Democrats & Liberals: Archives

This is an interesting topic Joseph. I assume you are referring mainly to evangelical christians, who would be considered part and parcel of the ‘religious right’.

There are numerous historical reasons for the divorce of liberal democrats and this constituency, some of which you mentioned. But I’m not sure you understand the depth of difference between the two groups. On the single issue of abortion the differences are stark. Democrats have built their party platform on defying, contradicting, and vilifying religious conservatives on a host of issues going back quite a few years. The counter-culture is referring to the turning away from the dominant judeo-christian culture. The 60’s movement, the seventies sexual revolution… gay marriage… not to mention support and/or sympathy for communist/socialist ideology. Conservatives are called conservatives for a reason.

I don’t see the present incarnation of the democratic party converting much of the religious right any time soon. Unless they change much of their party platform to reflect a democratic party of many decades ago.

Joseph- We had an interesting discussion along these lines a few articles down. Thanks for your article.

Ronald Reagan gave Southern Christians a home in the Republican Party. Nixon might have developed the Southern Strategy, but it was Reagan who carried it out by mixing religion, patriotism, and a strong and principled stance against communism or the “evil”. That stuff sells down here.

Many of the conservative Democrats switched parties in the ’80s as a direct result of Reagan (I think Shelby of Ala is one). Others stayed to wither away in the party such as Miller and Hollings. Lieberman, who I voted for in the primary, has really no voice left in his own party as evidenced by this past December.

It is my belief that absent a strong conservative voice in the party, the Democratic Party has really lost its identity over the past fifteen years and has moved way too far to the progressive side. The “New Democrat” was supposed to change that, but Clinton’s questionable character and perceived “fakeness” caused what conservative support the party had to leak back to the GOP.

The real question, and one that you have asked, is does the Democratic Party want to return the conservative voice back to their party? Howard Dean asked for consideration among “white guys in pick up trucks with confederate tags” but in the end it was just lip service. The party chose a more moderate candidate based upon electability, but in that choice came up with a Mass. liberal. And, as Eric states, the party positions on abortion and gun control will always be stumbling blocks to attracting support from this segment.

Until the Democrat’s identity crisis is over, I think you will continue to see conservative Christians supporting GOP candidates, despite obvious differences in philosophy. The GOP has made room for the conservative voice, and the Democrats have pretty much said “see you later” on the departure. That is, until a viable third party home can get traction.

If moving to the right is the solution is for Democrats, then we might as well have only one party. I know third party memebers who feel that we already have a one party system. I tend to disagree with that, but a move farther right would change my mind and my party affiliation.

If anyone knows anything about the church and the good it does for people look no further than the honorable former President Bill Clinton. This man stood at the abyss and looked it straight in the eye, and when asked about lying to his entire cabinet and the American people, he said this was between just himself, God, and his family. Now we know Hillary and Chelsea forgave him for lying, but do we know God did? I guess he would if he were a democrat.

Hey guys. Thanks for commenting.

Eric, yes, the evangelicals may be the archetype but I’m certain there is more to church-goers than that style of worship. The folks I’ve known who are Christian and regularly attend church aren’t that fanatical about legislating morality. I know it’s just anecdotal but where there’s one, there must be thousands others. I understand the rift between Democrats and evangelicals but what about the rest of the church-going population?

I really have no idea why Christians would be against socialism. Food banks, homeless shelters, the Salvation Army, all perfect examples of Christianity at its best, and socialist every one. But I do believe the key to evoking church-goers socialist leanings is to avoid using the word, “socialism.”

The implication of Dems supporting the drug and sexual excesses of the 60s and 70s is thin. Though your assessment is probably more accurate, I would rather believe that people generally don’t hold mostly harmless youthful exuberance against a person thirty or forty years removed.

I think the whole problem is simply one of framing the arguments. I am all for mitigating the social demand for abortions but I also believe individuals have the right to choose what they do with their bodies in private (victimless) matters. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Family planning services are essential to both liberals and conservatives in their positions on abortion. Maybe the first steps to a truce is finding common ground.

Gay marriage is a whole ‘nother post.

I don’t think most people are as black and white as these issues are commonly portrayed. I think there are ways to approach these populations I just think it will take time. Like I said, I don’t think the Dems can make significant headway by November.

George, you bring up some points regarding that motion toward center I want to comment on, but it’ll have to wait for tomorrow.

Evangelical Christians are a lost cause for Democrats, but are part of a disturbing trend. Some Catholic Bishops decreeing that anyone who votes for a pro-choice candidate (ie - anyone who doesn’t vote Republican) will be refused Communion.

That bit of spiritual blackmail makes a tough choice for a deeply religious person who embraces liberal values. It makes me wonder if there aren’t more people being coerced away from the left, rather than actually rejecting it’s values.

Democrats, like Republicans, believe that abortion is a horrible thing. But we favor “cooling off” periods, counseling, and anything else that seems worth trying, rather than making a law to forbid it. I don’t see a crisis of religion in that viewpoint.

There seems to be a recurring problem where the GOP has been more effective in “branding” issues is such a way that their position looks like the correct side — ie. by defining their side of the abortion issue as “Pro Life” there is the implication that the other side is “Pro Death.” Naming an act that takes away civil liberties the “Patriot Act” is another example.

The Democrats need to be more effective in promoting a platform that favors “personal empowerment” and group the lifestyle/moral issues into a single platform point that allows people the freedom to make choices about how to get the most out of their lives. Then, when the GOP comes out agaist it, they’d look like they’re trying to prevent people from persuing happiness.

Evangelical Christians are a lost cause for Democrats, but are part of a disturbing trend. Some Catholic Bishops decreeing that anyone who votes for a pro-choice candidate (ie - anyone who doesn’t vote Republican) will be refused Communion.

That bit of spiritual blackmail makes a tough choice for a deeply religious person who embraces liberal values. It makes me wonder if there aren’t more people being coerced away from the left, rather than actually rejecting it’s values.

I think the greater issue is the fact that the Catholic Church is not doing the same thing for death penalty supporters, war supporters, etc.

First of all, I want to thank those who share their thoughts in this forum. As a moderate-to-conservative who happens to be a Christian, I get really annoyed by the bomb throwers of both political extremes and it’s good to see some reasoned debate occasionally.

As a Christian, it isn’t my job to empower the government to make Christian decisions for me. Trying to do so is a mistake that too many make, in my opinion. However, if I can help change someone’s heart, then they’ll always strive to make the right decision in whatever they do. That’s the way it should be.

I was fascinated by the comment regarding Christian opposition to Socialism, which really goes back to the same principle. Jesus told us to do all the good stuff like love one another, take care of the poor and oppressed, etc., but he never said that we should trust any government to do those things. He wasn’t anti-government, he just made it clear that it was the responsibility of each of us to do what needs doing.

Being anti-Socialism doesn’t make me anti-charity. Quite the opposite, actually. I just view the government’s role differently from those who prefer to do their charitable works through their taxes…and my taxes too, of course.

Regards,

NOTOTH

Bringing up the evangelicals has kinda taken this off track, I think. The idea is to go after church-goers. All evangelicals may be church-goers but all church-goers are not evangelicals. Similarly, not all church-goers are conservative Christians. The political spectrum is not three primary colors with distinct lines separating them. It’s a gradient - a dynamic system of charge and attraction. There are outliers that can be appealed to. The Democrats just need a charge. It may not get much if any media coverage but I think it can work without it.

As far as getting a conservative voice in the Democratic platform, I think it’s (again) a matter of emphasis. The democrats are pro-family. Support for gay marriage is actually apart of that stance. We want more stable families. We want stronger public education so families can be more prosperous. We want wage growth so more families can afford a home, save, and invest. Family planning and adoption services so the economically disadvantaged can avoid the life altering pitfalls of having children at the wrong time. There has to be a way to present these issues in a way that can appeal to church-goers - especially devout New Testament Christians (for lack of a better term). Basically, just like blipsman suggests, personal empowerment, family empowerment.

The Democrats definitely have an identity crisis. It’s the differences among folks like George and folks like Michael who don’t want to see the party get any closer to center and folks like Ralf Nader who represent very rational liberal views in many respects yet feel practically no affinity with Democrats. If representatives of the past have said, “see you later,” then now is the time to say, “welcome back,” and add an apology - maybe start with it.

Nototh, you make some great points, which I agree with to a large extent, but you already empower the government by paying taxes, which, let’s face it, is a socialist system. We pay our taxes for the good of the country. We vote for representatives who we feel will best utilize these funds to that end, in theory at least. If there is a need - and there is - then the government, as an incorporated individual entity, has just as much right to engage in charity as you do. It is for the good of the country after all.

Whether the government should treat this as a mandate or not is closer to the point, though. I tend to think capitalism is flawed, that it has unforeseen repercussions on large populations who haven’t been given much choice other than to work within the capitalist system. Therefore, the federal government, with access to the nation’s overall wealth through taxation, should try to mitigate these circumstances with a fair percentage of tax revenues.

We do it for business, who despite their claims, would not be the humanitarian saints they say they would be if free of all regulation (as if child labor laws and the 40 hour work week were their creations). We do it for the military - for a few militaries. We’re donating billions to Iraq, and Afghanistan (if we can remember to). I’m not saying any of these is unjustified. They all have value and contribute to the good of the country. I don’t think we should neglect any of them.

There actually is already a voting block of democratic Christians who have a genuine respect of the separation of church and state. To appeal more to the right wing is futile as Eric Simonson pointed out as they may also find that they are alienating current Dems further.

The fight over the Kerry getting the Catholic wafer was enough really. I think that dems just need to find more pivotal issues than just the meager handful that they have currently. And secondly offer a vision because as Bush’s problems are a windfall(spending et al) they need to bring the country a vision of new heights in the years to come. That is how Clinton got in; positivity in the face of current fiscal woes.

I would actually like to see another Dem get the nomination other than Kerry, personally. The fact that Bush has been neck and neck with us in midst of numerous fallibilities on this administration’s part is true testament to Kerry not reaching out to the real issues of this nation. And Kerry really does have a liberal front to a moderate interior and could prove himself as good if he could learn to be more rtesponsive to the American people and lay off the buzz-words and democratically populist jingoistic banter.

BUT courting the republican Christian vote would prove to be a waste of resources especially in contrast to G.W. Bush’s enormous campaign warchest. We could win this in other ways than just courting those bereft of logic. If people start to see how we are being ‘used’ as a nation by corporate lobbyists and how Bush’s whitehouse is nothing but a Government contract clearinghouse it would be very helpful. Bush’s irresponsible spending has been a great detriment to his own re-election and Republican’s are really catching on as well as many have been the first to notice his erradic ways fiscally with budgets(several conservative sites have been eye-openers to me personally on the scale of this).

Also we need to politely go after the Vicente Fox associations with Bush, namely the amnesty issue this resonates hard with conservatives. Kerry has treaded lightly on this issue as not to detour hispanic voters but I would assert that even they have an insight to there being a right way to enter the country versus border-jumping.

BUT COURTING THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT? Yeah that’ll prove effective, riiiiiiiiiiiight!

#:>O:) (

I tend to think capitalism is flawed, that it has unforeseen repercussions on large populations who haven’t been given much choice other than to work within the capitalist system. Therefore, the federal government, with access to the nation’s overall wealth through taxation, should try to mitigate these circumstances with a fair percentage of tax revenues.

More flawed than socialism, Joseph? One could make the case that the repressive outcome of all socialist crusades are not worth the cost or the lost freedom. How much choice do you have under a socialist system?

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” -L. Brandeis

“It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.” -Edmund Burke

Thus it is that we must provide unemployment insurance, welfare for having children, money for rent, and food for the hungry from the public treasury. Sounds noble, but what happens to the price of anything when it is subsidized? Depending on the extent to which you are willing to go the state has no reason not to control every aspect of every citizens life. If the standard is need… does need ever have an end?

If there is a need - and there is - then the government, as an incorporated individual entity, has just as much right to engage in charity as you do. It is for the good of the country after all.

I often wonder when the issue of ‘Universal Healthcare’ is brought up by liberals, why must I buy food? I need food more often and it is more essential to my continuing to live every single day than medical care is. Why shouldn’t the government provide my groceries as well? For that matter what about anything I ‘need’?

Why can’t the richest country have cradle-to-grave health care like Europe and Asia? We need universal health care which is accessible, affordable, with quality care, and relying on preventive health. We have waited long enough — we don’t need a plan like Bush’s or itty-bitty steps like Gore’s. -Ralph Nader

I tend to think capitalism is flawed, that it has unforeseen repercussions on large populations who haven’t been given much choice other than to work within the capitalist system. Therefore, the federal government, with access to the nation’s overall wealth through taxation, should try to mitigate these circumstances with a fair percentage of tax revenues.

More flawed than socialism, Joseph? One could make the case that the repressive outcome of all socialist crusades are not worth the cost or the lost freedom. How much choice do you have under a socialist system?

I meant no comparison when stating capitalism is flawed. Capitalism has flaws, it’s a fact (I should have made the original statement as declarative, sorry). I do not advocate a purely socialist system, or even a predominantly socialist system. But I do think there are viable socialist approaches to remedying some of the deleterious effects of capitalism’s flaws. And the fact that we have yet to find a reasonable implementation of this shouldn’t imply that we simply abandon the premise.

I often wonder when the issue of ‘Universal Healthcare’ is brought up by liberals… I need food more often and it is more essential to my continuing to live every single day than medical care is.

I agree completely, Eric. I’ve believed this for many years. On the chart of life’s necessities, healthcare isn’t in the top five. We should find proper solutions to the major problems first: water, food, shelter, clothes, social bonding.

Thus it is that we must provide unemployment insurance, welfare for having children, money for rent, and food for the hungry from the public treasury. Sounds noble, but what happens to the price of anything when it is subsidized? Depending on the extent to which you are willing to go the state has no reason not to control every aspect of every citizens life. If the standard is need… does need ever have an end? …

Why shouldn’t the government provide my groceries as well? For that matter what about anything I ‘need’?

There are flaws in the American constitutional republic, no doubt. The contemporary systems of federal government assistance to individuals and community efforts may very well be worthless, or even detrimental, but this doesn’t mean assistance, in principle, is also worthless. If all that’s needed is hard word and difficult decisions, then we should be able to manage the task. Unfortunately, I think we also need patience and a willingness to experiment, two qualities severely lacking in politics.

The implication of your line of questioning neglects corollary questions like, why should the government spend 310 billion dollars* on war, occupation, and security assistance in Iraq until 2010? (*figure doesn’t include debt service; source: Iraq The War’s Price Tag, Council on Foreign Relations) Who benefits from subsidizing regime change? And how are these benefits quantified? Subsidies are a fact of modern government. There are myriad corporate subsidies (including tax incentives) available without controversy, and many justifiably so.

Finally, following a line of reasoning is not predicated on following it to all possible hypothetical ends. Just because government might actively assist in some needs does not mean it should and will do so for all needs. This kind of reasoning is the problem Democrats have in being seen as hostile toward religion. Just because there’s a cross in California’s state seal doesn’t mean that California is going to start banning Islam, imprisoning Buddhists, and enslaving Krishnas.

Joseph, Eric, apparently neither of you have suffered a serious accident or illness, or your thinking caps are not on straight. Nothing is more vital to life or quality of life than affordable medical care when one is injured, in severe pain, or seriously ill. In fact, the only priority an individual ususally has higher than getting medical attention under such circumstances is breathing.

You both should read or remember Maslow’s heierarchy of needs before making such rash statements as, Health care is not a top priority. I guess that statement can be held as true for those without compassion for ill or injured, but, that would not include most Americans. Having worked on a burn ward just one day, would immediately render health care a top priority right up there with breath, heartbeat, water and pain killers.

Joseph, Eric, apparently neither of you have suffered a serious accident or illness, or your thinking caps are not on straight. Nothing is more vital to life or quality of life than affordable medical care when one is injured, in severe pain, or seriously ill. In fact, the only priority an individual usually has higher than getting medical attention under such circumstances is breathing.

You both should read or remember Maslow’s heierarchy of needs before making such rash statements as, Health care is not a top priority. I guess that statement can be held as true for those without compassion for ill or injured, but, that would not include most Americans. Having worked on a burn ward just one day, would immediately render health care a top priority right up there with breath, heartbeat, water and pain killers.

I’m not saying medical care isn’t important, I’m just saying that a large percentage of society can manage their own health care, therefore, federally managed universal health care is a luxury. Maybe it’s because I have been through serious illness and accident without health insurance. And I’ve been through having no food or money.

I am familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy and believe guarantees of manageable health care costs in a post-industrialized liberal democracy is a reasonable addition to a sense of security but it still wouldn’t put it in the top classification of physiological need.

The example of the burn victim is unfair because this is caused by an accident. Denial of medical care is criminal and grossly inhumane, managing the costs of that medical care is highly abstracted bureaucracy that is far from life threatening.

Joseph,

As a card carrying memeber of the Democratic Party, I am more than willing to set out some early Saturday morning with you, knocking on the doors of church-goers in hopes of politically converting them.

However, first you will have to convince me that my deep seeded notions about, say, Evangelical Christians, are totally inaccurate.

And, as a gay man, I will start with the gay marriage issue. Bill Maher said recently, that if it were not for religion in this country, there would be no opposition to legalized gay marriage.

The fact that the majority of those opposed to gay marriage would dismiss decades of judicial precedents based on our Constitution, and instead insist that supposed popular ‘moral’ opinion based on prejudice, ignorance and intolerance, trumps the former, is not my kind of Democrat.

The fact that social conservatives will cite the incredulous and hypocritical opposition to gay marriage by the Catholic Church, speaks volumes.

My image of these potential future party members consist of undereducated, curiousity-challenged members of middle America, whose political opinion is largely shaped by not having ventured far beyond an isolated culture made up solely by ‘their own kind’.

As Democrats, we will again write off a good portion of the South come November, as we mistakeningly assume everybody down there are Bush supporters. However, John Kerry will garner at least 35% of the vote in each of those states - and, that is just fine with me!

Possibly, Bert, there would be no idea of “marriage” at all if wasn’t for religion, which is why a segment of the secular gay population still can’t see what all the fuss is about. I’m for it as a matter of law, if only because I think gays should be allowed to do anything straight people do if they take it into their heads to do so and conform to societal norms, and there are some ecomic incentives (health insurance, inheritance, etc)) to marrying.

But as a point of fact, most “fundamentalist Christians” are not Catholic but protestant, and couldn’t give a hoot about anything the Vatican has to say. The South is not nearly as, say, Massachussets, also known as happy-gay Land, though I still have no desire to go there and get hitched. I like that New Yorker cartoon—“I’m for gay marriage. Why should gays be the only ones spared from misery?:

Bert-

As a Christian living in the South I am obviously not capable of debating at your level, so I will spare you any attempt to appeal to your superior intellect. I do, however, prefer your candor to the lip service that the Democratic Party provides when reaching out to conservative voters. Nominating Kerry is a prime example.

The Democrats have always been in the churches - black churches. Al Gore does his best to sound like a black preacher on his rants and raves and some of them have been “black church performances”. The white Dems are annoyingly and cloyingly representing & stumping for themselves in black churches and then shouting “separation of church…” when on the streets. This does a few things 1) it makes a mockery of the blacks who actually walk in the faith they profess and 2) it puts out a marker to the conservative church goers that white democrat leaders are full of baloney and hypocrisy themselves and 3) they must cause headaches for those all who are in the party and know this is a wretched game.

Thanks for those kind words, George! However, I need to respond to jimbobspag.

A speech writer to Pres. Clinton was trying quickly to craft an eulogy for his appearance at a Paul Wellstone memorial. The writer had been tipped to the favorite bible passage of the late Senator, yet was unable to find a definitive wording, nor the accurate location of the chapter/verse, in all the edition they could find.

Finally, the short text was handed to Clinton, with an apology for failing to locate the information required. Whereupon, Clinton looked at the passage, and then cited the chapter, verse and edition, where it was located.

No doubt, if you were to search for a bio of Gore or Clinton, you would find a life long membership, devotion and education earned from many years of service to their faith.

Those ‘rants and raves’ are filled with deep knowledge of the bible, no matter how they are delivered. If the shout for ‘separation of church…’ with no objections from the Black congregates, maybe its because they remember what the law allowed the KKK to do in the South, in the name of the Lord.

Gov. George Wallace went to Black churches to seek forgiveness, and Clinton went to save Gov. Grey Davis’s job. Many Northern Whites in the 60’s went to Black churches to give them the right to vote.

What do social Conservatives do? They go into Black churches to prey on their ignorance and intolerance, hoping they will oppose Gay Marriage, and then John Kerry.