I’ve been working on a piece about “The Future of the Democratic Party,” and I realize that it’s going to have a lot of competition in the next few months.
That’s OK. It’s good, actually. As I read the emails from my friends, and the blogs and news sites, I see a lot of questions and some ideas.
Someone on one of my email lists put this up:
My co-worker reminded me today that advertisers have a better pulse on America than most Democrats…they know and accept that decisions are made from the gut — emotional level — not the brain.
Time to employ a bit of marketing strategy…
So to her, the problem is that the Democrats don’t know how to sell.”Screw Them” Kos has a simple answer:
So how did Bush even get this far? By demonising an entire group of people — gays and lesbians. By cynical appeals to religion. By slandering a true war hero. And, most importantly, by scaring people. You see, terrorists would detonate a nuclear bomb in a major city if Kerry were elected. Only Bush can protect us. And those efforts, as I have written before, were all aided and abetted by a well-oiled message machine the likes of which the American left is still unable to match.
So the problem is that the opposition is evil, and unprincipled.
I’ve got a different one.
Go look at the electoral map. Go read my piece on country music and values.
Here’s the problem. Amy Sullivan says, over at Political Animal:
I think Democrats need to say out loud now what many have been whispering (or blogging) for a while. I adore my former boss Tom Daschle and–objectivity be damned–am heartbroken today about his loss. But it is clear that Senate Democrats simply cannot afford to have a leader who hails from a hardcore red state. It puts both the leader and the party in an untenable position.
While I think Amy is absolutely right in the things she’s written about the need for the progressive movement to reconnect to issues of faith and religion – and she’s one of the pioneers that have talked about that – she’s absolutely wrong here, and has it completely backwards.
The Democrats won’t be a dominant party until they can align their message with the American people well enough that their leadership is safe running in Red states.
Does this mean that they repudiate core Democratic values?
I don’t think so.
I believe in the liberal values of tolerance, equality, and government on the side of the little guy. I believe in clean air and water I can drink. I think that most Americans do as well, and that while there are healthy debates to have about how to get there – or closer to there – I simply believe in the product that liberals and Democrats should be able to sell. I don’t think most Americans are too stupid to buy it.
I do think, that like the automakers in the 1970’s and the dot-com kids in the 1990’s, the apparatus of the Democratic Party has forgotten that it has customers and that the needs of those customers take precedence over the wants of the management and employees.
It’s got to be the Democratic Party for the whole country, not just suburban Washington D.C., Manhattan, Brentwood, and Mill Valley.
So here’s a thesis:
The Democratic Party is the Democratic Party for the whole country, not just for New York, Massachusetts, and California.
In fact, rather than designing what the party should look like, let’s step back and talk about what the party is for.
Let’s come up with a set of design principles – a set of theses for the Democratic Party.
I think we ought to be able to express what we want in less than a hundred of them. I bet we can do it in ninety-five of them.
Then I’ll nail the fucking things to the door of party headquarters, and we’ll start a real Reformation.
Go ahead and add your own in the comments. I’ll build a list here as we go.
Please, it’s the Democrat Party. It by no means is democratic.
In 2000, the meme among ‘progressives’ was “Bush stole the election!” Its very early, but judging from the DU and Kos boards, it seems like the meme for 2004 might be “the American people are just too stupid to be worth our effort to save.”
It seems to me the DNC has a big decision to make. If the Kos/DU crowd have their way, they’ll throw their effort behind a fellow like Dean who’s able to fire up certain parts of their base with in-your-face tactics, but is too far left to be appealing to non-leftist voters.
I’m hoping the other option, which is to try and bring the Democrats back to the center and draw away some of the Republican support from middle-of-the-roaders, is the one that wins instead. My nightmare is that the DU/Kos/Deaniacs take over the Democratic party and evict the “DINOs”, and the evangelicals consolidate their power and purge the Republicans of the “RINOs”, which would leave a lot of us with no party except in name only.
“My nightmare is that the DU/Kos/Deaniacs take over the Democratic party and evict the “DINOs”, and the evangelicals consolidate their power and purge the Republicans of the “RINOs”, which would leave a lot of us with no party except in name only.”
At this point, this feminist libertarian would rather be a RINO than a DINO. A truism that has been bandied about this year is : “The left looks for heretics, the right for converts.” The DNC is more likely to purge than the RNC. At the RNC four liberals spoke from the podium: Guiliani, Schwarzenegger, Silver, and McCain. Nothing similar at the DNC. You don’t give your liberal wing that much exposure if you intend to repudiate them. I know the Republican right would like to repudiate us, but I don’t think they can. They know how popular Guiliani, McCain and Schwarzenegger are.
You undertake an admirable project, AL, and I wish you well. One suggestion. In looking to begin a reformation you might want think about having a smaller set of design principles. Lists of principles tend to be short. It is lists of regulations, disguised as principles, which tend to be long.
In the spirit of partisanship, I respectfully suggest a few of the principles I plan to spike to a door.
1. Limited government
2. Freedom of Speech
3. Private property
Wow, excellent post, I think this is a very solid place to work from.
I would hesitate to label the values of the red-states as all positively formed. I think a lot of red-state values is a reaction against what they are not. And no, I don’t mean just gays- I mean liberals… You know liberals; the pussy-footed, pansy-assed, treacherous, peacenick, deaniac, “screw-em” Kos liberals of Coulter/Hannity lore. The ones who in reality don’t even form a majority of NY, MA, or CA… not even close.
(Of course, the real threat to “red-state values” is found in the stuff they buy, which is remarkably similiar to the stuff blue-staters buy.)
That said, I think the Red-state view of “liberals” is just as fucked up or mythical as the Blue-state idea of “rednecks.” Of course there’s a lot of back and forth either way, but the whole demonization/mythologization thing sure works well for the RNC, huh? And you’re saying we need to dump this?
OK, count me in.
Red America is flyover land. Kos and the rest of his crowd exhibit the hysterical spleen of patricians when the plebes have forgotten their place.
I have news for him. I started out a Democrat, but was driven into the Republican Party years before Bush, or Rush Limbaugh etc arrived on the scene, but it is true it was years before I admited it to myself and registered with the Party that represented me.
I am not unique. I agreed with Zell Miller I did not leave the Pary of generations of my ancestors it abbandoned me.
Theses. Hmm, ok I’ll give it a go and try to get this discussion moving in the right direction:
REAL MORALITY, REAL SERVICE, REAL TOLERANCE
* We believe that values and morality are real not arbitrary, and that making the right choices is more important than cultural conditioning or norms.
* We believe that making real progress on the issues we care about by showing real results and real change is more important than feeling satisfied or moral.
* We believe that freedoms come with responsibilities, and that those responsibilities include duties of citizenship and service.
* The American people are not stupid. It is our responsibility to protect their rights, to listen to them, and to make our case – in that order. It is not their duty to follow us or be educated by us.
** We’re the party of free speech and civil liberties, because without that future social reform will be stillborn. Those who seek to control speech to suit their politics are our enemies, and will be treated as such.
** We understand that it’s possible to be pro-life and pro-Democrat, and people who believe that abortion is the murder of a human being have a serious argument that deserves to be respected and heard.
** Gun owners are not creepy or dangerous, they’re our fellow Americans exercising a constitutional right. We support their right, even as we emphasize and enforce the need for safety and owner accountability.
** Conservatives are our opponents, not our enemies. We understand the difference. Hatred and demonization of conservatives as a blanket group demonstrates a refusal to understand our fellow citizens, and creates a disconnect between our party and America as a whole.
SECURITY & FOREIGN POLICY
* America is a great country filled with good people, and America and her interests are worth defending abroad without apology.
** We are responsible for the safety of our fellow citizens, and they have the first claim on our duties and loyalties.
** International agreements are means to ends, not ends in themselves.
* 9/11 was a warning and a sign of failed policies, not an inconvenience.
** Our Islamofascist enemies seek a world where gays are killed, women are slaves, freedom is suppressed, and medieval theocrats are in charge. This goes against the fundamental premises of everything we believe – and we will destroy both this ideology and the people, organizations, and governments who support its imposition through violence. We’ll pick our battles and our timing, but in the end this vision cannot coexist with ours. It’s us or them, and “them” is not an option.
** We will attack sham security measures that don’t make us any safer but do impair the rights of our fellow citizens.
* We recognize that America has real enemies in the world, who will not always be contained or dissuaded by diplomacy.
** Military force cannot be our only option, but it accomplishes things diplomacy and agreements cannot. We will use it when other options fail, after careful consideration and with an absolute determination to persist until we achieve victory.
** Issues of ecology, gender equality, and anarchy are more and more relevant to our security post-9/11. We will begin to look at these issues abroad as potential security issues.
** We think terrorism is something altogether different from organized crime, but we also believe that organized crime is an overlooked security issue.
* The security of America is more important than the political advancement of our party. No exceptions. We have enough good policies that we can get ahead without playing games.
SOCIAL POLICIES
* Our social policies have 3 top priorities: class mobility, excellence in education, and affordable medical care.
* We believe that class mobility is the key to America’s long term strength and prosperity. Policies that have the effect of reducing this mobility and creating a quasi-aristocracy or underclass will draw our ire and activism.
** We believe that those who play by the rules and work hard should earn a living wage and the respect of their fellow Americans.
** We believe in union rights and a system that makes it possible for workers to organize successfully and bargain collectively. We also insist on strict union accountability backed by the state and law enforcement if necessary.
** We believe in affirmative action to redress inequalities – assigned by CLASS, not race.
* We believe that a solid education is critical to class mobility. The protection of children and parents comes before the protection of teachers and education bureaucrats. We will not betray our poor and minority constituents by allowing a substandard education to be foisted on them.
* We believe that basic medical care and protection against catastrophic illness should be available to every American.
** We believe that keeping the medical system affordable (to citizens, businesses, and governments) is so fundamental that it’s more important than most other socio-economic priorities.
* We believe that all Americans deserve a second chance, and sometimes their government should help to hold them up for a little while until they get back on their feet, or make provisions for basic needs in their old age.
** We believe in a hand up, not a hand out, and will monitor social programs to ensure they meet those goals. When they don’t, we’ll cancel them and enact new ones.
** Social security is about to break. It needs to be reformed, and not by simply raising taxes on a shrinking base of productive workers. We need to think of something else, and work with the GOP so that we achieve real reform but safeguard the most vulnerable members of our society.
* We believe the protection of consumers and investors comes before the protection of corporations and executives.
** We believe that private firms who assume quasi-regulatory powers (i.e. credit firms as one example) should assume corresponding transparency and accountability requirements. We will go after companies who abuse their authority.
** Clean water, clean air, and other environmental goods are worth protecting. Corporations who reap private benefits and attempt to pass the costs of cleanup onto taxpayers will be made to pay.
It misses a few things, some may argue with these or want to tweak a few, but how’s that as a starting point for discussion?
How about this:
It wouldn’t satisfy the Religious Right, but it would be an antidote to their un-American “my way or the highway” attitude.
Yehudit,
You’re welcome.
I liked Spengler’s take on the evangelical vote issue– “It’s the Culture, Stupid”:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK05Aa02.html .
In a way, evangelical political activity is an immune response reaction to our culture, which seem to be toxic to our youth.
I agree very much with Spengler is saying.
This is not to negate the fine comments on this thread, but just an explanation of where I believe evangelicals are coming from. Is there a way for a retooled democratic party to avoid being percieved as the party of loose moral judgements? Liberals are percieved as the champions of pornography (via free speech), gay marriage, and abortion. They need a new image. š
Yehudit,
You’re welcome.
This is an opportunity for the Democrats to rebuild, and here’s what I suggest should be the guiding ideas for party of the 21st Century:
1. We are a Modern people, and to be Modern, one must reconcile the things one makes with the life one is living.
2. One consequence of Modernity is that we can and we must do *more with less*. Every segment of society has to cope with this imperative… all except government (Rumsfeld’s Iraq War is an important exception).
3. Government in America is structured to resist tyranny and a smaller government serves this purpose in part. However, government has a nurturing role as well. These two principles are in seeming conflict.
4. Therefore, the *Democratic Party should seek to nurture _more with less_*. Every tax dollar should be spent with maximum efficiency and productivity. The environment should be cleaner for less, more of the helpless should be helped for less, laws should be cleaned up so that there are no useless thrid wheel laws cluttering up the book and minds of the people… and so on.
This is useful for the Republican Party in terms of patching up a weak arena of performance so far. But the stolen thunder potential for the Democratic Party is the important opportunity to be siezed now… if they can.
Joe,
Well done. A nice starting place. I especially like the foreign policy theses. Domestically, I think we can be less negative, more thematic. For instance, here’s what you say about education:
* We believe that a solid education is critical to class mobility.
What means “solid”? Why not world class? The Dems keep talking about the need to spend more money on schools. Why not talk of fundamental, dynamic restructuring instead? The school day and year need to be lengthened, to make them compatible with the late 20th, let alone the 21st century. And what of the curriculum? Give us something we haven’t been promised for 50 years. Give us a new educational philosophy, based on the mountains of developmental research that has NOT been incorporated (not even remotely) into public schools throughout most of the country. Strive to achieve more.
And what’s with the “class mobility” talk? I don’t want a manifesto reifying this outdated concept. Are we lifting entire classes (and where are they going? does the raising of one imply the relative decline of another?) or lifting individuals from one stagnant class into a loftier one? See the problem?
You continue:
“The protection of children and parents comes before the protection of teachers and education bureaucrats. We will not betray our poor and minority constituents by allowing a substandard education to be foisted on them.”
Why not simplify this, strip it of the confrontational negativism–us vs. them–and reorient it around the power of choice?
“We believe parents have the greatest interest in ultimate responsibility for seeing their children succeed in school, therefore they MUST be allowed a measure of choice between publicly funded schools within their communities. Moreover, as the Party of progressive thinking, we do not foreclose the possibility of working jointly with private institutions to develop strong school curricula, serve the needs of all students, and close the achievement gap that currently plagues us as a nation. Our commitment to fulfilling the needs of the child and the family is total and unyielding.”
Oh, and perhaps along with the 95 theses we could also devise a Ten Commandments for Democrats who want to win?
Here’s my contribution: First Commandment: Thou shalt not sneer at thy political opponent.
Works good for both sides, I might add.
Jinnderella
Thanks for the link.
bq. _āIt is the hard, grinding reality of American life in the liberal dystopia that makes the “moral issues” so important to voters. Partial-birth abortion and same-sex marriage became critical issues not because evangelical voters are bigots. On the contrary, parents become evangelicals precisely in order to draw a line between their families and the adversary culture. This far, and no more, a majority of Americans said on November 2 on the subject of social experimentation.ā_
I couldnāt have put it any better. As for anonymous and the religious addition to Joeās platform I donāt believe itās going to wash. Article 6 clause 3 of the constitution is not going to change. Further more a government of the people by the people is not going to change regardless if one thinks those people are religious bigots are not. Itās hard to justify why any one religion should take precedence over the other or no religion precedence over all. Itās hard to justify a government building by the people of the people not having the right to put Bibles, Korans, Torahs or whatever they want in *their* government building. The issue here is it doesnāt matter whether you like it or not but until you can prove that these things cause you physical harm or deny you access to everything we all enjoy keep your mitts off!
I donāt know how to make this any plainer. You donāt build a government that screws with the church or religious beliefs of the people. You build a government that works with it and satisfies all. We made this very clear from the inception of this nation. The church and religious beliefs are not forced on any one. When the government starts twisting the constitution āseparation of church and stateā to force the populace into non-religious states you will feel the back lash. That back lash is not from the ministers, preachers and rabbis it is from the people.
Just in case some people are wondering I do not practice any religious belief.
I like the phrase government responsibility. I think it is inevitable that the Democrats are the party of government. With this comes the criticism of tax-and-spend policies and impersonal beaucracies. The Democrats can’t be the party of high taxes, but they are not going to win the race to the biggest tax breaks. They can gain public confidence though in a sort of Eisenhower-Republican fashion of running government better.
Government responsibility. We believe that in a free society, not only do individuals have a responsibility to themselves, their families and their communties, but the government has a responsibility to the citizens it serves.
Government programs must be operated in a cost-effective manner, utilizing the tecnologies and marketplace tools available.
Defecit spending harms the long-term economic stability of our country, but government programs will not be squeezed for short-term gain to the detriment of the services to be provided. In many instances long-term economic stability may require investments in technology and personnel.
In providing services, the government must be responsible to the consumers of those services. The customer is right and should be provided clear channels of authority to express any grievances.
I think *Joe Katzman’s* program (if given more than lip service) might get me, a lifelong independent, to register as a Democrat. I’d add:
‘Class’ is a word and concept that the American people are quite properly leery of. I suspect the sweet-spot in American political thought about class uses some phrase like *real equality of opportunity to make sure that every child has an opportunity to make the most of herself*. I think the American people are skeptical of formal equality of opportunity, skeptical of equality of outcomes, and recognize (and feel comfortable with, they’re not Rawlsians) the large role that ambition and talent play in outcomes. Thus ‘opportunity to make the most of herself’ rather than ‘chance to succeed’ or some other passive phrasing that emphasizes luck.
At the same time, the middle class is (reasonably) worried that efforts to equalize health care access and school quality will lead to the quality of those two being diminished for them and their kids. Those fears need to be addressed. E.g. this may involve accepting that the ‘universal’ health-care system for the uninsured is an inferior fall-back to the private employer system.
*Dennis* — ‘World Class’ sounds a bit like Business-Consultant speak. It also might be too high a bar to set at first. I’d prefer ‘quality’ or ‘decent’. The latter has the advantage of wrong-footing the opposition. Who could oppose that?
Fact is, we need a strong Democratic party for our system to work. I’m scared for what the Republican party may do in the hubris for having just attained enormous control over all branches of government. Unchecked politicans of either party are a huge danger. Though it seems counterintuitive, I don’t see this election as a Republican mandate, and if they go too far in thinking that they will be overplaying their hand. By the way, I’m a Republican!
How about:
* Truth, Truth, Truth
— Do not misrepresent the opponents policies and actions (Draft, Bush lied, etc)
— Do not hold contradictory positions
— Do not make false promises ( Superman will walk)
* Scorn your allies when they deserve it
— F911 is filled with lies; say so
* Follow the rules, don’t flaunt them
— Torrecelli
When the Demos start to meet my moral standards (above) then I’ll look seriously at voting for them. Say what you will about GWB’s policies (and I don’t agree with some of them) he follows the above.
As a counter example, when Bush 40 failed to keep his promise to his voters he paid the price.
One the policy side, the demos have to lose their socialist tendencies.
* Market forces are not evil
— Polution credits can be a way to a cleaner environment
— Since educational excellence is the goal School vouchers should be viewed as a positive policy step
— Increased Taxiation hurts the everyone, including the poor
Since the dems came very close to winning this time, I’d say stick with the economic progressivism, and add a little fiscal discipline to pick up deficit hawks and Rubiniacs. And then I’d drop the push for gay rights, affirmative action, and gun control.
If necessary, every now and then I’d even let Joe Lieberman do his whole schtick about eevil Hollywood destroying the fabric of our society (personally I find it tiresome, but I think it plays well in the styx).
The problem with the Democrat Party (to use the academic term) is that they’ve changed over the years. They’re not the party of Harry Truman. They’ve been slowly taken over, decade after decade, by denizens of the Left, for whom Socialism is the purest form of government.
It’s hard to resist the temptation to believe that that was a deliberate, planned, and organized process, begun back in the 40s (or even before, if you read the history of the education mevement in the US). Some can trace it back to Gramsci.
Today, they’re the party of Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Kucinich, (none of whom I’d invite over for dinner, but if I did, I’d count the spoons afterward). It’s the party known by their supporters: George Soros, Michael Moore, the Hollywood “elite” (Ben Affleck, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon,…), the media “elite” (who did everything in their power to pull the wool over our eyes), the left-leaning labor unions (like the NEA – note the connection to education) – whose aim is to collect dues from everyone and give them to worthy politicians (Democrats) who will, like California’s Gov Davis, reward them handsomely with generous contracts and laws restricting competition.
I don’t know where you’d go to learn what they really stand for. For the right, it’s easy: start with Russell Kirk, then follow up with Bill Buckley. Follow the trail back to Santayana, to the Federalist Papers, to Burke. (I’d say we can even go back to Plato and Socrates, but that may be a leap of faith.)
“If necessary, every now and then I’d even let Joe Lieberman do his whole schtick about eevil Hollywood destroying the fabric of our society (personally I find it tiresome, but I think it plays well in the styx).”
And you wonder why “flyover country” despises you….
Otherwise, this is a very good thread. If it had only happened before the democratic primary…
Joe’s theses are a great start: I’ve cut them, emailed them (and AL’s post) to myself & a few others, & will be thinking about this seriously.
This: “I do think, that like the automakers in the 1970’s and the dot-com kids in the 1990’s, the apparatus of the Democratic Party has forgotten that it has customers and that the needs of those customers take precedence over the wants of the management and employees. It’s got to be the Democratic Party for the whole country, not just suburban Washington D.C., Manhattan, Brentwood, and Mill Valley.” really resonates. So, now to thinking about theses for a new design. It’s a project, and A.L.s project-management approach is a great idea.
Hey, its all about managing change, right?
I think of this as a very big Change Management Project, and AL’s kicked it off! (Are football analogies allowed on this baseball-lovers blog? š
FH
You know, I don’t give any more of a crap about what most of flyover country thinks of me than they care about what I think about them. If having Lieberman do his shtick brings in Florida, Ohio, and a couple of other of the more cosmopolitan states, the rest of flyover country will be left to stew in their own bitter juices.
Why would I give a crap about people who want to control what movies or books I can watch or hear?
dingo –
“Why would I give a crap about people who want to control what movies or books I can watch or hear?”
So you can learn to win elections, and keep the right to watch the movies and read the books you want?
A.L.
“Dingo”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005843.php#35119 — Presumably, referring to styx (the river to hell) was deliberate? If not, references to “plays well in the sticks” explain in one concise soundbite why your party is in this mess… a mess that extends way, way beyond one election. The decline is 30 years long.
You don’t have to drop the push for gay rights, by the way, just make it a REAL push in the political sphere as opposed to expecting courts to foist items you can’t get passed on the public. The Democrats have gotten so used to the courts as a branch of their party that their on the ground skills have atrophied. It’s to the point where many liberals don’t even believe a public case needs to be made on social issues, after all, the courts will invent a ruling.
Hence the political atrophy and disconnect.
The 5 you need on gay rights aren’t named O’Connor, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, et. al., they’re named Carson, Ted, Thom, Kyan, and Jai.
“Kelli”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005843.php#35105 — Your first commandment cannot survive any realistic conception of politics. Let it go – or modify it to prohibit sneering at people who don’t vote for you. The general principle that begins with “Americans are not stupid…” effectively covers that, I think.
Which illustrates why I wasn’t more specific on education – because this is meant as a starting point for a thesis/manifesto of guiding principles, not specific political programs.
I personally support vouchers, but there may be other ways to be faithful to a pledge to clearly put the interests of kids and parents ahead of educators and bureaucrats. Movement in that direction would still be progress for the party. And situations will come about in future that are new, at which point I want the principle in place.
As for class mobility, Americans don’t like to talk about it but it’s the key to the American dream and vision. The thematics may change, but the underlying idea should be clear. Hereditary aristocracies are a bad thing, and the ability to make it from nothing is a good thing. You want to see families falling out of the top level, and rising up from the bottom level. The GOP proved that as long as this motion is visible, platforms based on class-envy inequality are unnecessary.
The Democrats don’t need to, and in fact would be ill-served by, a return to a class warfare past. But it is the nature of the wealthy to seek changes that would tilt the playing field and entrench their gains. It is the nature of much government action to make the climb from the bottom more difficult. Keeping these 2 truths in mind provides a sort of balancing pole that lets them look out for “the little guys” without stepping on them.
As for affirmative action based on class, it’s related to the above goal, of course. It’s also based on the simple truth that if it’s about redressing disadvantage, the white son of a poor coal miner has bigger barriers than the black son of a rich lawyer. If minorities are dispropotionately poor, then they will be disproportionately helped as a matter of course. And this way, you’re not driving a wedge into the base by closing down opportunities for others who need them.
“Fred”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005843.php#35118 — The “Truth, Truth, Truth” plank will be hard for ANY political party to follow. Impossible, IMO.
But your next 2 proposals are realistic.
More thoughts and proposals for A.L.’s theses/manifesto? A.L., got a couple of your own?
Joe:
Shrug. We took a bunch of states this time. Might take a few more when more people get sick of evangelicals telling them what God wants. We’ll see.
And pushing gay rights through the courts has nothing to do with political parties. That’s controlled by the individuals themselves and the various small legal defense organizations that support them. The dems couldn’t stop that even if they tried.
You think the dems wanted gay marriage to become an issue in the ’03-’04 timeframe?
Calif. Newspapers are looking for stories of voter fraud and disenfranchisement, also the Sec. of State, Ken Sheldon. Please write your experiences and let us know about these crimes. I’m trying to find a link of this happening in Santa Cruz and Fullerton. *****
It’s a shame that so many are so afraid of terrorism, that they elected a leader who didn’t protect us on 911. They’re more concerned with people having sex and who they are having sex with. I’ve got bigger things to worry about; health car and the economy. Not much of my time is worth worrying about who’s marrying who. More worrisome is a government that equates peace with war. It’s a shame that the party that believes in free speech, more choices, has to “market” itself. Rape, statuatory rape and incest are already against the law. I thought it was the government’s job to keep us safe, not put in “moral” values. Moral values start in your home. You raise your children, not the world.
Armed Liberal:
Nah. The First Amendment is like the second amendment with me. They’ll have to pull my copy of ‘Grand Theft Auto’ out of my cold, dead hands.
As I’ve been saying over at Drezner, I’m actually hoping the Dems completely implode after this. A longshot (especially if Bush is as incompetent as I fear), but “not out of the picture”:http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=3286037. In the resulting one-party rule, fiscal conservatives will eventually break from the Republican Party once there is no more danger of splitting the vote and handing the election to a Democrat.
And, of course, I think the party they are most likely to run with is the Libertarian Party.
The only other hope for libertarians is electoral reform to move to a voting system that doesn’t have the spoiler effect, but that’s been such a nonstarter of a topic everywhere I’ve mentioned it.
On gay rights, 47.78% of Bush voters supported legislation to allow homosexual couples to marry or enter into civil unions. (MSNBC exit polls) Overall, 60% of voters supported such legislation. If these numbers are credible, I don’t see how Democrats can be hurt by supporting civil unions, so long as it is not by judicial fiat.
I think it’s really a lot simpler than all of this: nominate a Southern Baptist governor.
I think Joe’s contributions are a great start and I’m going to need to reflect before attempting any really constructive contribution. I do think that the issue of race needs to be addressed more comprehensively. I also think that the role of government needs to be addressed.
The section on international relations is quite good but I think an even stronger statement on the limits of tolerance is appropriate. Although it may seem remarkable in the 21st century I think we need a statement on slavery. Something along the lines of “We believe that no human being has the right to enslave another regardless of historical, social, or economic justifications and we will oppose slavery anywhere it exists”.
And, Joe, I’d love to discuss the issue of class in American society with you some time. America does have an upper class but it is extremely small, relatively invisible, and not particularly important to American society at large. I grew up in an area in which there was a very definite upper class and I had playmates whose parents were members of that class.
If you mean income, that’s something else again.
Although I am confident that you well know it, AL, I will remind any less-well-educated reader that Luther was following a time-honored tradition for proposing topics for debate and not seeking to, as Charles V put it, “rend the seamless robe of Christ”.
It may be that your idea will not get the same publicity, and not have the same effect. OTOH, on 30 October 1517, Luther was just this junior professor of theology at Wittenburg…
_I think it’s really a lot simpler than all of this: nominate a Southern Baptist governor._
Dry spell coming. 4 Catholics, 1 Presbyterian.
Dear Armed Liberal,
This is a response to your call for theses for the Democratic Party. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a small-l libertarian and an atheist (raised Christian), but I go to a Unitarian Universalist church (very liberal politically), and my wife is a Neopagan. I am into Jungian psychology, which tends to view religion as psychology that has been misunderstood in terms of cosmology.
One of the problems I see in the Democratic Party is that many of the prominant activists and opinion makers have bought into what economist Laurence Iannaccone (http://www.economicsofreligion.com) calls “secularization theory” (http://gunston.doit.gmu.edu/liannacc/Downloads/Iannaccone – Rationality and the Religious Mind-D.pdf).
Basically, the idea is that religion is bad for people, makes them violent, is an anacronism, and will disappear as people get better educated. For example, the irony-challenged worship committee at my church keeps using John Lennon’s “Imagine” as special music, and it describes a utopian world with no religion in it. But the statistics that social scientists have been collecting for the last 200 years don’t bear this out. Religion seems to make people healthier and happier. David Koresh was an aberration. You are more likely to be mugged by someone who doesn’t go to church than by someone who does. Church attendance was at about 17% in the US when the Bill of Rights was passed, which set off a trend of disestablishmentarianism. Since then, the US religious marketplace has become much more diverse, more competitive, and more popular. Church attendance in the US has grown steadily and is now approximately 60%. Deregulation of certain radio and TV practices and the loosening of immigration restrictions from Asia have accelerated these trends. Furthermore, other things being equal, educated people in the US are at least as likely to be religious as less educated people (except for anthropologists and non-clinical psychologists).
Dan Darling once wrote something to the effect that his parents became staunch Republicans because they came to the conclusion that a large segment of the Democratic Party regarded them (as Christians) as a blight that had to be eradicated.
I’m not asking you to believe in God. I don’t. But I do suggest that Democratic opinion makers need to drop secularization theory as the discredited turd that it is, and find a way to make peace with religion. Drop Sigmund Freud (and Karl Marx) and embrace Carl Jung (and Adam Smith).
Sincerely,
Peter A. Taylor
“Is Rational Religion Possible?”
http://www.ghg.net/redflame/rational.htm
I want to say something but I’m not sure what exactly;) I guess the first thing is Michael Tomasky wrote an article in the last go-round, December 2002, which has some insightful passages:
You might also want to read the New America Foundation’s book “The Real State of the Union”. Matthew Yglesias’s wry comment on them is that “The New America Foundation takes positions to the left of the current Democratic party and then for marketing purposes calls it the Radical Center” Also Matt Miller’s book “The Two Percent Solution”.
My outdated “Come the revolution, Comrade. . .” list is here Shamefully light on military/national security issues, but then I’m not a pro. Heather Hurlburt’s Washington Monthly article is unfortunately, 100% true and a serious and fair condemnation of some top Democratic party politician’s approach to national security issues. The politicians I trust most on national security issues are Wes Clark, Gary Hart and Al Gore (and in Israel, Barak & Rabin). That makes me a dove, I guess. And as my admiration for Barak & Rabin shows, I’m not sure what’s so wrong with being a Trans-National Progressive. OTOH, I think the Nuclear Freeze was a silly-ass idea (as is Missile Defense), and Reagan’s spending large amounts of money on conventional weapons was a good idea (though he should have paid for it).
But I feel a bit disingenuos discussing policy here. The people on this board seem to be people who are not happy with the GOP on social issues, and either think the Democratic party must shift to the right on economic issues, military/national security issues, or both. That’s not really me. And one of the main ideas here is the vital importance of “purging” or “repudiating” certain “Democratic vermin”, as it were: Kos, Atrios, Dean, Michael Moore, Democratic Underground, Indymedia, and Al-Gora. Again, that’s not me. I don’t agree with Kos or Atrios all the time, but I think they are basically good guys. I never got around to seeing F/911, but I did see “Bowling for Columbine”. There was a lot of nonsense, but also a lot of moving, powerful (and funny) stuff that was well worth seeing. I never read DU or Indymedia, but a lot of marginalized people say outrageous things to get attention or blow off steam (read the Yahoo message boards some time). Who cares? A great man once said “When someone endorses me, I am not endorsing their agenda. They are endorsing mine.” I agree with that a 100%.
Two questions for the people here. 1) Here are some names: Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, Bob Graham, Lieberman, Gary Hart. Versus Bush, which of these, if any, would you have voted for? Why or why not? What if the GOP nominee was McCain, Guiliani, Frist or Kasich? 2) What does “purging the crazies” *mean*, in practice? A refusal to take money? A formal statement “Michael Moore is an unpatriotic . . .er, fatty, and I hate his guts”. Some sort of triangulation: “There are some in my party who don’t believe we must win the War on Terror. Well, I disagree. . .”?
A last small point: demographic/tribal factors seem to me to be important as well. “Wanted: Straight White Men (And The Women Who Love Them)”. If the Democrats are to win, they need to increase their share of the white vote, and in particular (straight) white men. I would say that either the parties get close to parity in the white vote, and the Democrat’s advantage in the minority vote makes them the majority party, or the Republicans increase their percentage of the white vote, and they become the majority party, and our politics becomes the politics of the south writ large on a national scale.
What does “purging the crazies” mean, in practice?
May I tackle this? What I wrote was “get them off the front porch”. I don’t believe in purges. How do you get them off the front porch? Well, not seating them next to a former President at the Democratic National Convention would be a start. Another prudent move would be to hold yourself back from saying “this is the heart and soul of America” when standing in a a group of the harshest nutcases.
Okay, I’ll play. I would have voted for Lieberman or Hart over Bush. Just possibly Gephardt. Since I’m a native St. Louisan I have a little reluctance over him. On the GOP side, Giuliani yes, Frist or Kasich no.
McCain is a hard call. I think he’s a truly great American. And I think his head is screwed on straight about defense and foreign policy. But I think the only reasons that he’s as popular among Democrats as he is is that he opposed Bush in the 2000 primaries and they don’t know much about his voting record. He’s very, very conservative. Much more so than Bush IMO.
Roublen,
1. I would have voted for Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, Hart, McCain, and Giuliani. It’s the war. In my mind these candidates, including Bush and Dean, all struck me as credible on terrorism and Iraq. At the end of the day, Kerry did not.
2. I’m not for purging crazies. Kerry might have served himself by criticizing some portion of the left to assure us that he shared middle-of-the road values. Frankly, this would not have mattered much to me.
I am in a position, having pulled the lever for George W., of wondering if I’m now a Republican. I think not, but as I wander through some of the websites I used to read, where Bush voters are blasted as stupid, homophobic Jesus-freaks, I do feel defensive and bitter. I suppose that too will pass in time.
Patrick
I would have favored McCain over Bush for being more of a reality-based guy, but yeah, people should get over the illusion that just because he’s a ‘maverick’ he’s not a real dyed-in-the-wool conservative. A bit more of the ‘National Greatness’ school as opposed to the ‘Christian Corporatist’ school of Bush… neither of which I’m wild about. Additional minus: legislator rather than executive… totally different jobs.
Giulani, on the other hand… from what I know, he really is more moderate, though I wonder about his views on the scope of law enforcement powers. If I could be reassured on that, I could really get behind him.
Oddly, I might have also favored Dean over both Bush and Kerry. Dean was clearly a strong leader. He has, to put it crudely, balls. Even though he opposed entering Iraq, I think he would have pressed on to some reasonable approximation of victory.
I would have favored Lieberman over both Bush and Kerry. Pro-business hawkish Democrats are as good as I can hope for, even if I am nervous about his views on the 1st amendment. Sadly, I don’t think he’d have had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. Low charisma, and America is still too biased to elect a Jewish president.
A.L. –
I hope you continue this project and make it a regular series. I had some thoughts of my own (and an explanation of why I, as a GOP Swamp Thing, care) but my blog ate it, so it will have to wait for now.
In the meantime, just this (which only Joe has addressed in detail) – How about a foreign policy? I do not exaggerate when I say the current Dem party has none.
– Playing “Argument Clinic” by automatically gainsaying anything the Republicans say (“I would have done everything differently!”) is not a foreign policy.
– Floating absurd ideas (“Let’s give Iran nuclear materials, then hide in the bushes and see what happens”) just so you have something to say is not a foreign policy.
– Pretending to have a secret foreign policy is not a foreign policy.
– Bogus pacifism is not a foreign policy. (Genuine pacifism would imply a foreign policy of sorts, but no such thing as genuine pacifism exists, or deserves to exist)
– Isolationism is a foreign policy, but it’s for losers.
“The Democrats won’t be a dominant party until they can align their message with the American people”
Align this.
Seriously, if you want to win an election, you’re either going to have to turn yourselves into Republicans, or you’re going to have to deceive everyone REALLY EFFECTIVELY and pretend to be Republicans.
The American people are CONSERVATIVE, and they’re steadily moving to the RIGHT.
You’re not going to get away with pretending you’re a Republican. You guys pull it off for a while, but frankly, under the harsh lights of an election campaign, you’re like the Emperor without any clothes. You’re just so obvious.
So, in short, you’re not going to rebuild anything. We already have a conservative American party. It’s called the Republican Party.
Join it, or go sit in a corner and shut up.
Paul,
The American people are more populist than conservative. Difference.
Democrats don’t need to be Republican lite, though their room to maneuver on foreign policy is limited. “Obsidian Order has a good post”:http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2004/11/dragging-democrats-back-from-precipice.html on security issues, social issues, economic issues, and the room to maneuver for each.
The Democrats *do* need to change, however, and a lurch to the Left will simply turn them into the 1993 British Labour Party.
Democrats who want to learn to talk to evangelicals need to read this book.
“You don’t have to drop the push for gay rights, by the way, just make it a REAL push in the political sphere as opposed to expecting courts to foist items you can’t get passed on the public.”
Amen. I live in Arkansas and we had an amendment 3 to ban gay marriage and civil unions.
a) I did not know it was on the ballot until the day before I voted (about a week before the election, I voted against it by the way).
b) About a week before the election I started seeing ads in favor of the amendment. I saw a few television ads for candidates (who lost by the way) saying their oponents were for gay marriage. I saw NOT ONE AD trying to convince me to vote against the amendment.
My mom, a staunch republican, conservative values kinda person (not evil by the way), after I talked to her for a little while about some of the reasons I was against it, that I thought people should be able to be notified when something happens to a loved one and some other things, said she didn’t think it should have been against civil unions.
Why the HELL didn’t anybody try any ads or try to convince anybody of their case? Because they think the whole south is full of redneck, bible toting hicks and that we are not worthy of their time or…Oh…an ACTUAL argument?
That’s why you guys are loosing. I am from the south and moved to a “blue state” kind of place for college and people thought nothing of making the jerkiest comments about the south.
The democrats are mostly from those states and are mostly making those comments and it is not the way to win elections.
Maybe what you guys need is to stop calling us names like 8 year olds and start trying an actual argument or two. People in red states are not stupid, they know when the party leadership and followers hate us. You guys need to fundamentally change that attitude or purge the party (at least the leadership) of the people with that attitude or you’re never going to get anywhere with the south.
By the way, this is year when I actually considered voting dem until I heard Kerry’s convention speech.
I would also ad a big protect the first amendment push. I don’t know what kind of credibility the dems would have but if they were serious they would win some points for me.
The anti swift vets shit and crapppy campaign finance reform turned me off. If either party would take a strong stance on the first amendment it would really win alot of points. I didn’t vote for mcCain and wouldn’t vote for mccain because of his poor support for the first amendment.
I would LOVE a fiscally conservative, deficit hawk, social liberal type. Go Guiliani in 2008!
>I don’t see how Democrats can be hurt by
>supporting civil unions, so long as it is not
>by judicial fiat.
It can’t work that way for Democratic candidates for state wide or federal office.
Supporting civil unions but not gay marriage hurts Democrats in Democratic primares because Gay activists won’t settle for anything else but full blown Gay marriage.
You have to win the primaries before you can get to the General election. Point in fact for most places that elect Democrats, the Democratic primary *is the general election.*
Dave Schuler,
so, if I have it correct, you would vote for Lieberman & Hart, but not Wes Clark or John Edwards (or Kerry). Lieberman I can understand, but Gary Hart intrigues me because he has been very critical of the Bush administration approach to the War on Terror and skeptical of the Iraq war. And suppose Lieberman was the nominee and Michael Moore was *still* getting jiggy in Jimmy Carter’s suite? Deal-breaker?
PD Shaw, it seems that you would have voted almost anybody but Bush, except you really, really, really didn’t like John Kerry (and Wes Clark, apparently). It seems that for some reason you didn’t trust his character and integrity.
Interesting & thanks for replying. Anyway, from a marketing or “vision” standpoint, two small ideas:
1) “Middle Class, Common Sense, Golden Rule”. In other words there are “Middle Class”
issues (taxes, health care, social security, private-sector unions, jobs), “Common Sense” issues (defense, education, civil rights, environment, immigration, campaign reform, abortion, etc.), and “Golden Rule” issues (foreign aid, anti-poverty & homeless programs, humanitarian military missions).
2) “(Let’s Make America) The Best Across the Board” This comes from a very interesting Ted Halstead article, where he asserted an “American Paradox”: Among the advanced industrial countries, we are either the very best or among the very worst. We have the best military, GDP, productivity, business start-ups, R&D, breadth of stock ownership, volunteerism, charitable giving. At the same we are among the worst in poverty, life expectancy, infant mortality, homicide, health-care coverage, teen pregnancy, personal savings & obesity. So the slogan would mean (working toward) making America the best in all these categories, best in infant mortality as well as GDP.
“Middle Class, Common Sense, Golden Rule” & “The Best Across the Board” are two marketing slogans that seem to me to have the advantage of not offending anybody despite being fairly meaningful, and at the same time being simple enough to be shouted at political rallies or on TV screens. “The Best Across the Board” also might have the advantage of appealing to the patriotism of Americans, even jingoistic patriotism. Really, there’s a million good approaches in terms of marketing. But I definitely agree the problems of the Democratic party go a bit deeper than that.
OK, there are some things I’d like to see.
First set: Policies (then perhaps in time settled rights) Not Rights (not a priori anyway)
(1) The Democratic Party aspires to be the majority party, and aims to win the Presidency, the Congress, the Senate, and state and local elections. Permanent minority status and rule by bypassing democracy is unacceptable to the Democratic Party.
(2) The Democratic Party aims to legislate its policies from the legislature, and not through the courts.
(3) Philosophically, the Democratic Party sees the future as open to experiment, not as a set path the details of which can be known in advance. Social experiments will be seen as experiments, and pursued in ways that can be consolidated if they work out and reversed if they don’t work out. Untried and risky, but perhaps promising, ideas will not be defined as constitutional and human rights and pursued with thin-end-of-the-wedge tactics.
(4) In arguing for new ideas, the Democratic Party will stress their benefits, and when need be berate opponents for being so misguided as to cause the people to miss out on the benefits of these excellent ideas. This is as opposed to defining new ideas as legally and morally mandatory, and habitually berating opponents as immoral and lawless for opposing them.
If your preference is never to allow a popular vote on anything important if you can get your way in the courts instead, putting your victory beyond popular review, in what sense are you a Democratic Party?
Example: state constitutional amendments seeking to ban same-sex marriage have passed in all eleven states where the question was on the ballot.
This is the mindset I want the Democratic Party to renounce:
“The results underscore why we have a Bill of Rights – because it is always wrong to put basic rights up to a popular vote. In fact, even today, 213 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, it is doubtful Americans could win our freedoms of speech, press and religion at the ballot box,” said Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (the “Task Force”). – Foreman continued. “This is only one round and when the fight is over, complete equality for gay people will be the only side left standing.” (link, hat tip to Independent Gay Forum link)
Fundamentally I would like the Democratic Party to have a culture that says “take it to a vote” not “take it to court”. But I don’t know if this is possible. Lawyers are so important in the Democratic Party that it may have to have a culture of rule by lawsuits, not by voting.
I am a libertarian (mostly). I voted against a gay marriage ban in my state and for Bush. I don’t think you need to drop the idea it was “moral values” was the problem. If you combine terrorism/Iraq and there are a great many who think they are part of the same war, then the war on Iraq is the big kahuna. It was for me. GWB was the only candidate who I believed would pursue the war on terror.
I think Democrats need to understand there are a lot of people who think that despite problems this is the best country on earth.
We weren’t attacked by terrorists because we support Israel. Democrats need to quit acting like abused women making excuses for the bastard that hits her. It isn’t America’s fault. The middle east is full of despotic states where any educated middle class that might exist emigrates to a western country.
Another point. Recognize that fanatics are fanatics regardless of religion. There is no difference between Yasser Arafat and Eric Robert Rudolph. Except that Democratic Presidents treated him like a head of state instead of the murdering religious fanatic that he was.
For some reason the theme keeps coming back to the moral issues and the fanatical religiousness of flyover country (a term Iām quickly beginning to despise). When will the Democratic party finally come to terms with religion and religious beliefs? When will the democratic party finally come to terms that there is an entire nation to deal with and not just heavily populated areas in the US?
I have often wondered why all the rhetoric concerning “evangelical”:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evangelical beliefs and practices are always at the nub of everything the democratic party despises.
Not being a devote religious person myself I decided to do a bit of research on the religious backgrounds within the US. What caught my interest was a survey by “CUNY”:http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/aris.pdf concerning various religious aspects throughout the United States. The link is to a PDF file American Religious Identification Survey. Sorry I couldnāt find an HTML link. The survey was taken back in ā90ās and updated in 2001. I certainly wish I could have found something a little more current.
At first blush there are some 208 million Americans that identify themselves with some religious affiliation. The majority being of Catholic and Protestant faith. The “2000 Census”:http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122800a.htm puts the total population of the US at 281,421,906.
The “voter turnout”:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/ for the 2004 election is reported as being 114.9 million with a total of 117.8 million being closer if you count provisional and absentee ballots. Given the numbers it seems to me that barking up the political tree of religious beliefs and affiliation is sheer stupidity. Barking up the tree of religious motivated judges also seems futile if you take the numbers into consideration. Judges may claim not to have religious beliefs but somehow the statistics certainly lean to a totally different conclusion. Now Iām not saying the statistics are gospel and neither is the survey. Taking these numbers with a grain of salt I do tend to wonder why people would lie to the extent that the numbers would be overly inflated.
Now to my second point about _flyover country_. This term clearly shows the disconnect between the American people and the democratic party if you look at the demographics. Iām sure everyone has now seen or heard of the “infamous map”:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/2004_County_Results_Final.html of red states versus blue states by county. The map certainly suggests that the heaviest populated areas of the US are more democratic than the nation as a whole. In order to understand why this is the case democrats need to really take a long hard look at what really sets them apart from the suburbs of America. As the survey seems to suggest it certainly isnāt religion and ignoring the populace by assigning the moniker of flyover country as though they are not worthy of airports and visitation only adds to the problem and not to the solution.
roublen vesseau:
My reading of Gary Hart’s work is that at least he takes the War on Terror seriously. And I’m skeptical of the Iraq War, too. It may be unfair of me but I do not have the impression that John Kerry takes the War on Terror seriously. I’ll give you an example. When he pledges to defend the country if attacked, he neglects to mention that we have already been attacked. My overwhelming impression of him is that the War on Terror is a distraction from his domestic political objectives. I acknowledge I may be being unfair but that’s my impression.
One of the things that I like about Lieberman is that I’m convinced that he has core beliefs. Not just talking points. I don’t get that impression from John Kerry. And, again perhaps unfairly, I think that those core beliefs would have precluded the particular kind of harshness we’ve seen in this campaign.
Trent is right, sort of. I live in a deep-blue area of California and the civil unions compromise was a non-starter. Some years ago, at a Democratic fundraiser, I asked a leading State Senator — safe Democratic district — about a unions bill he had sidetracked and he said, “Well, your community said it won’t fly, it had to be marriage.”
(Hell, I passed a domestic-partners’ registry ordinance in my county back in ’93, with the help of mainly straight citizens — and clergy — and you know what? The local gay/lesbian community was pissed at me. “That’s second-class, we wanted marriage.” Trouble is, that’s the message that got to the national Party.)
I might mention, though, that Trent generalizes somewhat, the US Senate primary in California doesn’t necessarily mean a hard edge on marriage-or-nothing. Note “Dianne Feinstein”:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/04/MNG3A9LLVI1.DTL's post-game comment: “The whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon.” This from someone who started, as Mayor, by vetoing domestic partners registries (1984) to supporting some form of civil union. She can evolve but doesn’t like being pushed, either. (This in an article suggesting that, but for Gavin Newsom’s showboating, John Kerry might have been President-elect today, all other things being just about equal.)
“Typical polling data”:http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm suggests that the American public can go for some form of legal household. The average American is probably decent enough about hospital visitation and will bequests and tenancies-in-common. Red Stater is right about that.
BTW, the Democratic Party needs to re-learn how to make each day’s headlines and talking points. This issue was one of several that broke out of control. If you’re answering events rather than leading them, then you’re losing. Karl Rove understands this.
PS. One-fifth of the gay vote went to George W. Bush. The Democratic Party should lean _hard_ on the LGBT caucus — party leaders, self-appointed or elected, _are supposed to deliver votes_. What’s more, the caucus, led by big-city hotshots, always seemed to be dismissive of suburban and rural voters, LGBT included, the kind that would’ve been happy with the bill that State Sen. Whosit lost interest in. Something for Party activists to bring up at the February state convention in LA.
Now we are getting more to the point of what I posted earlier in “The Democratic Reformation”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005843.php#c52 thread.
The “American Religious Identification Survey”:http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/aris.pdf published by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) deals with various religious aspects throughout the United States. The survey was taken back in ā90ās and updated in 2001.
At first blush there are some 208 million Americans that identify themselves with some religious affiliation. The majority being of Catholic and Protestant faith. The “2000 Census”:http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122800a.htm puts the total population of the US at 281,421,906.
The “Voter Turnout”:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/ for the 2004 election is reported as being 114.9 million with a total of 117.8 million being closer if you count provisional and absentee ballots. Given the numbers it seems to me that blaming the evangelicals is nothing more than hot air. Barking up the tree of religious motivated judges also seems futile if you take the numbers into consideration. Judges may claim not to have religious beliefs but somehow the statistics certainly lean to a totally different conclusion. Now Iām not saying the statistics are gospel and neither is the survey. Taking these numbers with a grain of salt I do tend to wonder why people would lie to the extent that the numbers would be overly inflated.
Iām also at a loss as to why the Democratic party and the MSM continue to blame the evangelicals as the root problem of progressiveness. Iāve heard the same claim over and over on all the political talk shows that aired today. Kerry lost because the evangelicals are evil and stand in the way of progressiveness. Whatās more they believe if the evangelicals hadnāt showed up at the polls Kerry would have won according to Eleanor Cliff. Given the 2001 data if evangelicals hadnāt showed up there would be roughly 29.5 million votes for two candidates. Given the total population of the US that certainly isn’t a very impressive number.
Bob Harmon offered up this “link”:http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm concerning Americaās views on the issue of gay marriages versus civil unions. Of particular note are the final two questions. Democrats overwhelmingly favor gay marriage 40% over civil unions 27%. Whatās more impressive is the percentage of those that oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman 48%. If as Bob stated in a previous post that Gays and Lesbians will settle for nothing less then it stands to reason that the Democratic party should drop their pandering to these groups. Really it isnāt that hard to say NO to marriage but YES to civil unions. Sure the groups would be highly upset if they donāt get what they want but then again do you buy the baby a toy every time the baby cries? If as democrats believe that this is truly the issue that caused the Kerry loss it seems to me they would have denounced the blatant civil disobedience of the law displayed by several states. They didnāt do this simply because they were pandering for a vote? The Republicans denounced the civil disobedience without even thinking twice about it. Why is that?
USMC, read my post above again. “Gays and Lesbians” isn’t a monolithic entity. I suspect that most same-sex households are mainly interested in being able to hold property in common, bequeath it, name each other as beneficiaries and co-parents and trust beneficiaries and the rest of it. I’m speaking about the suburban and rural households, not the urban political activists who seem to run the big-state Party LGBT caucuses.
The Democratic Party seems unable to enunciate a basic principle: at issue is not one little minority but whether this country still believes in equal protection under the law, due process and states’ rights, all of which are threatened by the FMA. Until they can speak clearly then they will not drive the debate — or win elections.
When talking about “gay rights,” why does this issue have to be limitted to marriages and civil unions? Correct me if I’m wrong, but sexual peference is not a protected class for a wide host of state and federal discrimination laws. Should homosexual relationships be given legal recognition when it is not clear that homosexuals themselves are even tolerated?
Patrick
PD Shaw has a very valid point. No sense in a same-sex household setting up if their neighbors are going to trash the place, if their kids are going to be run out of school, if their state forbids certain types of employment discrimination but overlooks theirs. What the marriage advocates “badly overlooked”:http://advocate.com/html/stories/926/926_bouley_election.asp was the simple principle of equal protection under the law.
And sometimes they will have to go to court. Rummage a little in the “Lambda Legal website”:http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/index.html to see what day-to-day hassles are out there. Or if you want samples of what it’s like for gay kids in school, check out Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir., 1996) where one kid had to make a Federal case of it after school officials wouldn’t lift a finger to stop the hooliganism, same thing in Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, 324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir., 2003). Or dig a little in the “GLSEN website”:www.glsen.org for some more flavor.
I have been able, when I was head of the local ACLU, to persuade the school officials in my own county that this isn’t a gay-rights issue, it’s equal protection under the law: more to the point, the obligation under the California Education Code to provide a safe school environment against _any harassment whatsoever_. Time for the grownups to be running the place again. Arguments like that work, not “oh, tolerate me.”
And that’s the issue the Democratic Party needs to take on all issues, not as a favor to an interest group but as a matter of across-the-board justice. It is kind of demeaning to be a Democratic dependency and not a U.S. citizen. And the principle _is simple law enforcement, simple rule of law._ Few people on either side seem to get it.
Any reflections on this, A.L.?