Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[dazzleman]

Good article, Frodo.

It's funny how in reading this thread, those who argue most vehemently against the logic in this article unwittingly confirm it.

It is entirely fallacious to argue that there is no alternative between the morally bankrupt, anti-Christian, and anti-traditional family positions taken by the Democratic party's elite "base" and the agenda of Robertson and Falwell.

The Democrats could say that they regard abortion as a regrettable choice that should be available under limited circumstances, as opposed to a holy sacrament that should be experienced by as many women as many times as possible, as the feminists say.

The Democrats could acknowledge that children are generally raised better in traditional families, rather than claim that those who favor traditional families are just prudes who don't want anybody to have any fun.

The Democrats could offer an alternate foreign policy and defense posture that is not more hostile to the US than it is to our adversaries and enemies.  This is how it was in the first half of the Cold War, until Vietnam.

The Democrats could offer economic policies that seek to expand opportunities for the poor and middle class without invoking class warfare and expanding government programs that end up creating dependency and social dysfunction.

The country is best off when there are two parties that both offer some plausible ideas, and the voters can pick the best of both.

[dazzleman]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

Why can't you discuss an issue without getting nasty?

[dazzleman]

I got sick of being told that the Democrats should take losing conservative positions over winning liberal positions.

Gay marriage may be a winning issue in the San Francisco Bay area, but it's not a winning issue too many other places.  Even liberal Oregon passed a constitution amendment banning gay marriage in 2004 with a pretty large margin (though not as lopsided as some other states).

Both parties need to evolve constantly in order to remain viable.  There's nothing wrong with making suggestions.  The main battle in politics is always between staying true to a strong base, which is invariably unable to deliver a general election victory on its own, and reaching out to those who are not part of the base.  In reaching out beyond the base, there is always the tension between what's necessary to bring in more voters, and not making the base feel betrayed.

Both parties have actual or potential base problems, and outside circumstances generally dictate which party can walk the tighrope and win, and which party can't.  Times of peace and prosperity seem to favor the Democrats, as their base becomes more quiescent and doesn't repel as many swing voters.  During those times, moderates become more disturbed by certain elements of the Democratic base.  But during more troubled times, the Democratic base becomes very loud and strident, and scares off moderates.  At the same time, the Republican base becomes less threatening to moderates, since the dominant issues go beyond the base's favorite issues, and the base's favorite issues therefore decline in importance.

[dazzleman]

Agnus gets it right. It's not the Democrat's positions that are the problem, it's their communication that is the problem. They need to learn how to frame the issues. The Republicans are very good at it. Kerry couldn't do it to save his life.

I think angus is right only to a point.  External circumstances, the overall environment in which the election is held, do a lot to determine whether positions favored by the base, which are unpopular with those beyond the base, become a fatal detriment to the party.

In certain circumstances, no matter of framing the issues favorably will help.  Other times it does.  I don't think the problem is only about framing the issues.

[dazzleman]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post.  Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up.  I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it.  I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism.  If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about.  This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed.  If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it.  I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

[dazzleman]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post.  Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up.  I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it.  I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism.  If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about.  This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed.  If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it.  I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

It sounds like you agree completely with Kerry on gay marriage.

Not exactly.  I would agree with him in the absence of judicial activism.  I said the constitutional amendment shouldn't be needed, not that it is not needed.  Truthfully, I am ambivalent about the constitutional amendment, but as a larger issue, I think we have to do something to rein in the power of black-robed dictators who are legislating from the bench.

[dazzleman]

That's how it should be decided, but he's saying because the courts will likely intervene, an amendment is needed.

I think there should be an amendment that leaves the issue up to the states in clear language. Same thing for polygamy and incestuous marriages.

Exactly.  Rather than amend the constitution at the federal level to prevent gay marriage, block the federal courts from intervening and leave it up to the states.

[dazzleman]

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

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

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

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

[dazzleman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dazzleman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dazzleman]

We all need a long slow blow job occassionally. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dazzleman]

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

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

As a wise sage noted once, values matter most.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dazzleman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dazzleman]

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.