Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dawn -
As a political junkie, I think the idea of a new party is “cool” in general. The frontier of possibilities looks endless when you think about creating a new party with new ideas.

However, in the American system, I just don’t think it’s possible barring a massive meltdown in one party or the other. The UK and the U.S. (the main democracies with single-member-district representation) have each seen just one new major party emerge in their lifetimes. When the American Whig Party imploded in the 1840’s, it was replaced by the Republican Party. When the British Whig Party splintered during and after World War I it was replaced by the Labour Party.

The only way I see one of the major parties splitting is if someone (say, a John McCain or a Howard Dean) insists on running for president and creates a new party to do so - and then wins. And that’s the hard part. With the strength of incumbant legislators in this country, change almost has to come via the presidency, and it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which one of the major party can split its vote and still win the presidency. It didn’t happen in 1912, and it’s not likely to happen any other time.

For the record, I think the real problem is that people on the right believe what people on the right tell them about people on the left. And maybe, vice-versa. For example, Dawn:

The moderate Republicans feel that they should be able to practice their Religion and not be made to do this ‘in secret’. That having a Nativity Scene in public is not meant to be offensive.

Dawn, the current interpretation of the constitution is that a nativity scene is fine in public. It’s even fine in a public park - as long as other religions are also allowed to put up analogous displays. That’s what the ACLU is trying to defend. What’s wrong with that ruling? should we allow nativity scenes in parks and disallow a menorah - is that fair? Who on the left disagrees with this policy, and wants to go further? give me a link.

As to the hijacking - Michael Moore makes a lot of noise. Ted Kennedy makes a lot of noise. If your view of the “left” is formed by listening to what the righties rant about, you might well believe that the Democratic party is being hijacked by socialist egomaniacs. But I can’t see it. Look at the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid - how centrist is that? Look at the legislative initiative the Senate dems have put together - where exactly is the evidence of ‘hijacking’?

On the other hand, I see some very scary evidence of “highjacking” on the right. Hastert, the House Speaker, has said that he will not allow legislation to reach the floor of the house in less it is supported by “a majority of the majority”. Ok, why exactly should 51% of 51% of the population have a veto? explain that one to me. Or another example - have you heard about that (Red) wingnut in Alabama who wanted to ban libraries from purchasing books that “promote homosexuality”? and not just ban them: ‘“Dig a hole,” Gerald Allen recommends, “and dump them in it.”’ What, dump library books like “the color purple” into a hole in the ground? would you let your kids do that? What a wacko, huh? Would you believe this guy meets with The Man himself? (No, not Cheney, Bush!)

Now I don’t know what they said. Maybe it was like this: “Now Gerry, I’ve been talking Laura, and she’s very upset about the idea burying library books.” Then again, maybe not. I’m certainly worried about the Republicans being hijacked. I’m worried that it’s already happened. But maybe I’m wrong - so talk me out of it. Please.

Michael Moore is just a convenient lightning rod for those seeking to demonize the left. He’s outspoken, sometimes obnoxiously so, he’s more left than the average Democrat, he’s secular, a pacifist, and college educated. His work treads the line between documentary and propaganda.

Truth is, Americans are much less partisan than their European counterparts, and our system is not a parliamentary one like most of theirs are. Thus, we are more used to a two party system, because we work on a system of majority rules rather than coaltion rules.

William

We all hear about the nutszos on both sides because that is what makes the news. But to some extent it makes sense to consider them. You define something by its boundaries – extremes – as well as the center.

You left leaning guys get upset when you see stifling of free inquiry in schools, as when textbooks have to have creationist passages. It is impossible to study genetics without some understanding of the mechanism of genetics.

We right leaning guys get upset when we see the stifling of free inquiry in schools, as when Harvard’s Lawrence Summers got in trouble and gave a woman the case of the vapors (she almost fainted) when he said there might be gender differences general abilities. It is impossible to study genetics without some understanding of the mechanism of gender differences. .

We both probably agree on this, but the extremists in both our camps disagree. You make fun of my extremists and I make fun of yours. But there are fundamental differences between the parties. The mainstreams of both often want very similar things. We would all agree on liberty and justice for all (even if we disagree about the under God). Most people want a secure country where people are safe to do their daily business. I have never met anyone who advocated nuclear war or a dirty environment.

We disagree on methods to achieve our laudable goals. Democrats tend to believe that government should be the primary mechanism for social and economic good. They don’t say the private sphere should play no role, but for them most problems have a government solution. Republicans tend to believe that private or free market mechanisms should be the primary mechanism for social and economic good. They don’t say the government sphere should play no role, but for them most problems have a private solution.

In the pledge of alliance, we say liberty and justice for all. We all want more of both, but when there is a conflict, conservatives tend to lean toward liberty. Liberals tend to lean toward justice.

That if you believe in a woman’s freedom to have an abortion you do not ‘belong’ in the Republican Party. ( I’ve only had Democrats tell me I am in the ‘wrong’ Party for this reason - no Republicans.)

Dawn, if you belonged to the Republicans for Choice organization, you would have gotten the memo. They just found out the GOP has no use for them, and wishes they’d just sit down and shut up,

“This crosses the line,” Ann Stone, national chair of Republicans for Choice says, “The Republican Party chairman is to represent all Republicans, not just those who oppose abortion.”

I also have to take issue with the hijacking rhetoric. William is right, there’s no evidence that the Democratic Party has turned into a party of peaceniks and granola eaters.

And to suggest that the influence the neo-cons and Christian-right exert on the Republican Party is equal to the influence of Michael Moore or Whoopie Goldberg on the Democratic Party is just silly.

You don’t see Democrats introducing Constitutional amendments to stop people wearing fur or to abandon war for all time, yet Republicans are introducing analogous extremist legislation to tell people who they can and can’t marry.

William Cohen re: your 1/28

I have never heard or read that a Christian display in a public place was allowed yet any other religion not permitted the same,

Christian symbols represent the vast majority of people in this country as well as historically. Therefor, it seems natural to have more such symbols represented. The ACLU and others are dedicated to placing religion, especially Christianity, in the closet.

I am not a church goer, but I respect those who do and those who are loyal to their faith.

Democrats tend to believe that government should be the primary mechanism for social and economic good.

That’s not true. An unfettered marketplace maximizes profit at the expense of people. Democrats realize that, in some cases, the federal government is the only institution powerful enough to champion a person’s quality of life and the pursuit of happiness in the face of the uncaring juggernaught of a totally free market.

Chops,

I know it is hard. It will take a narrow loss or a win.

My thought is that if the right person jumps ship this can happen. It may even take the right type of person from both sides doing this at the same time - together.

William,

I don’t know that I can ‘talk you out of’ anything. You have very strong opinions and sometimes I don’t think you wholeheartedly try to see both sides because of this. I’m not saying this is bad - strong opinions on issues are needed. We have agreed on things. I wouldn’t really make it a point to try and ‘talk you out of’ things. Saying how I feel is enough - you can make up your own mind.
It is when people have no room for the ideas and/or feelings of those that disagree that causes most of the problems. When people who don’t agree are categorized as stupid or misguided or it is said they are not thinking for themselves.
Even you seem to be finding fault with the far right and defending the far left.

Like this:
“Dawn, the current interpretation of the constitution is that a nativity scene is fine in public. It’s even fine in a public park - as long as other religions are also allowed to put up analogous displays. That’s what the ACLU is trying to defend. What’s wrong with that ruling? should we allow nativity scenes in parks and disallow a menorah - is that fair? …”

It seems that I missed the fight to protect the displaying of the Menorah. I don’t believe that is what the problem was. The Nativity Scene was targeted for removal. I don’t remember hearing the defenders of it saying that the Menorah could not be displayed.

****
I was speaking to a ‘stranger’ this morning about the election and the possibility of a new party immerging.
I do not know what party he belongs to - it didn’t matter.
He told me that he has a lot of liberal friends from college who could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry - why? - they felt that he did not give them one reason that was good enough for him to get their vote.
He spoke more of the other parties - not blue or red.
He agreed that this is a good time for a new party - he is looking forward to the next election - as am I - it should be quite interesting.
We spoke of the other parties and decided that they would never really gain power because they don’t have the right representation.
We also agreed that those that can jump ship would never join parties such as the Green Party or the Independent Party.
A new party would have to immerge.

I told him of this website. I am hoping he joins the discussion.

AP

That demonstrates what I just said.

Neither party advocates a completely unfettered market or a market completely controlled by government. Those are the exaggerated stereotypes each party applies to the other in the heat of campaigns. But as we reach into our respective tool kits, Republicans are more likely to grab the wrench labeled market mechanism, while Democrats reach for the screwdriver called government intervention.

The Social Security debate we have all been having is a good example. Republicans favor and trust some private accounts as a potential savior of a breaking system. Democrats see them as the fourth horseman of the apocalypse. If you don’t believe me, just look to your left in this blog. We don’t have to assume one or the other side is right to see how the debate has been shaping up.

“The Nativity Scene was targeted for removal.”
“The ACLU and others are dedicated to placing religion, especially Christianity, in the closet.”

Ok, which nativity scene, and where? who wanted it removed, and why? I conjecture that that you are talking about a Red Team urban legend, and criticizing a position that doesn’t actually exist.

The ACLU’s actual position on religious displayes was discussed in one of my earlier blogs. Quote: “The ACLU defends the rights of private citizens, churches and organizations to put up any religious displays they choose.” So there’s no reason to hide a nativity scene, if it’s on the grounds of a church, private school, or private home. And it’s fine in front of city hall, as long as their policy doesn’t favor one religion over another.

More on the ACLU, from a (now offline) news story: “The ACLU regularly defends the right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. The free exercise cases that the ACLU takes protect religious practice. Just last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU-NJ in a case concerning the dismissal of jurors on the basis of religion. In Nebraska, the ACLU recently defended a church facing eviction; the Pennsylvania ACLU represented a Baptist Church denied a zoning permit; the ACLU of Michigan represented a high school valedictorian whose Christian message in his yearbook was censored; the Massachusetts ACLU represented a student who received punishment for distributing candy canes with religious messages; the Iowa ACLU represented a student prohibited from distributing Christian literature at school; the Massachusetts ACLU defended the rights of a church to run “anti-Santa” ads in the Boston subways. The list goes on.”

I sometimes think a new party is in the making, even as we speak.

As a Southerner, born and bred, and a right wing conservative Republican, I could easily join a Conservative Party. If it is truly Conservative.

The South is ready. We left the Democrat Party in droves. We aren’t going back.

The South was “Democratic” a result of the War Between the States and Lincoln’s Republican Party. That was all that was required until the 1960’s when the Civil Rights movement, and the the Kennedys, along with the Supreme Court, forced us to accept intergration much faster than we had intended.

We tradionally move slowly here. We would have intergrated… at our own speed. When the Court forced it upon us, we rebelled, yet again. This time we went to the Republican Party, even though it was the Republican Party which championed the legislation that truly instituted Civil Rights as law.

Now, the Republican party is not Conservative enough for us. Southerners are Conservative, be they Democrat or Republican. It is a part of who we are.

Give us a truly Conservative Party and we will sign-up.

“Longstreet”

I agree about the moving slowly comment. If it weren’t for Democrats, the South might be getting around to emancipating their slaves about now. The South is hardly monolithic politically. And your ultra conservatives always have the Constitution Party, already. The problem far right Republicans have with the Constitution Party is that they are too honest about their platform. Republicans on the far right like to hide their agendas and policies behind moderate or even liftist rhetoric. They care less about how it sounds as they do in seizing the power to force others to live by their rules.

Republicans on the far right like to hide their agendas and policies behind moderate or even liftist rhetoric. They care less about how it sounds as they do in seizing the power to force others to live by their rules.

Not that I’m an ultraconservative, but I’m not impressed with the scholarship here. I can’t think of one example of far-right politicos using “leftist rhetoric”, let alone a pattern.

David

Agree with your comment except you have to recall that most slaveowners were Democrats and those who freed the slaves were Republicans. And as Ol’ Pete points out, the south was solid Democratic throughout the time of Jim Crow.

If we’d left it to the Democrats, they might get around to freeing the slaves by now.

But you’re now talking about political parties that have evolved greatly from thier origins. Despite the fact this is a red column post, Republicans/Democrats were not created on the 6th day, to remain static for all of time. I’m having a hard time thinking of a Repug in office right now that even deserves to be spit on by Lincoln.

The boundary between liberal/conservative thinking doesn’t have much as much to do with north/south as it does with urban/rural. Urbanites, in just about every state of the union, voted for Kerry, in some cases by overwhelming percentages. Bush thinks 51% of the popular vote is a mandate for his policies, many in the city believe that a 70%+ vote for Kerry means not only does Bush NOT have a mandate, but that Bush and co. should be escorted out in handcuffs.

We’ve got 2 completely different cultures in America, appealing to both is going to be extremely difficult. I wish best of luck to those brave enough to try, and not come off looking like a “flip-flopper”. (A term this recent election has taught me to dislike strongly)

It would be awesome to see several new parties emerge as viable alternatives, but I agree that it is going to take something quite dramatic to make it happen.

The idea of a new party, one that actually represents the working class, is a good one.
The Democrat party, the one that claims to be the party of the working man, has been hijacked by the fringe nut on the left.
The Republican party has also been hijacked, by the nut cases with money.
NO ONE represents the working people who catch the burden of paying most the taxes. This has caused a lot of them to become cinical about politics and government.
A new party, one that represents the working class might cause new intrest in government and politics by the middle class, an help this counrty to become even better.

BTW - when I said “talk me out of it” I meant, please, tell me that the Gerald Allens of the world are not really running the Republican party - that there is some core of Republicans that believe in fiscal responsibility, protecting civil rights, honesty in government, and sane responses to scandals like torture in American prisons.

Dawn, we have ample other political parties. One more new one will do no good. What is needed is a level playing field for all parties, and that simply isn’t going to happen with the Dem’s and Rep’s controlling the campaign and electoral regulations and laws, designed to prevent ANY other party from becoming a rival.

I’ll do it; I’ll start a new party and run for president.

That demonstrates what I just said.

No, you said, “Democrats tend to believe that government should be the primary mechanism…”

That’s not true.

Then I pointed out that sometimes the federal government is the only mechanism able to promote quality of life and the pursuit of happiness in a free-market economy.

As for Social Security, we have it today precisely because charity and the “market mechanism” failed to adequately address quality of life issues for the elderly and disabled.

i.e. - Been there, done that, and I can’t believe anyone is still arguing over the necessity of Social Security.

Dawn, you don’t specify the type of third party you’re interested in. What would be the platform? Other than some single issue focus parties like the Greens, Socialists, and Libertarians, the two major parties seem to cover all the issues most people care about.

I’ll do it; I’ll start a new party and run for president.

Bryan, you’re better off starting a new party, building a constituency, and running for city council or a county seat - or state Representative if you’re determined to set your sights high. Here’s a really good book to help you get started, “Politicking”, by Bill Rauch.

AP,

You said the two major parties already cover the issues most people care about.
This is what I said earlier -

“My thought is that if the right person jumps ship this can happen. It may even take the right type of person from both sides doing this at the same time - together.”

Meaning that they would bring the best of both parties, have the national recognition needed, and be able to work together on the issues most of us care about.
A party that is truely in the middle.
Most people do not see things in black and white or far left and far right.

David you said:
“Dawn, we have ample other political parties. One more new one will do no good. What is needed is a level playing field for all parties, and that simply isn’t going to happen with the Dem’s and Rep’s controlling the campaign and electoral regulations and laws, designed to prevent ANY other party from becoming a rival.”

I see what you are saying but I think you may be wrong about one more not doing any good.
My idea is based on the right people from BOTH sides jumping ship and forming the new Party and those that are already in office making a switch to this new party.
Yes it is a leap. This is the way that I see it happening.
Most of our Politicians would never make the switch from D to R or R to D - if there were a moderate party led by the right people we have quite a few that may switch to it and head for the middle.
If done right this would leave both major parties looking too far left or right to the average American and we would all have another choice.

Dawn,

I feel that a new party is the best thing that could happen to this country. Although most states laugh about Californians electing Arnold Schwarzegger as governor, I think it is an outreach to get away from political parties. The republicans endorsed him after he started looking good in the polls, but he ran (as most did) independent. He is a liberal republican, one who would never get support from the republican party, but that was his appeal; no political ties. Americans are tired of politicians. Arnold Schwarzenegger was an actor, and a businessman.

The Democrats should be called the Socialists, the Republicans, Capitalists. Maybe we in this country need a Labor party. Not a bunch of union bosses, they’re with the Socialists, but a “blue collar” party. One that can relate to the majority on the people who believe in the real “American Dream”. Those who are too “boring” to make the news. The people who work hard for a living, obey the laws, try make their children’s life better than their own. Build a party like that, and watch me join

Build a party like that, and watch me join

It’s called the Democratic Party, Stephen. :)

Dawn, that’s an interesting idea. President Clinton ran a centrist government and was wildly popular with a large majority of Americans for all of his two terms - still is.

Stephen,
The ‘boring’ people who do not make the news are probably the right ones to run for office BUT they won’t because of the way dirt is dug up on anyone who runs and if they can’t find any it is made up - then the person ends up defending themselves from a bunch of meaningless crap and the talk about the actual issues is lost.
First thing that needs to happen is that people need to ‘grow up’ when it comes to politics.
If it seems like there is a viable candidate for office, someone who may actually have a chance to beat an incumbent, they are destroyed personally.
We the People should stop accepting this as the ‘norm’ of political life.

AP,
I was going to mention Bill Clinton but decided to see if someone else would bring it up.
If he were to break out and start a new party I don’t believe he could endorse Hillary because it would be seen as the only reason for the new party.
I can’t remeber her name, the ex-Governor(R) of NJ I think - hyphenated name - worked in Bush White House. She is one that I think could make the leap to a new party if it had the right agenda and the right leaders.

Margaret Christine Whitman?

correction:

Christie Todd Whitman

THE POLITICS CONSIDER THE PEOPLE LIKE BULLS ? BUT WE ARE GONNA SHOW THE POLITICS HOW BULLS SMELL AREN’T WE ?
In Duke we trust

Christie Todd Whitman. She was the EPA chief who bailed on Bush because he kept undermining her authority and destroying the environment, right?

She’s a pretty bright woman and a Bush Ranger, pulling in more than a quarter million dollars for Bush’s re-election. It’d be interesting to see what would happen.

Dawn,

You’re correct. There is a great opportunity for a new party. It should be no surprise that a nationwide effort is underway to start the Moderate Party. Party organizers have been working on a draft platform since the November 2004 election. We’re a day or two away from publishing our website.

In the November 2004 election, 45 percent of the voters nationwide described themselves as moderate, 34 percent conservative, and 21 percent liberal. In some studies, over 50 percent of the population consider themselves moderate. Interestingly, there is presently a void in the middle of the political spectrum.

In recent years, both parties have been hostile to moderates. Since Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party has moved to the left and is presently debating whether to move even farther to the left. In an opinion piece on December 9, 2005, Ariana Huffington wrote, “Anyone raising the idea that the party needs to ‘move to the middle’ should immediately be escorted out of the building. Better yet, a trap door should open beneath them, sending them plummeting down an endless chute into electoral purgatory – which is exactly where the party will be permanently headquartered if it continues to adopt such a strategy.”

Republicans have been even more hostile to their moderate members. In the wake of the Gingrich revolution, the Republican Party has moved far to the right, most notably since George W. Bush took office. The hard right conservatives that have taken over the Republican Party often refer to moderate Republicans as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Moderates have become frequent targets for the neo-conservative groups that have hijacked the party.

The Moderate Party will be moderately conservative regarding fiscal issues and moderately liberal regarding social issues. It will be an innovative and evolutionary new political party representing a “purple” nation, the Moderate Majority.

And the party slogan is “Everything in moderation, including moderation!”

Sounds interesting. Usually a new party is formed around an issue - legalizing pot, cleaning up the environment, etc. - I’m curious what kind of stance a Moderate would take on energy and tax cuts. Keep us informed.

Moderate Party - funny - same clever, catchy, and well defined name I had thought of !

Now … Can I believe an actual organizer of a new Major Party in America found my little thread, in the middle of the world wide web of billions of web pages, and let little ol’ me know this is about to happen - in a day or two??

Keep me posted. (If this is true.)

AP,

“Christie Todd Whitman. She was the EPA chief who bailed on Bush because he kept undermining her authority and destroying the environment, right?”

That’s not quite the way she described it in an interview the other night. She said there was ONE issue that she felt very strongly about that she could not get passed. She said that the Bush White House has done enormous good for the environment but have decided not to make it a major issue and brag about it.(She thought they should have.)
She also said (I think it was her)that Kyoto was not needed (to be signed by us) because the things were already being done - that there should have been more verbal support of the other countries who signed in on it though.
So, according to her, what you say it not exactly correct.

Dawn:
“That’s not quite the way she described it in an interview the other night. She said there was ONE issue that she felt very strongly about that she could not get passed.”

I wonder if that one issue had to do with all the deregulation passed on behalf of Bush’s corporate campaign contributors and the subsequent lowering of pollution standards.

“She said that the Bush White House has done enormous good for the environment but have decided not to make it a major issue and brag about it.(She thought they should have.)”

If she thought they were doing so very good a job, I believe she would have stayed on. Instead, I believe she realized that the damage this administration was inflicting on the environment (by rolling back environmental laws to pre-Nixon standards) was going to keep reflecting poorly on her - so she stepped down in order to lessen the damage to her political reputation.

Christie Todd Whitman has a new book entitled “It’s My Party Too” in which she attacks the administration she worked for - and as a result, she is already being attacked from every direction by her Republican collegues.
From Amazon’s review of the book:
“The people of this county deserve better from their politics and their politicians than they’ve been getting in recent years,” writes Christine Todd Whitman in It’s My Party Too. While hardly high praise for George W. Bush from a former member of his Cabinet (she served as director of the Environmental Protection Agency from January 2001 to May 2003), the real targets of her ire are some of her fellow Republicans who have forced the GOP to make a hard-right turn in recent years. Whitman argues that this shift poses a serious threat to the long-term health and competitiveness of the Republicans, a party in which moderates like Whitman, Colin Powell, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and George Pataki are paraded in public when necessary, but openly opposed behind the scenes. Whitman refers to those on the far right as “social fundamentalists” whose “mission is to advance their narrow ideological agenda” by using the government to impose their views on everyone else. Though she admits that evangelicals may have helped to win the 2004 election, they have claimed much more credit than they deserve for Bush’s success, and she warns that catering to this narrow group will have consequences.

To achieve long-term success, she writes, the Republicans must move their focus back to the core issues that unite the true base of the party: less government, stronger national security, lower taxes combined with spending restraints, and job creation in the private sector—issues that have largely been pushed aside by efforts to ban abortion and embryonic stem cell research and a push to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage.”

“Christine Todd Whitman retired as a member of the Bush administration in June 2003, tired of the ideological battles in Washington and eager to return home to New Jersey. A lifelong and loyal Republican and a leader of the party’s moderate wing, she is a passionate believer in the power of the “productive middle” in politics. In the tradition of Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s national bestseller A National Party No More, which critiqued the Democratic party’s move to the far left, in It’s My Party Too she offers a passionate and revealing insider’s argument against the hijacking of her party by zealous “social fundamentalists.” Recounting many stories from the front lines of her own battles, both as a two-term New Jersey governor and on the hot seat as EPA administrator, she takes readers inside the tumultuous world of our politics today to reveal how a moderate approach can work wonders while that of extremists only leads to more division and fewer solutions.

Relentlessly pushing their ideological stances on abortion rights, race relations, the environment, tax policy, and go-it-alone foreign policy, the conservative extremists are not only violating traditional Republican principles, she argues, but are also holding the party back from achieving a true majority. By playing so slavishly to the far-right base, running negative campaigns and marginalizing women, the party has forsaken the much broader base that propelled the “Reagan revolution” and has fueled the country’s overheated polarization.

Writing with the straight-talking and keenly intelligent candor that launched her onto the national stage-and made her such an inspiration to women all around the country-Christie Whitman sounds a rallying cry that will be vital reading for the millions of moderate voters who are fed up with the extremism of both parties. From one of the leading moderates in the Republican party-and one of its most powerful women-a thoughtful and provocative critique of the party’s hard turn to the right and a call to arms for a return to its moderate roots.”

Sounds like you may want to pick up her book, Dawn.
Here is the link.

Very good Adrienne.

This is why I mentioned her (though I spaced her name for some reason) as a possible candidate for a new moderate party.
I am not the diehard Red and Bush lover that you may think I am.

Dawn:
“I am not the diehard Red and Bush lover that you may think I am.”

The content of your article sounded very sensible to me.
Still, I like to ask you a question.
You wrote:
“The moderate Republicans feel that they should be able to practice their Religion and not be made to do this ‘in secret’. That having a Nativity Scene in public is not meant to be offensive.”

Don’t you think it’s a trifle ironic - the idea of wanting to adorn our public squares with statues, as if _they_ are actually what is sacred? Or with scriptures graven on stone tablets?
Wasn’t that something Christians were warned against in the story of Moses - that it is only God’s commandments that matter, never the images?

Adrienne,

Out of sight - Out of mind ?
Is that what they are doing?
If you were talking about symbols that condoned evil I would probably be 100% against them - free speech or not.
As long as the Christian right feels like they are having their religion stifled while others are able to have theirs (including atheism) I can understand the fight.
We are talking about something that has been a big part of our country’s history.
I don’t see a problem with Menorahs, Nativity Scenes, Winter Festivals - they should all be displayed.
The Ten Commandments are just a reminder to be a good person - no one is telling you to go to church and believe in God by displaying them.
What I have a hard time figuring out is how our politicians and our Supreme Court can start their sessions with prayers but it is wrong for the rest of our society to do so.
What I have a hard time with is people who go to church looking down on those that don’t.
I have a hard time understanding atheists who think God Lovers are crazy for believing in something they can’t see.
I can’t understand why a valedictorian can’t give a speech in which they thank God - it’s their speech and their reward for the hard work they did - let them thank who they want. This is an individual accomplishment.
When Serena Williams won the Australian Open the first thing she said was “First I would like to thank my God.” She had every right to do that as an individual.
I feel the same way about a valedictorian.

I have a hard time with some of these political fights in our country where 2 parties have opposite views and say the other is wrong - acting like there is never a middle ground.

Maybe if we were to have a true moderate party - one who can see and understand both sides of the issues and find the middle ground we can have a society of more tolerant people who can get along with each other better. Less of the ‘I’m right and your wrong’.
Maybe this way we could actually solve problems instead of fighting over who has the right answer. Neither side is always 100% right on anything.

I am not the diehard Red and Bush lover that you may think I am.

I know. You’re a Democrat at heart. :)

In “The Price of Loyalty” about ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill (another moderate Republican), he speaks pretty well of Whitman. I’d be interested in hearing what she has to say. Thanks for the book info, Adrienne.

Dawn:
“Out of sight - Out of mind ?”

If that is the case, I can’t help but think their minister is doing rather a crappy job on Sunday, y’know? Or makes me wonder if maybe they have no depth of feeling about their religion if they need symbols to constantly remind them of what their beliefs are.

“If you were talking about symbols that condoned evil I would probably be 100% against them - free speech or not.”

But that’s exactly what is so brilliant about our first amendment - it acknowledges the fact that people are going to have differing views on what is good or bad.
For instance, Jerry Falwell and Co. are constantly judging things evil that others would only view as a different lifestyle or culture, and whether we agree with his views or not, he has every right to express his opinions. Just as we have every right to trash him for those opinions. And as for symbols, skinhead white supremists are allowed to march down the street emblazoned with nazi signs - while cops stand guard so that they aren’t attacked while excercising their first amendment rights.
It seems totally crazy to me at times, but that is American freedom - not forcing people to shut up, even when they’re being dispicable hatemongers.

“As long as the Christian right feels like they are having their religion stifled while others are able to have theirs (including atheism) I can understand the fight.”

I guess I’m not sure why it has to become a fight at all. Nor am I sure why anyone would feel stifled. Christian’s can march down the street holding crosses and singing hymns, they can put up whatever they want on their property, or on church property. No one is trying to take away their first amendment rights at all.
But when it comes to public property that they must share with everyone, I don’t understand why they would want to alienate people who don’t share their religious beliefs in that public arena.
Why should that be such a hard pill to swallow? That everyone isn’t exactly the same as themselves, and that they shouldn’t want to offend others because of that fact?

“We are talking about something that has been a big part of our country’s history.”

But times change, and this country is a melting pot (well, actually we’re more like a fruit salad!), and in my opinion, the fact that we have all these cultures, and religions, and viewpoints rubbing up against each other without much bloodshed or overwhelming animosity is wonderful, because too often, that isn’t the case in every other part of the world.
My grandfather (a Highlander and Catholic from an extremely Protestant country, where all the power is concentrated in the Lowlands), expressed it to me this way once when I asked him why he wanted to leave Scotland to come here, he said: “Because America is a philosophy, rather than just a country. And its an open minded one I wanted to be a part of.”
I think he’s right, and that it’s a beautiful thing.

“The Ten Commandments are just a reminder to be a good person - no one is telling you to go to church and believe in God by displaying them.”

I think people need to be able to put themselves in another’s shoes here. Imagine if you were a Buddhist and when you walk up to the courthouse, there stands a Christian religious symbol carved in stone - wouldn’t it go through your mind that perhaps American justice is somehow not going to equally apply to you?

“What I have a hard time figuring out is how our politicians and our Supreme Court can start their sessions with prayers but it is wrong for the rest of our society to do so.”

But there, they vary who will give the prayer, and they are not always given by Christians.

“What I have a hard time with is people who go to church looking down on those that don’t.”

I appaud that sentiment, and feel it shows that you have an open mind.

“I have a hard time understanding atheists who think God Lovers are crazy for believing in something they can’t see.”

Lots of people can be horribly intolerant - and lots can be overly fearful and xenophobic, but in my opinion its because they are being small-minded, petty and willfully childish.

“I can’t understand why a valedictorian can’t give a speech in which they thank God - it’s their speech and their reward for the hard work they did - let them thank who they want. This is an individual accomplishment.”

I don’t see a problem with them thanking God either, but if it becomes a bible thumping sermon, then it could be interpreted as nothing but rude and exclusionary.
I don’t want to come off like Emily Post here, but I do feel there is a question of _manners_ within this topic. It is simply bad manners to want to make others feel uncomfortable, or be rude and offensive to people, simply because one has the opportunity to display a pious belief in public. And there is an element of vanity in it, too.

“I have a hard time with some of these political fights in our country where 2 parties have opposite views and say the other is wrong - acting like there is never a middle ground.”

Yes, diplomacy. Its not just for foreign relations anymore! :^)
What I have a hard time with is that this administration wants to abridge our Constitutional Rights or add amendments simply because they think other peoples views are wrong.

“Maybe if we were to have a true moderate party - one who can see and understand both sides of the issues and find the middle ground we can have a society of more tolerant people who can get along with each other better. Less of the ‘I’m right and your wrong’.”

I think we did have much more of that once, despite the deep and long held differences of opinion between the left and right. But starting from the Reagan Era, ideology took over and religion and various other wedge issues became the center of the political stage. And now, I feel this has been brought so far forward, and has been made the focus of so many actions within the government, that the attitude turned from a sense that compromise would always be necessary and healthy, to a very ugly disrespect, scorching all earth and burning all bridges.
This is not a good thing for America. Moderation is always needed - on both sides.

“Maybe this way we could actually solve problems instead of fighting over who has the right answer. “

I agree, virulent partisanship has often killed off productivity in the past - but since the Republicans hold all the power now, if we don’t like how they’re solving problems, its because simply because they’re doing a poor job.

“Neither side is always 100% right on anything.”

Which is why it is supposed to be a balancing act. Govt. Checks and Balances on the one hand, Constitution and Bill of Rights on the other.
It seems to me that Neo-cons don’t like the idea of checks and balances, nor do they have a problem with attacking and abridging our rights. This is why I am always trashing this administration. I consider neo-con thinking extremely dangerous to American democracy.

Guys there will be no third party until people set their sights a little lower.
It is impossible to gain any sort of national office without national name recognition. The third party candidates that have run in the past haven’t had that.
We need to start at the local level, and work our way upward.

David,

The playing field is level, it’s just that the leaders of the present national parties, especialy the Republcans, have made it look like any third party candidate must be some nut case that just wants to crash the party. The only way around that is to start by running for the legislature at the state level.
Yes, this will take time, but this country took two hundred years to get into the mess that it is in and it will take time to set it right.

Dawn,

Great thoughts. I’m a bit surprised (yet encouraged) to see it coming from the Red side.

To say I’m disillusioned with our two parties would be an understatement of epic proportions. I’d put myself more toward the left than the right on many issues, but definitely closer to the middle, and I share a lot of the same views as the folks on the traditional right - fiscal responsibility and smaller government to name a couple.

Rocky, the playing field is anything but level. This game is all about money and influence. Right now, the Reps and Dems have the market share locked up. Without campaign spending reform and raising the bar on the smear tactics that these people can get away with, it’ll be REALLY tough for a grass-roots third-party to emerge.

As for the other parties that are out there - gosh, I just don’t know. Most are too radical and have really poor representation.

But, there is hope. The idea of some moderate defectors could give the process a head start. Ross Perot did prove that someone could come from nowhere and make an impact (as long as they have a boat-load of cash).

Adrienne,

“If that is the case, I can’t help but think their minister is doing rather a crappy job on Sunday, y’know? Or makes me wonder if maybe they have no depth of feeling about their religion if they need symbols to constantly remind them of what their beliefs are.”

Not exactly what I meant —

“But that’s exactly what is so brilliant about our first amendment - it acknowledges the fact that people are going to have differing views on what is good or bad.”

But you must agree that there are certain things that a civil society must not tolerate.

And … a balanced government has got to include more than the 2 major parties that we have had dominating the scene for so many years.

TadS,
Your example of Ross Perot just reminds me that unless you have the money or the backing of those with the money …
you know where I’m going with this.

TadS,
That is why I recomend we start at the grass roots level. A campaign for city counsel, Mayor State Rep, etc.
Just because you have money doesn’t mean you will be taken seriously.
It is amazing what you can do with the people behind you.

Unfortunately, the Dem & Rep parties are actually virtually indistinguishable economically. They have flexible positions on taxation & spending, based on convenience. ANother way to put it: they both seem to like mortgaging our future.