Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Poverty is the result of lack of power,

Utter rubbish. I disagree with the assertion that poverty is somehow the fault of the poor (this is certainly the case with a small, but very visable, minority) but that sort of crypto-marxist bullsh*t is so out of touch with reality it's almost comical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... no it isn't. Cirrhosis is something of a social leveller.

[opebo]

Poverty is the result of lack of power,

Utter rubbish. I disagree with the assertion that poverty is somehow the fault of the poor (this is certainly the case with a small, but very visable, minority) but that sort of crypto-marxist bullsh*t is so out of touch with reality it's almost comical.

Its either one or the other, Al.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... no it isn't. Cirrhosis is something of a social leveller.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please refer to my post directly above yours, where I deal with this medical misaprehension.  (It is beside the point)

[dazzleman]

ah, I've lost sight of what Gustaf's post was, and I know that among all the posters, Carl is one that I'd least like to argue with, since his arguments are devoid of passion and full of logic.  But I'm not sure I can by into his assessment of Gustaf's post.  Let me go back and read it.  Well, screw it, let's just persue what you wrote:

okay, I get the gist of it.  First, I do agree that the general creation of a second-class citizenship by, for example, the blatantly racist programs such as affirmative action, and the blatantly sexist way that both parties play "gender issues" does just what you imply that it does.   You'll get no argument from me.  I'm pretty sure I live by an egalitarian code and when I'm shown to be an elitist (classist, racist, or otherwise), I quickly apologize and change my tune.  But I think we're on the same page here.

Where I take issue with what you (and I think Carl) suggest is that issues like gay marriage deserve the attention they're getting.  Now, I think we can agree that everything the Democrats have said about such issues seems to hurt them, and everything the Republicans say about it seems to help them.  I posted that originally, and I think Gustaf may have as well.  But where I depart is on how the Democrats should fix their problem.  I interpreted what followed as advice to the democrats to change their party line.  This would be a grave mistake.  Simply put, there was a time when you could make fun of queers.  There was also a time when you could make fun of ns, chinks, kykes, whatever.  Not that any of it is "excusable" in any universal moral sense, and I'm not going to attempt to play moralist here and talk about how "wrong" that sort of bigotry is, but, as an economic matter, society functions smoothly when we aren't expending resources internally fighting.  So, yes, I think on sheer economics alone we can argue against bigotry.  And, yes, I think not letting two men get married is every bit as bigoted as not letting a white woman marry a black man.  (you two may disagree here, and Gustaf may as well).  If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  But whether or not we disagree, make no mistake:  I am not arguing any of this on moral grounds.  It's simply economics.  There is a limited supply of capital.  Every bit of time and money and energy we spend arguing over this, and fighting it, takes away from what we could be putting into projects we'd all enjoy, whether that's mass transit, space exploration, cancer research, or drilling in the Arctic national wildlife preserve. 

angus, all my discussion about family structure doesn't really encompass the gay marriage issue because same sex couples can't get each other pregnant, and the situation for childrearing doesn't really apply here.

For me, gay marriage is more an issue of means rather than end.  I don't care particularly whether it's allowed, as long as the democratic process is followed.  I think marriage should be defined through the democratic process, not courts. 

To me, one man-one woman is inherent in the marriage definition, and I don't consider gay relationships to be marriages.  But if society defines it otherwise through a DEMOCRATIC process, that's OK.  If liberal activists force gay marriage through the courts against the will of the majority, that's not OK.  It's not a matter of bigotry in my opinion; gay relationship in my opinion simply belong in a category other than marriage.

I disagree with the rights-based view of marriage; in my opinion marriage is not supposed to be about who gets preferential tax rates and survivorship rights; it's always been meant primarily to be about creating the best environment to raise children.  This issue may or may not deserve the attention it gets, but let's not forget who has placed it on the public agenda, and it wasn't conservative Republicans. 

Are you suggesting that either party ought to simply agree to whatever social issue is put on the table by the other party because it's not worth the time to talk about it?

I agree with you very much about the economic cost of irrational bigotry.  I think that is what kept the south economically depressed for 100 years after the civil war, and it never makes sense to suppress the talents and skills of a portion of the population.  When you do that, everybody loses.  But whether or not gay marriage exists does not have any effect on the economic situation of gays.  Gays are actually financially better off than average, and one really can't argue that they are being discriminated against in an economic sense.

Man does not live by bread alone, and I therefore disagree with you that we shouldn't spend time discussing anything but economic issues.  I think it's a stretch to go from, as you say, acknowledging that economic discrimination resulting from bigotry has an economic cost, which it does (though as I said, gays don't suffer from economic discrimination whether or not gay marriage exists) and arguing that there is a financial cost for every minute people in the government spend on issues other than economic.  Honestly, since the government screws up much of what it does, it's probably better that it spends a lot of time arguing things that are not directly economically relevant, rather than messing directly with the economy.  That would probably have a far greater cost.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Its either one or the other, Al.

No, it's neither (except in a few cases). The primary cause of most poverty is ultimately a lack (whether real or percived) of opportunity. Power doesn't come into it unless you redefine the word away from all meaning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you happen to be wrong there as well. A rich [active] alcoholic is usually viewed as a worse person than a poor [active] alcoholic; there's usually some degree of pity with the latter, none whatsoever with the former.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dying an excruciatingly painful death is "beside the point"?

[Gustaf]

Angus, I agree on gay marriage, I fully support the right to gay marriage. My point was actually not to change the party line to Republican. It was to shape the debate differently. See, you seem to think that one can either hold a position that says "allow gay marriage" or a position that says "do not allow gay marriage". This is exactly the point. This is right now the debate on gay marriage, with one liuberal Democratic position and one conservative Republican position. This debate is a debate that Democrats keep losing. Constantly. Therefore, they must reshape it. Make it about something else. Gay rights could be one thing. Argue in favour of homosexuals getting equal treatment. Or go for civil unions as step one.

Abortion is a better example. Instead of defending Roe v Wade, a very poor position, Democrats should pick another angle. The point is, it's always possible to pick a position that most people can agree with and that is more liberal than the Republican one. Republiacns are right now making social issues a battle of radical Democratic changes threateing the fundaments of society v Republican safe status quo. If Democrats could make Republicans come out of the closet and say what they really think of gays Republicans would look a lot more intolerant, to give just one example.

[angus]

Gustaf and Dazzleman, all clear.  I don't think we have fundamental disagreement here.  (Though we might argue over some finer points, in particular Gustaf's unsupportable assignment to republicans and democrats of their respective positions, but as I said before it's due to a failure to understand what really defines these parties, and the assumption that the average voter really goes around worrying about issues such as these.)

In short, if you'd remove their clothes and external stimuli, and the respective elements dragging them apart, you might just be surprised at how similar the real, naked, honest-to-god positions of Kerry and Bush are when it comes to stuff like butt-piracy.  In fact, if you go back to when this first became an issue, back in February 2004, and listen to the original un-prepped and unaided press conferences of both candidates on the issue of homomarriage (or union, call it whatever you like), their statements were completely interchangeable.  And this is the sort of history that is conveniently forgotten, or ignored, by every Democrat and Republican out there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gustaf and Dazzleman, all clear.  I don't think we have fundamental disagreement here.  (Though we might argue over some finer points, in particular Gustaf's unsupportable assignment to republicans and democrats of their respective positions, but as I said before it's due to a failure to understand what really defines these parties, and the assumption that the average voter really goes around worrying about issues such as these.)

In short, if you'd remove their clothes and external stimuli, and the respective elements dragging them apart, you might just be surprised at how similar the real, naked, honest-to-god positions of Kerry and Bush are when it comes to stuff like butt-piracy.  In fact, if you go back to when this first became an issue, back in February 2004, and listen to the original un-prepped and unaided press conferences of both candidates on the issue of homomarriage (or union, call it whatever you like), their statements were completely interchangeable.  And this is the sort of history that is conveniently forgotten, or ignored, by every Democrat and Republican out there.

That's what I was saying. Bush and Kerry differered only on the Constitutional amendment, and maybe adoption (somewhere claimed that Bush was against gays adopting).

[CARLHAYDEN]

ah, I've lost sight of what Gustaf's post was, and I know that among all the posters, Carl is one that I'd least like to argue with, since his arguments are devoid of passion and full of logic.  But I'm not sure I can by into his assessment of Gustaf's post.  Let me go back and read it.  Well, screw it, let's just persue what you wrote:

okay, I get the gist of it.  First, I do agree that the general creation of a second-class citizenship by, for example, the blatantly racist programs such as affirmative action, and the blatantly sexist way that both parties play "gender issues" does just what you imply that it does.   You'll get no argument from me.  I'm pretty sure I live by an egalitarian code and when I'm shown to be an elitist (classist, racist, or otherwise), I quickly apologize and change my tune.  But I think we're on the same page here.

Where I take issue with what you (and I think Carl) suggest is that issues like gay marriage deserve the attention they're getting.  Now, I think we can agree that everything the Democrats have said about such issues seems to hurt them, and everything the Republicans say about it seems to help them.  I posted that originally, and I think Gustaf may have as well.  But where I depart is on how the Democrats should fix their problem.  I interpreted what followed as advice to the democrats to change their party line.  This would be a grave mistake.  Simply put, there was a time when you could make fun of queers.  There was also a time when you could make fun of ns, chinks, kykes, whatever.  Not that any of it is "excusable" in any universal moral sense, and I'm not going to attempt to play moralist here and talk about how "wrong" that sort of bigotry is, but, as an economic matter, society functions smoothly when we aren't expending resources internally fighting.  So, yes, I think on sheer economics alone we can argue against bigotry.  And, yes, I think not letting two men get married is every bit as bigoted as not letting a white woman marry a black man.  (you two may disagree here, and Gustaf may as well).  If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  But whether or not we disagree, make no mistake:  I am not arguing any of this on moral grounds.  It's simply economics.  There is a limited supply of capital.  Every bit of time and money and energy we spend arguing over this, and fighting it, takes away from what we could be putting into projects we'd all enjoy, whether that's mass transit, space exploration, cancer research, or drilling in the Arctic national wildlife preserve. 

First, thanks for the compliment.  I try to present both facts and logic and eschew emotional arguments.

Second, lets take the case of racial/ethnic/gender preferences in employment (for one example).  To the extent that a person is hired/promoted with lesser qualifications to perform the job than someone else due to racial/ethnic/gender preferences, economic inefficency is generated.

Third, it is not conservatives that brought up the idea of 'gay marriage.'
As conservatives note, the family has been the cornerstone of society throughout recorded history.  I have no problem with 'civil unions.' but do regard 'gay marriage' for what it is, an attack on the family structure.

[angus]

"When we grew up and went to school,
there were certain teachers who would
hurt the children any way they could

by pouring their derision upon anything we did
exposing every weakness
however carefully hidden by the kid.

But in the town it was well-known
when they got home, at night
their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them
within inches of their lives."


Yeah, I'm mostly in agreement with that last post.  Except one line.  Sometimes my mother or father would say, "Finish your meat, dear.  There are children starving in India, you know."  As if it made a difference to the starving children of India whether the meat when down my gullet, or to the dogs, or in the trash compactor.

I see the argument that they're attacking the family the same way.  Whether or not two men are allowed to marry really doesn't affect my life, my relationship with my wife or my child, the tax break I get for having dependents, or my insurance premium.  And it is on this point that your usually logical stance falters.  Not that I don't think there are attacks (usually by the left, but sometimes from the right) on the family.  This just doesn't seem like one of them.


"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!"
    --Pink Floyd, lyrics from The Wall

[CARLHAYDEN]

With respect to 'gay marriage,' I see the critical distinction between TOLERANCE (Civil Unions) and ENDORSEMENT ('gay marriage').

If the Democrats would simply advocate Civil Unions, they would have no problems with the electorate, but when they advocate 'gay marriage" they are antagonizing much of the electorate.

[angus]

now that's helpful.  at least I begin to understand Gustaf's position. 

I'll have to mull that over a bit.  I've posted frequently phrases like "call it whatever you like" but maybe there's more to a name than we give credit.  Though my gut reaction is still the same as Shakespeare's, at least with respect to roses, dogsh**t, and civil unions/gay marriages.

[dazzleman]

With respect to 'gay marriage,' I see the critical distinction between TOLERANCE (Civil Unions) and ENDORSEMENT ('gay marriage').

If the Democrats would simply advocate Civil Unions, they would have no problems with the electorate, but when they advocate 'gay marriage" they are antagonizing much of the electorate.

I tend to agree.  It's not a matter of discrimination.  It is simply that same sex couples don't meet the definition of marriage, and there's no reason to change a definition that is thousands of years old just to placate a small minority.

It's funny how the marriage issue has come full circle.  Thirty years ago, heterosexual couples were rejecting marriage because it was just a "piece of paper."  Now, gay couple want to get married, ostensibly for the financial and tax benefits that marriage gives.

I don't think the reasons for advocating gay marriage are solid.  And with the institution of marriage having been under relentless assault in the past generation, this is just a step too far.  

The gay marriage debate is essentially about selfishness, just as the whole abortion debate is also.  I should have the RIGHT to do this because I WANT to.  That's really what it is.  That's not what marriage is really supposed to be about.

I think we should leave it at civil unions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

With respect to 'gay marriage,' I see the critical distinction between TOLERANCE (Civil Unions) and ENDORSEMENT ('gay marriage').

If the Democrats would simply advocate Civil Unions, they would have no problems with the electorate, but when they advocate 'gay marriage" they are antagonizing much of the electorate.

I tend to agree.  It's not a matter of discrimination.  It is simply that same sex couples don't meet the definition of marriage, and there's no reason to change a definition that is thousands of years old just to placate a small minority.

It's funny how the marriage issue has come full circle.  Thirty years ago, heterosexual couples were rejecting marriage because it was just a "piece of paper."  Now, gay couple want to get married, ostensibly for the financial and tax benefits that marriage gives.

I don't think the reasons for advocating gay marriage are solid.  And with the institution of marriage having been under relentless assault in the past generation, this is just a step too far. 

The gay marriage debate is essentially about selfishness, just as the whole abortion debate is also.  I should have the RIGHT to do this because I WANT to.  That's really what it is.  That's not what marriage is really supposed to be about.

I think we should leave it at civil unions.

When did Kerry advocate gay marriage?

[dazzleman]

When did Kerry advocate gay marriage?

Well, I re-read my post and I can't find any place where I say that Kerry advocated gay marriage.  So I can't figure out why you're asking that question.

[angus]

Actually, jfern and dazzleman, that's an interesting point.  And it goes to the heart of what I'm claiming Gustaf (and many others) either don't understand or choose not to.  Neither Kerry nor Bush advocate gay marriage.  Nor do either of them oppose gay rights.  In fact, their initial positions were almost exactly the same.  (now, of course, Bush is under such serious pressure he ocassionally makes noises about "codifying" marriage in order to placate interest groups, and Kerry, during the campaign, nearly tripped over himself every time it came up.  But hell, don't blame it on those two candidates for looking so foolish.  That's gotta suck having to placate so many interest groups.  Truth is their feelings on the issue are the same, neither of them have philosophical problems with same sex unions and neither is comfortable with gay marriage.  In fact, me, Gustaf, the Dutch, and a tiny fraction of the population of Canada and Massuchetts favor gay marriage.  And no one in India or China do.  It's really only a small subset of the world population that favor Gay marriage.  Not even migrendel, our resident moralizer, favors gay marriage.  By his own admission.  So assigning that position to the democrats is every bit as silly as assigning the position of homophobia to the average republican.  And every bit as unethical.)

Just a reality check. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, jfern and dazzleman, that's an interesting point.  And it goes to the heart of what I'm claiming Gustaf (and many others) either don't understand or choose not to.  Neither Kerry nor Bush advocate gay marriage.  Nor do either of them oppose gay rights.  In fact, their initial positions were almost exactly the same.  (now, of course, Bush is under such serious pressure he ocassionally makes noises about "codifying" marriage in order to placate interest groups, and Kerry, during the campaign, nearly tripped over himself every time it came up.  But hell, don't blame it on those two candidates for looking so foolish.  That's gotta suck having to placate so many interest groups.  Truth is their feelings on the issue are the same, neither of them have philosophical problems with same sex unions and neither is comfortable with gay marriage.  In fact, me, Gustaf, the Dutch, and a tiny fraction of the population of Canada and Massuchetts favor gay marriage.  And no one in India or China do.  It's really only a small subset of the world population that favor Gay marriage.  Not even migrendel, our resident moralizer, favors gay marriage.  By his own admission.  So assigning that position to the democrats is every bit as silly as assigning the position of homophobia to the average republican.  And every bit as unethical.)

Just a reality check. 

I never claimed that in 2005 or 2008 that coming out in favor of gay marriage helps you politically many places. It may help in San Francisco. Democrats tend to not like to do the right thing if it's doing poorly in the opinion polls.

I find it strange that migrendel doesn't favor gay marriage. How did he get such an extreme political compass score without favoring it? I would have though anyone around my social score would be pro-gay marriage, let alone those near bandit.

[angus]

only one question out of many on that silly test actually asks about gay marriage.   and there's one about gay couples adopting.  you do the math.  on second thought, don't.  you, and others, put far too much emphasis on those test scores.

migrendel's position on this, and many other issues, are perfectly understandable, and in fact echo my own feelings as a 20-something idealist.  In fact, I'd commented to him after he posted, at length, his views on the issue that his statements captured my own prior sentiments on the issue exactly.  I think you're a big boy, you can search for it all by yourself if you're interested, but in short, I think it was the "marriage" part, and not the "gay" part, of the phrase gay marriage offended him.  I understand that all too well.  If I'd had a nickel for every time I'd said something like, "Hey, man, _________ and I don't need the sanctification of the Church or the State to justify our love, since our love is stronger than any god or government" then I'd have a lot of nickels.  (_______ is a female name that would change every six months or so.)  Anyway, it's not an uncommon view, particularly among those in their 20s who fancy themselves intellectual liberals.  You'll evolve into that stage sometime I'd imagine, and I've evolved beyond it.  Migrendel's deep in it right now.

[Virginian87]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

[MODU]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

[Virginian87]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

Careful, there.  I think jfern is about to insult us on how this is an unwinnable strategy and how we're "spineless moderates."

[MODU]

Careful, there.  I think jfern is about to insult us on how this is an unwinnable strategy and how we're "spineless moderates."

hehehe . . . well, I've been called worse.

[TheresNoMoney]

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

I agree with you, but the religious wingnuts see civil unions being the same thing as marriage. Battling for civil unions would be just as hard as gay marriage.

[MODU]

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

I agree with you, but the religious wingnuts see civil unions being the same thing as marriage. Battling for civil unions would be just as hard as gay marriage.

hahaha . . . yes, that is true.  Of course, you'd also have to get by some of us moderates who agree with that view too.  But, I think it would be an easier sell across the country that trying to leap right into gay marriage.  You've seen the side effects of these mayors and judges who have tried to make it legal on their own.  Now you have states across the country voting and passing laws to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[TheresNoMoney]

I think it's a states rights issue. I'd like to see the feds stay out of it altogether.

If some states want to ban gay marriage and civil unions, that's fine with me. If some states want civil unions but no gay marriage, that's also fine.

I don't even think this should be a federal issue whatsoever.

[Virginian87]

I think it's a states rights issue. I'd like to see the feds stay out of it altogether.

If some states want to ban gay marriage and civil unions, that's fine with me. If some states want civil unions but no gay marriage, that's also fine.

I don't even think this should be a federal issue whatsoever.

That's right.  We shouldn't let evangelicals with no regard to other faiths run this country by trying to put a constitutional amendment in.  This is an issue that is government should stay out of.