I'd say our chief disagreement is that you see dem politicians as having a great effect on popular opinion, while I see them as usually only having a mild effect. In the last few decades, why have our most liberal dem candidates have gotten slaughtered, while only our moderates have actually been elected? I'd like to know your explanation.
Yes, I wasn't exactly clear in my message. The point that I am trying to make is that many voters are unaware of alternatives in policy because the dems simply do not voice the liberal opinion. This lack of voice effects the voting public by its absence rather than by convincing people of one position over another. The very vacuum of liberal sentiment at the national level is deafening and has a major effect on people's opinions.
The reason that liberal dems have been slaughtered is that the debate in politics has been defined by the reps for the last 25 years. Each and every liberal dem has stepped into the debate defined and controlled by the reps and - worse - other dems have pulled away from the liberal in a mistaken belief that those liberal statements would lose voters. As fewer and fewer were willing to proclaim truly liberal values the debate moved to the right and that great mass of undecideds in the middle heard only moderate dems to extreme reps. This is a distorted landscape.
Also, we have to remember that the reps have engaged in a quarter century campaign to create this divisive right-leaning media-distrusting special-interest-hating political arena. A well thought out, well funded intentional and conscious campaign to poison the political process and reduce it from issues to personalities.
The democratic party has abandoned me in some vain attempt to recapture the Reagan democrats.
I am sure many dem politicians are moderate because they think it will get them elected, but many are moderate because that is what they believe. If a dem politician owns a gun or is for the death penalty or whatever, is it because they are trying to win over republicans? I don't know how you can say for sure. Many dem politicians seem calculated to me, but many do not.
The democrats should redefine the debate.
I see what you are saying about republicans defining the debate and dems joining and then losing. In your example of immigration, what are dems supposed to do? Republicans have made it an issue, so what do dems do about it? Stay silent, agree with the reps? I am curious what your solution is. For whatever it is worth, I feel that this whole flag burning thing is just a issue that reps pull out of the closet every now and then to rally the bass. Reps bring it up, dems take the other side of the issue and end up looking like America hating libruls to many Americans. I sometimes wish all dems would just agree with the reps on this so the dumb debate would go away. With all the problems we have, I wish less time was spent on an issue that effects very, very few people.
Okay, on these two issues I think it is very simple. Let's take flag-burning. The dem message is very simple: in totalitarian societies, in fascist countries, in lands where despots and dictators rule, the people are not allowed to express themselves, to voice their feelings and ideas, they are punished even unto death for attempting to cry out against injustice and cruelty. In those countries, in those dark lands, the symbols of those despots become semi-sacred. In those countries, the trappings of the dictatorship become sacrosanct and untouchable.
Fortunately, we live in the United States where freedom rules, where every individual may hold any opinion, may speak any idea, may gather together to celebrate and to protest without a despotic government oppressing them. Here freedom is so strong that we allow...no, we actively support the freedom to speak even of those with whom we violently disagree, with whom we feel we have no common ground, no ideals which we share. But this is not true, for we share, we all share, this undying love of freedom and the commitment to preserve it above all else, that the voice of the people, in whatever form it takes - art, music, protest and prayer - shall not be stifled by its government. We shall live free.
On immigration, I already spoke of this earlier, but it too is simple. We are all immigrants here - just ask any Native American. This country was founded by immigrants. This country was built by immigrants. This country was made great by immigrants - we are all immigrants. Our proud Statue of Liberty, holding aloft the flame of freedom, the beacon of hope, calls out across the seas "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
Immigration has made our land the most diverse, the most interesting, the most vibrant and creative and inventive this planet has ever seen. We are a culture of immigrants. We do not turn our backs on those from other lands, we revel in them, we love them, we welcome them. Whether they come here to visit, to study, to become residents, to work migrant labor, or to become citizens, we must find a way to include them all in our great American family. These are our brothers and sisters, our cousins and uncles, our ancestors and our descendants, our neighbors and our friends. We have nothing to fear from them, we have everything to gain from them.
There is no danger to America from immigration - that is as silly as saying there is danger to America from freedom. The immigrants who have built and continue to build our country into the unprecedented melting pot, the mixture of peoples that no one thought could endure, the beautiful blend of dress, music, food, language, names and faces, histories and hopes, that is America will never turn its back upon those who see our land as the land of opportunity, the land of freedom, the land where families can live without fear, where the American dream is extended year after year, decade after decade, century after century to include more and more people - this land opens its arms and its hearts and looks to find the way to bring all people into the American family.
Kerry said he did not favor gay marriage. Who is going to vote to support something no politician is supporting?
I don't remember dem politicians asking voters to vote for the ban, but I sure recall many dem voters voting for it anyway. I think if Kerry 100% supported gay marriage, those bans still would have passed in every state. Not that this is the bible or anything, but it does seem realistic to me...
From 2004 CNN exit poll POLICY TOWARD SAME-SEX COUPLES
Legally Marry (25%)
Civil Unions (35%)
No Legal Recognition (37%)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/U...
I think if every dem politician in the U.S. vocally supported gay marriage, it might bump up public support a little bit, bit it would have a loooooooong way to go until a majority of Americans support it. I do think that someday a majority will support it, but it is going to be small steps over many years until we get there. You ask "who is going to vote to support something no politician is supporting?" Well, most politicians supported the war and, after many months, most Americans came to the conclusion that it was and is wrong. The growing public opposition to the way this war is being handled grew on it's own. Public opinion didn't change because of anything politicians were saying or doing, public opinion changed *despite* what politicians were saying and doing. And that backs up my belief that politicians maybe able to efffect public opinion at times, but many times they have very little control.
Hmmm..okay. You might be correct on this. However, there was no debate of the other side of this issue. The other side is not 'don't vote for the ban'. That is joining the rep-defined debate that the ban had any validity. The other side of that debate is that this is how you begin to burn Jews in the ovens. This is the first step. This is how freedoms are stolen. You pick a group of people who are harming no one, who are good Americans simply trying to live their lives, pursue their happiness. You separate them from rest of us and then show how they are doing something that is hurting us. How, if we allow them to continue doing what they are doing, it will somehow ultimately destroy America.
This is fascism. This is intolerance. This is persecution. This is unAmerican. This is immoral.
The argument that 'if you allow gay marriage, next you'll have pedophilia and bestiality' is horrible, demeaning propaganda and should have been called such. Why not just say "if you allow the Jews marry Christians, they will destroy Germany". Why don't we just start burning fags and dykes alive? Isn't that the only way to protect America from this horrible scourge? Had anyone nationally stood up and spoken up for homosexuals as a persecuted minority being readied for the ovens, the debate would have been different. Even this current group of neo-fascists wouldn't have publicly favored burning homos alive, they would have been forced to admit that there is really no great danger from gays and lesbians, not so bad to drive us to actually kill them. Then we could have said "Okay, exactly what damage is done to whom by allowing homosexuals to marry? Who is being hurt?".
But that debate never happened. Kerry was opposed to gay marriage but in favor of civil unions which only supported the rep notion that gay marriage is a problem that needed to be dealt with. Because the debate was over how to deal with it, not that it was the beginnings of a pogrom, that great mass of voters in the middle had no real concept of what the law was saying to their fellow citizens, how regressive and medieval it was and only gained a feeling that there was something wrong with those gays wanting the same privileges as we regular people.
I talked to people as well. When I put it in terms of oppression, when I asked who is harmed, they realized they hadn't really thought the matter through. When I asked them to tell me specifically how they would be hurt, how their lives would be changed if homosexuals were no longer prohibited from marrying, they had no answers. When I told them that these arguments in favor of continuing to prevent them from marriage were the same arguments used to prohibit mixed-race marriages, they began to see the issue differently. When the other side of the debate was voiced, every single one of them admitted that they really didn't see what horrible problems there would be, admitted that the country wouldn't fall apart, admitted that they wouldn't be harmed at all, and that even if they weren't great fans of homosexuality, they weren't prepared to take that step toward fascism.
Also note that the poll shows that 60% believe that homosexuals living as married couples or as if they were married couples (civil unions) was not a problem. That is pretty strong support for homosexuals being treated just like everyone, the only difference is that simple word 'marriage'. I think the majority of CU supporters would have opposed a ban if they had been given cogent reasons for it.
And also note the wording of the question. Same sex couples. This brings the sex act into the discussion and distorts the response. Had the question been 'Do you favor treating homosexuals as second class citizens and denying them the right to marry the one they love" the answers might have been quite different.
If you ask people about gays, I tell you that a vast majority see no problem and really could care less whether gays marry or not
I do ask and I'd say the reponses are pretty consistent with the CNN polls. One of my gay friends actually voted for Bush. There are many, many people out there who vote for really, really stupid reasons.
How is it these voters could hold a liberal belief yet vote for Bush?
In my opinion, it is because democrats need to market their message in way that both smart and dumb people can understand. To me, it doesn't have anything to do with left or center, it is just making sure people understand what dems stand for. I agree with what you say about Kerry's mishmash. I really hope to have an 08 nominee who can speak in down to earth manner that everyone can understand. I feel that is just as important as his/her record.
Polls show that most Americans are more liberal than John Kerry, than the current Democratic party but they have no one speaking to them on these issues.
Link? Everything I have ever seen indicates a minority of people are liberal. Now I wouldn't be surprised if there are many liberal people who don't claim to be liberal since it has become a "dirty word." Regardles, here is a 1996 exit poll. Very similar to exit polls I have seen for other years.
Political Ideology...
Liberal 20%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 33%
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit...
We are speaking of different things here. This poll asked people to identify themselves by a label. Rather than that, look at the poll numbers on issues and decide whether people are liberal or conservative. HIgher minimum wage; environmental protections; universal health care; energy independence/alternative energy sources; increased help for the poor; protection of Social Security...on and on and on the public supports these and many more and these are all liberal positions not conservative positions and certainly not the current crop of conservatives. I'll look for individual polls on these issues - I've seen them, just don't have them on hand right now - and post them. But I think, if you look at the issue polls, you will find that the majority of Americans support liberal issues and that leads me to believe the country is more liberal than conservative.
And Nixon ... was much more to the left than the current republican party and in some areas was to the left of the current democrats, but he was still firmly and completely to the right of center.
I agree. That is the only reason I mentioned him. While we may disagree on much, I think we might agree that the Hillary Clinton model of democrat is the worst way to go. Personally, I would be willing to vote for a dem who is to the right of me if I felt they were sincere about their beliefs, but I do not feel that way about her. Unfortunately, dems politicians are in the minority and on the defensive, and it definitely doesn't bring out the best in them. If we do well in 06, and then 08, I think more people in the party will feel comfortable about moving left.
After my bitter disappointment with Kerry and the dems in 04, I simply will have a very difficult time voting for another 'moving toward the right', 'change my policies daily', wishy-washy pseudo-liberal. It is good to see that Hillary is being challenged from the left. I hope they win. I would like to see all of these dems challenged from the left. It would broaden the debate.