not even his, just as Bush probably thought it was very reasonable to continue the assault weapons ban, but that .05 percent of the vote comes in very handy when coupled with a few other compromises. This is why third parties will inevitably drain votes from similar platforms and parties willing to compromise(read sell-out) will rule politics. I personally find the rise of the evangelical vote a nightmare and would like to see religion removed from American politics forever, but pandering to it will probably never end. There has never been an admitted non-believer in the Whitehouse.

alansmithee

I'm starting to think that Bush has broken the Democratic party as we know it. Many of the things that were not even issues when the Democratic Messiah Clinton (blessed be his economy) was in office are now apparenly central planks of the Democrat platform. What happened in the approx. 4 years to do this? Nobody is saying give up on certain things. Just maybe backburner them. I mean judging by the posts the Democratic party is made up of two principles:

1. Gays are all that is right and good in the world, and anyone who even thinks that maybe they aren't should be drawn and quartered as the bigoted rednecks they are.

2. Christianity is the greatest evil in the world, all its adherents are brainwashed morons, and they should all be killed en masse.

Is this what the Democratic party has boiled down to? They used to have some idea of what tolerance and open-mindedness is. Being tolerant and open-minded is not simply believing in liberal beliefs, it is examining ALL viewpoints and being open to them. In the earlier thread, I stated what I thought about the gay marriage issue. Now, I'm sure not all Christians feel this way, but I have thought about why am I against gay marriage. I looked outside the religous aspect, to see if there was any reason outside of religion for not being in favor of it. Many people probably would not consider that approach open minded, simply because they came to a different decision that they did. And that is wrong. That is why so many people were turned off by the Dems this year. They had a dogmatic, intolerant approach while trying to maintain a facade of openminded freethinkers. And many people saw through this.

cthulu23

Most Democrats, like most Americans, are Christians. I'm not one of them (Christian or democrat), but that is the truth.

Surprise, surprise, gay marriage wasn't an issue years ago because the supreme court hadn't yet made heard the Texas sodomy case whose judgement finally confirmed that legalised discrimination against any good citizen is unAmerican, no matter how unpopular they are. What's more, the Democrats didn't even support gay marriage in this election...why rail against them for an opinion they didn't endorse? As for intolerance, come on now....how is advocating the legal discrimination of gays any form of tolerance? Freedom isn't reserved for those that you agree with.

alansmithee

I believe gay marriage is discrimination against non-gays. No other behavior has that protection. And besides, you missed my point-Republicans don't have to try to be tolerant, they can state their beliefs with impunity (you know, freedom?). Whereas Democrats have to try to play the role of the tolerant lovers of humanity, while at the same time being intolerant and dogmatic.

roachboy

that is absurd.

there is nothing else to say about the post above this.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

psyday

I at one time considered myself a Republican, but it isn't only the extreme social conservatism that concerns me about the modern republican party, it's also the extreme fiscal liberalism. I'm less concerned with a democrat spending my money foolishly than I am a republican, that's scary.

onetime2

I guess it isn't too surprising that those with liberal beliefs portray this election as a case of the "right" being able to mobilize and the right portrays the election as a rejection of the "liberal" beliefs.

Neither side wants to see it as a little bit of both. For the left to whine about how their base didn't get out and vote, is ridiculous. The anti-Bush people spent billions of dollars to motivate that base just as the pro-Bush people spent billions.

The bases were motivated, it's the undecideds who were not. That was clear in EVERY poll throughout the election. The numbers of undecideds remained high up till the very end.

What the election says to me is that Bush's platform appeals to a hell of a lot of people. It's also obvious that a hell of a lot of people are turned off by it. We really didn't need this election to tell us that since we see it in this forum, in our daily lives, on tv, and everywhere else. Should Bush change his platform because 49% of voters disagree with it? Not necessarily since that would be going against the 51% who do. It would be nice if there could be some cooperation but I have serious doubts about that possibility given how disgustingly personal the campaigns got. I doubt there are too many people who would forgive the character assassination on both sides and I suspect that neither Bush nor Kerry will.

Perhaps the alleged egotism of Bush will be great enough that his legacy as President is more important than the alleged Pride of Bush. And maybe Kerry will do the same but I wouldn't put money on either.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

This has already been said on this board today, but what about racially mixed marriages? Aren;t they afforded the same level of protection? "Miscegenation" was illegal in this country not too long ago. I think that 80 years from now those that oppose gay marriage will be viewed like we now view George Wallace. It's about freedom for all. You know, freedom?

Dogma is a bipartisan trait. I'd be interested in what especially intolerant things that the Democratic party does (and don't say intolerance to opposing viewpoints...thats just silly).

Manx

This is only accurate if the assumption is made that those without an active interest in politics break the same way as those who voted.

As there is nothing to demonstrate that this is a valid analysis of the country, I maintain my position that most people do not hold social conservative values (or the willingness to forsake their social liberal values in order to appease their fiscal conservative values). Particularly based on my perception of the apathy which is inherent in the liberal philosophy.

cthulu23

Can you provide greater detail for this statement? Liberalism has a rich history that is both greater and somewhat far-removed from the modern Democratic version. I bet that many of the conservatives here have no idea how many "liberal" ideas are now part of unquestioned conventional wisdom.

Manx

The liberal philosophy includes apathy because it is inherent in the liberal philosophy that each of us are individuals who know what is best for ourselves. Their very concept of gov't is to enable the individual to live without unjust restraint - not to restrain others to match the lifestyle they have chosen for themself. Due to this belief, gov't is secondary. Primary is ones' own life and the relationships one has with family, friends and loved ones.

It can be summed up very effectively by Stompy's statements in the The End thread - though obviously, he also has the trait that I share of continuing to be active in political discourse:

Now remove the activism of his statement - and this is my opinion of the majority of the non-voting masses in this country.

"As long as it doesn't affect me, it's fine. But if it does affect me, I'll work around it."

It is a dangerous position. It is inherent in the liberal philosophy.

irateplatypus

first, i'd like to point out that government operates on more than fiscal and social planes. this thread is denying some major aspects of policy such as defense, diplomacy, law enforcement, gun control etc... to boil down national trends to just two factors (social and fiscal policy) is to deny much what people base their vote on.

while it is true that the democrats shouldn't put on a socially conservative face simply to gain more votes (the good lord knows there is enough pandering in politics as it is) it's logically fallacious to say that the fiscal conservatives have dishonestly co-opted social conservatives... as if they were mutually exclusive ideas. i think you'll find that many social conservatives are also fiscally conservative.

next comes the biggest problem i find in cthulu's initial post: it's just plain stick-your-head-in-the-ground political awareness to pretend that the liberal agenda has widespread support among mainstream America. liberal philosophy has become hysterical and self loathing. there is nothing positive coming from the liberal side... the only thing people hear is: 1) how dumb they are for not being liberal 2) how the world is going to end with conservative leaders in place.

liberalism has done some very positive things for America... but they've gone from being concerned about social justice to feeding their own sense of superiority. we here in the nation's center see michael moore's movies and watch protests on cspan and realize that not only does liberalism in it's current form has nothing to say to us... it's hostile to the things we hold dear.

the much vaunted liberal tolerance only tolerates liberalism, those who place hope and trust in tradition can feel the scorn and condescension coming our way from the left. democrats have two options: cut the cancers of pelosi, moore, chomsky and soros and embrace the social justice platform that made them relevant in the 60s and 70s. otherwise, they should own up to the fact that the face of liberalism has become radical and accept that they are separate from the hopes and aspirations of the nation at large.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Manx

I disagree. The two primary areas of political philosophy are fiscal and social. The areas you have pointed out typically break along either a monetary issue or a social issue.

I'm quite certain there are many social conservatives who are also fiscally conservative. It is the inverse that I am concerned with: fiscal conservatives who are not really socially conservative, but feel so strongly about their need to control the fiscal matters of the country that they are willing to sacrifice their social liberalism.

The rest of your comments are, honestly, rather standard conservatism. "There is nothing positive coming from the liberal side", "We here in the center". Essentially, get rid of your liberal philosophy, and then you won't be in the party that lost. I will ignore that portion of your response, as the entire purpose of this thread was in pointing out the fallacy of it.

irateplatypus

if you want to believe that fiscal and social policy encompasses all aspects of government, i'll play along for this thread... but no further.

i never said conservatives were in the center. frankly, i don't feel it's likely that conservatism is mainstream at all. however, liberalism in its current iteration is so alienating to many people that conservatism is their last refuge.

what i said was essentially this: liberal philosophy isn't shared or welcomed by many. don't pretend that it's a lack of political deftness on the left or clever maneuvering by the opposition... it's that it has been rejected. i'm not suggesting that anyone give up their philosophy and place it on the altar of political expediency. what i am saying is that you can't have it both ways: you can't hold a position that people dislike and expect to get elected. there seems to be this feeling of entitlement that seeps through at times. as if the country were obligated to grant liberalism political legitimacy by virtue of the obvious intellectual superiority of those who promote it. stay as liberal as you want, but don't kid yourself into thinking the country must follow.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Manx

I do not agree. My post just above your first post details precisely why.

And that opinion you hold is the crux of your argument that liberals should renounce the ideals which are truly liberal in order to approach the center, of which you claim residence, in order to appeal to the masses - who: are not liberal.

cthulu23

I would never say that all of American conservatism is fundamentally bankrupt or produces nothing good. That must be one of those intolerant liberal characteristics I guess.

Some liberals, particularly Chomsky (what the hell does he have in common with the rest of your list, anyway) never stopped fighting for social justice. the struggle still goes on, but I never seem to see to many Republicans there....

The very notion that the modern democratic party is "radical" in any way or even very "liberal" is downright laughable. Read a little history before you make such statements.

irateplatypus

if you'll read my post i clearly advise that democrats make a choice between radical liberalism and a return to their historical values.

liberalism and the democratic party are not interchangeable terms. i referred to the democratic party deliberately for that exact reason.

i'm only going to say it once more: i don't claim to be a centrist, just that my decidedly conservative position is often a more attractive alternative to radical liberalism for moderates who (by virtue of a limited range of viable political parties) are often forced to make a choice.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Manx

Indeed. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. There are some practical downsides to fiscal conservatism, but in general I am of the tax less, spend less mentality.

I consider myself a liberal, a strong liberal, because I believe there are aspects to this world which are FAR more important than money. I could never bring myself to forsake those aspects, or portions of those aspects, in order to align myself with the social conservative - for whom I have little to no respect (so long as they feel their social conservatism must be shared by all).

cthulu23

And I will say it once more...the notion that the Democrats are pushing a radical leftist agenda is a symptom of the narrow political discourse in this country. I actually am a left-winger and I've known quite a few "radicals." None of them are Democrats. In fact, the real radical left has been disapproving of the Dems for years and years. The political noise in this coutry has reduced the debate to two dimensional caricatures of ideologies, but that doesn't mean that we have to believe it.

Manx

What you call "radical liberalism" is what I call the essence of the liberal philosophy. So I simply cannot agree that your suggestion that Democrats move away from that is anything other than the denunciation of the liberal philosophy. That is exactly what this thread is arguing against.

I agree that they are not interchangeable terms. Democrats are too right-wing.

You said: "We here in the nation's center see..."

I don't know what that could mean other than a claim of being in the center.

Regardless, the statement that your position is more attractive for moderates - well, as we now know this is true of the voting public. That your position is more attractive for the slim majority of the voting public does not tell me anything about the opinions of the entire populace. And I have described my opinion of the entire populace: they are typically more liberal.

irateplatypus

i should read more history to make an observation of the current democratic party? how bout i just read a newspaper instead?

why is it that when i say "liberal" it is read as "democrat"? of course not all democrats are radical... but the most visible proponents of radical liberalism do throw their weight behind the democratic party. in a sense, the democratic party has too big of a tent. it houses left leaning moderates and radical liberals under the same label. how can you expect a moderate base to take the democratic party seriously when you have michael moore, george soros, alec baldwin, sean penn, nancy pelosi etc. headlining the democratic agenda? where else do these people (moderates and moderate democrats) have to go? the only viable left-leaning party is run from the top by radical liberals.

if the people of this country want to have a moderate liberal agenda that is relevant to everyday Americans they must either abandon the poor beleaguered democrats to the radicals and start from scratch... or they must cut the hysterical fringe from their midst and re-assert a realistic liberal agenda that represents the now-disenfranchised moderate left.

EDIT: Manx, the "nation's center" refers to a geographic orientation, not a political one.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Manx

I could say exactly the same thing about the Republican party - with their radical conservative "leaders" like Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller, etc. The Republican party is "too big a tent".

And I would be equally as wrong as you.

irateplatypus

and yet the democratic party and liberalism is clearly experiencing a decline...

what would you say is the most likely explanation?

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

cthulu23

Historical context may not be important to you but I tend to think that it can shed some light on our present situation. I believe the saying goes, "those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

I'm curious what you mean by "radical liberalism." If the radicals support the Democrats so much than why has the Nation (magazine) pleaded with them to vote Democrat in the last two elections? I have personal experience here....radicals have little patience for Democrats. They are seen as part of the problem, as mere tools of a system of oppression and oligarchy.

As I've said too many times, the Democratic party leadership is far from radical. If one had any idea of the state of leftist politics in this country they would not make that claim. It is a good way to scare the shit out of moderate conservative voters, though.

It will be interesting to see how long the Republican party can maintain their own semblance of unity. How long will the Gary Bauers be able to stomach the more moderate Giuliani's?

So what does a "realistic liberal agenda" entail? The Republican platform? No meaningful difference at all? One of the most common criticisms of the Democrats from the left is their centrism. Hell, why not go all the way and just nominate Arnie. That should get some votes.