Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[A18]

Uh, the May Gallup says otherwise.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh, the May Gallup says otherwise.

I was using the latest poll, which was a Boston Globe poll.

[A18]

Gallup is more reputable. What date?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gallup is more reputable. What date?

Later in May. From the 2004 election, we saw that Gallup was all over the place, and not very reputable.

[Gustaf]

When exactly? I don't recall (say) Boxer being told to shut up recently... and I don't see any strong criticisms of far left lobby groups...

What is your problem with Boxer? How is she loony?

The only DLC democrat I would consider supporting in 2008 is Mark Warner. The DLC has few true principles, they usually just try to chase the ever right-moving center. They are the corporate wing of the Democratic party, and that doesn't cut it.

No kidding. The last thing we need to do is run some pro-war, pro-bankruptcy bill, anti-choice "Democrat" who speaks and acts like a Republican. If the voters want a Republican, they'll just vote Republican, instead of Republican-lite.

That's what they're doing.

[Gustaf]

Every issue has a position that either side can take that is strong. It's a matter of shaping the debate. Democrats tend to pick really stupid positions on most social issues and allow Republicans to equal stupid position with liberal position. That's what happened on affirmative action, gay marriage and abortion, to name only a few.

[dazzleman]

Every issue has a position that either side can take that is strong. It's a matter of shaping the debate. Democrats tend to pick really stupid positions on most social issues and allow Republicans to equal stupid position with liberal position. That's what happened on affirmative action, gay marriage and abortion, to name only a few.

Exactly.  The candidate/party that defines and shapes the debate wins the election.

Liberal positions have been defined as (1) weak on defense, anti-American even (2) soft on crime (3) in favor of ever higher taxes (4) defending even reprehensible behavior by "victim" groups like women, minorities, etc. while condemning the same behavior by white males (5) hostile to religious beliefs and traditional family values.

It doesn't really matter at this point if these things are largely true or not.  I believe they are, to one degree or another, depending upon the individual candidate.  I think these things are definitely true of the core Democratic base. Democrats must convince enough voters that they are right in these positions, or they must define them differently.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alas, you stated the situation very accurately!

[angus]

Gustaf,
I totally disagree with just about everything you wrote.  but that's not unusual.  Look, the Dems would like to say, "I don't give a flying sh**t whether two men get married."  Which is a damned fine position, and one that will eventually win the day.  But instead, they end up letting Republicans define their position for them, so what the voters really hear is, "Democrats are going to burn your house down."

This is essentially their problem.  Deep down their problem is intolerance and ignorance and obstinancy, but not their essential underlying position. 

Either way, it doesn't matter, since right now the party that is more nationalistic will win the day in our current climate of War and Paranoia.  And that happens to be the republicans.  When and if we ever get over our dependence of foreign oil and the particular predicaments that it gets us into, then there will be a level playing field.  What you, and others, fail to recognize is that parties evolve.  Who's to say which party will be more gay friendly or environment friendly by then?  You seriously underestimate the constantly changing nature of these parties.  there is only one characteristic that constantly defines the GOP since its first national convention in 1856, and that's nationalism.  And right now, nationalism sells.  Even to me it does.  Learn it.

[dazzleman]

Gustaf,
I totally disagree with just about everything you wrote.  but that's not unusual.  Look, the Dems would like to say, "I don't give a flying sh**t whether two men get married."  Which is a damned fine position, and one that will eventually win the day.  But instead, they end up letting Republicans define their position for them, so what the voters really hear is, "Democrats are going to burn your house down."

This is essentially their problem.  Deep down their problem is intolerance and ignorance and obstinancy, but not their essential underlying position. 

Either way, it doesn't matter, since right now the party that is more nationalistic will win the day in our current climate of War and Paranoia.  And that happens to be the republicans.  When and if we ever get over our dependence of foreign oil and the particular predicaments that it gets us into, then there will be a level playing field.  What you, and others, fail to recognize is that parties evolve.  Who's to say which party will be more gay friendly or environment friendly by then?  You seriously underestimate the constantly changing nature of these parties.  there is only one characteristic that constantly defines the GOP since its first national convention in 1856, and that's nationalism.  And right now, nationalism sells.  Even to me it does.  Learn it.

angus, it seems to me that you're agreeing with Gustaf that the mistake the Democrats make is allowing the Republicans to define the liberal/Democratic position in a negative light.

I believe that the positions themselves are a big part of the problem, especially on values issues, due to the control of the party by Hollywood types who are hostile to traditional values. 

But politics is a bit like a prism; the view changes based upon the direction from which the light is shined.  If Democrats want to hold true to their views, they have to shine the light from an angle that makes them look better.

[angus]

perhaps.  I often misread posts in haste. 

well, in any case they don't need an apologist, and they most certainly don't need to be advise to adopt the social positions of the republicans.  look, the bottom line here is that we're okay economically.  people work.  there's no depression.  Sure, we're in what economists call the end of the first trimester of a secular bear market.  You've no doubt noticed that your mutual funds are getting maybe 7% (if you're wise!) and not the 15-25% you were getting in the 90s.  But then the 90s were special.  Cold war over.  New weird yet-to-be-defined Terror War not yet begun.  The Dems mistook this for some sort of sign that they should shift far rightward under Clinton and move forward.  Even to the point of choosing that major league embarassment Howard Dean (a right-wing Democrat, like Clinton, but unlike Clinton, a huge gaffer with no personal saving graces.)

The last thing they need is to copy the GOP.  In fact, subtle attempts at copying anything from the GOP will only worsen their plight.  This they fail to recognize.  What the GOP does works well for them.  Good.  Fine.  It will never work well for the democrats.  They need to have enough balls to stop with the nuance crap (Rumsfeld:  "We don't do nuance") and just define themselves.  Maybe that's what Gustav was going for.  But the post was so nuanced it was difficult to tell.

In either case, I wish both parties would stop talking about sh**t like gay marriage, abortion, and other triviality that really doesn't affect my life personally and get on with the important economic matters we pay the bastards to debate!

[A18]

I actually agree with a lot of that. Most social issues should be just that—social issues, not government issues.

[angus]

Let me be more succinct.  Know what percent of the population is gay?  about ten.  maybe.  Know what percent of the US population is even capable of getting pregnant at any given moment?  about 19.  if that.  And Natalie Holloway?  You'd think she's the UN ambassador to God Himself or something, to watch US news programs.

And we're all buying into this as important issues.

We all need food.  We all need shelter.  We all need clothing.  We all need a long slow blow job occassionally.  And the party that used to so intimately associate itself with these things that affect all of us has lost its way.  The Democrats.  The Republicans?  Hey, they're holding up their end of the bargain.  Time of War?  Wrap yourself up in the flag.  Time of Crises?  Turn to God.  Pick a god.  Any god.  Hey, we like Jews and Hindus too.  And muslims.  Well, sort of.  But what about all that other stuff?  The Dems think they can ever compete with the patriotism and nationalism of the GOP?  C'mon.  Give us a break.  They just need to go back to their schtick.  This is all I'm saying, okay?  Stop giving them bad advice.

Not that you'd win my vote.  Well, not immediately.  My stocks are doing well.   My family is fat and happy.  But it's a start.  You'd win over some voters.

And, basically, as A18 said in a sentence what it took me several multiparagraph posts to say (I'm verbose like that):  leave it to the philosophers to do philosophy; government officials should do government business. 

End of rant.  Thank you.

[dazzleman]

You may have hit on something with your talk about the economy.  People have a hierarchy of needs, and once a certain set of needs is satisfied, they move up the chain.

Economic policy at this point seems to be less a definer of party differences than is normal.  It seems now that more people are voting on social issues than economic issues.  How else to explain high income people voting for a party that constantly says they're not paying enough in taxes, and lower middle income people voting for a party that gives tax breaks to those high income people and from which they benefit only to a small degree?

It seems that voters are either (a) economically comfortable or (b) don't believe that whatever party is in power will make much difference to them economically.

That leaves them free to vote on softer issues, like social issues.  The whole abortion thing is ridiculous in my opinion.  I have come around to thinking that the only way out of it is to overturn Roe vs. Wade, which was a very questionable ruling, and turn the issue back to the states.  And do you what would happen then?  Absolutely nothing.  Liberal states would adopt liberal abortion laws, and more conservative states would restrict it.  But there is little access to abortion in more conservative parts of the country anyway, so little would change.  Abortion is a perfect example of how the political process gets distorted when judges legislate from the bench.

In my opinion, it is the Democrats' supporters who have gone on the offensive on social issues.  They have given the Republicans the opening.  Ten years ago, who was even talking about gay marriage?  And who has forced it onto the public agenda?  Certainly not the Republicans; it's not Republicans who challenged marriage laws.  If it were up to the Republicans alone, the issue would be buried.

Same with other values issues.  The Republican position is largely in favor of traditional values that until recently were widely accepted by both parties.  So in my opinion, it is the Democrats who have put these issues on the public agenda, for better or worse (mostly worse, in my opinion).  But these issues have gotten many people to vote Republican, but at the same time have cemented many people to the Democratic party.

I don't think people want the government to legislate morality, but they don't want a government that is actively hostile to traditional values, and the Democrats give the impression that they will be exactly that.

Gay marriage is another issue that should be handled through the democratic process, not the courts.  Activists are making the same mistake they made with abortion, trying to shortcut the issue through the courts rather than doing the much harder work of garnering support among the people.  Even in cases where those going to the courts were right, such as Brown vs. Board of Education, relying on the courts rarely works out in the end.  Among all the hoopla and celebration of the Brown decision last year, it was little noticed that racial separation in education is every bit as great today as it was in 1954.  Contrast that with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, which have been very successful in their defined goal because they were endorsed by the democratic process and not exclusively through the courts.

If the gay activists persist in going through the courts, the issue will never be settled, and they'll be sweating bullets over every Supreme Court appointment 30 years from now, just as they are over abortion.  It's pathetic, but it's what they deserve for violating democratic principles.

Using the courts to settle social issues, whether they be gay marriage, abortion, or busing, without getting the necessary public support, has driven many voters over to the Republicans.  The reality is course is that the Republicans have done nothing about any of these things.  But they are perceived as opposing them, while the Democrats are perceived as favoring the overriding of the peoples' wishes by black robed dictators.

[dazzleman]

We all need a long slow blow job occassionally. 

angus, can you tell me what party associates itself with this issue?  I'd definitely join that party...

But seriously, I agree that the Democrats can't win by adoptiong Republican positions, necessarily.  However, they can redefine the way they present certain issues to make them appear less hostile to swing voters.

Having strident, feminazi bitches screaming about their uterises may not be the best way to present the abortion issue.  People who might otherwise accept abortion, to a degree, as the best of several bad options get totally turned off by that presentation. 

Ditto for many of the people who are pushing gay marriage.  Have you ever seen a gay pride parade?  They are generally freak shows, and present the whole thing in a very bad light.

On foreign policy, rather than suggesting constructive policies that might supplement areas where the administration's policies are weak, they make it appear as if they want another unsuccessful quagmire like Vietnam.  If you listened to most Democrats, you'd think they can't wait for the day when the last helicopter leaves the roof of the US embassy in Baghdad in total defeat.

It seems that the Democratic interest groups excel at this presenting themselves in the worst possible light.  And it's a shame, because the Republicans need a worthy opponent to keep them focused.  Republican as I am, I wouldn't want a situation in which the Republicans have total power with constructive input from the Democrats.  The problem is that most of what the Democrats offer is destructive, not constructive.

As I said before, politics is like a prism, and the way the prism looks changes depending upon the angle of the light.  The Democrats surely need, at a minimum, to shine the light from a different angle.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry Angus, but economic policy rests on a social base.

One only has to look at history to see the truth of this.  

As a wise sage noted once, values matter most.

A population based on sound values will inevitably suceed economically whereas one with tremendous assets will fail without sound values.

[angus]

lets postulate that this is gospel.

let's also recognize that at least seven countries in the world have higher UN human development indices than do we. 

Studying their dealing with these "value" issues, we then conclude that "sound values" may include dealing swiftly and not getting bogged down in their debate things like gay rights and abortion.

Or, by contradiction, we conclude syllogistically that the first postulate is utter bullsh**t.

take your pick.

[dazzleman]

Sorry Angus, but economic policy rests on a social base.

One only has to look at history to see the truth of this.  

As a wise sage noted once, values matter most.

A population based on sound values will inevitably suceed economically whereas one with tremendous assets will fail without sound values.

I agree.  If you look at who is poor, it is usually people who have not been raised with sound values.  They do not see the benefit of doing things in the right order -- education, job, marriage, children, and instead have children first, outside of marriage and before they can support them.  Then the burden of raising a child outside of marriage prevents them from ever bettering themselves.

This is largely the story of poverty in America today.  Crime, bad schools, and other social pathologies all revolve around this problem.

I fear that if we allow our family structure to decay much further, it will hamper our economic development.  Where broken (or never intact) families are the norm, good education is virtually impossible, crime flourishes as boys especially, without the postive male role model they need, turn to criminals and gangsters as their role models.

The black population is the canary in the coal mine for us on this issue.  The main reason black neighborhoods are so much worse today than they were even at the height of segregation and almost universal black poverty is the precipitous decline of the black family structure.

I think this is one area where those that the liberal elites call stupid rednecks are much wiser than the elites themselves.  Those who favor traditional values sense these things instinctively, while elitist liberals explain them away while isolating themselves from the actual effects of these problems.

I fear that if we allow our family structure to decline beyond a certain point, large swathes of our society will resemble the horrific black ghettos of many of our cities, and on a national level, we could end up like Brazil, a country where anything goes and there is no social fabric.  People there breed so irresponsibly and just dump their children out without support that they become savages, and the government has to gun them down.  I agree we're far from that overall, but not in all segments of society.

We should also remember that an environment where families are created in the absence of an adequate support structure means these families need more public support to survive.  This is very dangerous because with self-government comes the implicit requirement that the vast majority of people become self-supporting.  If those who are unable to meet their own needs because they exercised their precious right to make stupid life choices become a majority, democracy as we know it is over, because they will vote themselves increasing benefits and at some point, the minority that is supporting itself will refuse to pay the necessary taxes to support these people.

I get no sense that Democrats understand these issues, or are aware of these dangers.  On the contrary, it appears the party wants to encourage government dependency, because those dependent on government are reliable Democratic voters.  It's another reason that I could never vote for the Democrats.

[angus]

or we can postulate that Values aren't limited to what either of you say they are.  I'd conveniently left that out.  But seriously, I'd never said that "values" don't matter, only that yours and mine may be different, and either party would be wise not to attempt to corral us into any given set.  Don't forget that this nation was born of a violent and illegal revolution.  It's hardly appropriate to assume any intrinsic "value system" outside what is explicitly written in the constitution.  And I don't see anywhere that it's written that any of the government branches ought to be spending time arguing any of this.  On the other hand, I do see it written that each state legislature may spend as much or as little time as it likes arguing these issues. 

I believe I stand correct in saying that the Congress needs to get its collective mind out of the gutter.

[dazzleman]

or we can postulate that Values aren't limited to what either of you say they are.  I'd conveniently left that out.  But seriously, I'd never said that "values" don't matter, only that yours and mine may be different, and either party would be wise not to attempt to corral us into any given set.  Don't forget that this nation was born of a violent and illegal revolution.  It's hardly appropriate to assume any intrinsic "value system" outside what is explicitly written in the constitution.  And I don't see anywhere that it's written that any of the legislative branches ought to be spending time arguing any of this.  On the other hand, I do see it written that each state legislature may spend as much or as little time as it likes arguing these issues. 

I believe I stand correct in saying that the Congress needs to get its collective mind out of the gutter.

Government ideally should be value neutral.  But of course, that means different things to different people.

But the fact is that government -- through liberal government programs -- has unwitting encouraged the values breakdown that I discuss in my post above.

AFDC and the whole victim mentality behind welfare programs encouraged people to think that poverty is something that befalls you like a strike of lightning, and that your own choices and behavior have nothing to do with whether you stay in poverty, escape, or perhaps descend into it from a more solid upbringing.

I generally take a broad view on values, but I think it's idiotic to talk as if inferior family structures that require large amounts of societal support, and produce ill-educated, maladjusted criminals to a much greater degree than traditional families, are every bit as good as traditional families, and design a policy that puts this thought into practice.

CarlHayden is right that economics ultimately rest upon a social base, and a broken social base will ultimately bring down the economy too.  I don't think we should legislate morality to a large degree, but we certainly shouldn't encourage what we ought to know by now will lead us down a very bad path.  Economic and social policy are linked on some level, not two separate things as many people think.

[opebo]

As usual, you have it completely backwards, dazzleman - poverty causes 'social ills', not the other way round.

[dazzleman]

As usual, you have it completely backwards, dazzleman - poverty causes 'social ills', not the other way round.

Wrong.  You have it backwards.  Poverty is the result of a certain type of behavior, in most cases.

Poverty and social ills cause each other.  It's like alcoholism.  A person is an alcoholic because he has problems.  But his alcoholism causes him to lose his job, family, etc.  How does he BEGIN to solve these problem?  He has to start by quitting drinking.  Drinking is the behavior that has ruined his life.  Only after he quits drinking can he begin to solve the other underlying problems.

Your argument is basically akin to saying that the alcoholicism is caused by the underlying personal problems, and that solving them will solve the alcoholism.  But in reality, it doesn't work that way.

[opebo]

As usual, you have it completely backwards, dazzleman - poverty causes 'social ills', not the other way round.

Wrong.  You have it backwards.  Poverty is the result of a certain type of behavior, in most cases.

Poverty and social ills cause each other.  It's like alcoholism.  A person is an alcoholic because he has problems.  But his alcoholism causes him to lose his job, family, etc.  How does he BEGIN to solve these problem?  He has to start by quitting drinking.  Drinking is the behavior that has ruined his life.  Only after he quits drinking can he begin to solve the other underlying problems.

Your argument is basically akin to saying that the alcoholicism is caused by the underlying personal problems, and that solving them will solve the alcoholism.  But in reality, it doesn't work that way.

Poverty is the result of lack of power, not the result of behaviors.  One may show up at eight AM and toil assiduously all ones life, and die nothing more than another working-class, while a rich may shoot heroin and crash mercedes all his life and still die cossetted in priviledge.  No, it is one's position in the heirarchy that determines ones well-being, not minor details like personal habits.

By the way alcoholism is a great example of something that is a 'problem' only if you are a poor. 

[angus]

that last sentence can't possibly be true, opebo.

alcoholism (not just being a drunk), but clinical alcoholism is a disease, often inherited, that destroys lives, not just livelihoods.  This is well documented by the AMA. 

[opebo]

that last sentence can't possibly be true, opebo.

alcoholism (not just being a drunk), but clinical alcoholism is a disease, often inherited, that destroys lives, not just livelihoods.  This is well documented by the AMA. 

I was speaking in a social and political sense, angus.  As in - other people will treat a poor alcoholic worse than a poor sober, while they will treat a rich alcoholic exactly as well as a rich sober.