Democratic Party's Future: Patriotism

[OneJ]

Starting with this year, it seems that Republicans and Trump really have started to become less patriotic and supportive of America and lean more towards the rhetoric that "America is not good and needs to be fixed".

On the flip side, the 2016 Democratic Convention seemed to have captured patriotism (and even family values to a lesser extent).

Do you think that Democrats could use patriotism to their advantage for the next four years?

[Suburbia]

It's possible, OneJ. Some elements of the Democratic Party can be anti-American (the anarchists, etc), but we'll see.

[LLR]

Now that they're the incumbents again, I'm sure the Republicans will quickly return to patriotism

[Lief 🗽]

We'll have to purge the Putin/Assad-supporters first though.

[Cashew]

Maybe in an ideological sense they can be patriotic, presenting themselves as defending liberal values worldwide, once they resolve a few contradictions.

In a cultural sense, never. As long as the Democratic establishment favors globalization and social atomization they can not successfully pull off a "patriotic" image.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Maybe in an ideological sense they can be patriotic, presenting themselves as defending liberal values worldwide, once they resolve a few contradictions.

In a cultural sense, never. As long as the Democratic establishment favors globalization and social atomization they can not successfully pull off a "patriotic" image.

This.

[Person Man]

Maybe in an ideological sense they can be patriotic, presenting themselves as defending liberal values worldwide, once they resolve a few contradictions.

In a cultural sense, never. As long as the Democratic establishment favors globalization and social atomization they can not successfully pull off a "patriotic" image.

They can be the American party, but I will vote Republican, Libertarian, or Green if they become a Nationalist Party. I say these things because the former is what America looks like to me.

[Reaganfan]

Maybe in an ideological sense they can be patriotic, presenting themselves as defending liberal values worldwide, once they resolve a few contradictions.

In a cultural sense, never. As long as the Democratic establishment favors globalization and social atomization they can not successfully pull off a "patriotic" image.

This.

I recommend all Democrats who hope to win the White House again read this article. it explains their problem coming off as less patriotic.

http://nypost.com/2015/02/21/sure-obama-loves-america-just-not-the-america-we-live-in/

"In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the US had “used a nuclear weapon,” as though winning a war that Japan started was shameful."

"Obama’s famous view of American exceptionalism — “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism” — is curiously qualified: When you ask a mom whether she thinks her baby is cute, you expect to hear, “Of course!” not a reflection on the nature of subjectivity."

Basically, if today's liberals had their way we wouldn't have had this:


or this


Or even this:


Would modern day liberals have even supported the American Revolution?

[Figueira]

I don't know. The "America is already great" thing didn't really work this time.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don't know. The "America is already great" thing didn't really work this time.

Dems didn't push that line very hard. That voice was drowned out by the SJWs who said America has never been great.

[Famous Mortimer]

No. Because the Democratic base is not actual patriotic and when they do say something positive about America, it's usually "I love America because it gives lots of welfare to Mexicans" and "I love America because its residents are increasingly less and less American".

[Famous Mortimer]

No. Because the Democratic base is not actual patriotic and when they do say something positive about America, it's usually "I love America because it gives lots of welfare to Mexicans" and "I love America because its residents are increasingly less and less American".

  Was that a serious post or did Tom RINO just create another moniker.

They don't use the same words I use, but that's absolutely the sentiment. The only thing positive I ever hear anyone on the left say about America is "people from all over the world can come here and try to start a new life" "there are so many cultures living side by side". I absolutely 100% stand behind the fact that the only thing most liberals like about America is the presence of foreigners.

[Famous Mortimer]

No. Because the Democratic base is not actual patriotic and when they do say something positive about America, it's usually "I love America because it gives lots of welfare to Mexicans" and "I love America because its residents are increasingly less and less American".

  Was that a serious post or did Tom RINO just create another moniker.

They don't use the same words I use, but that's absolutely the sentiment. The only thing positive I ever hear anyone on the left say about America is "people from all over the world can come here and try to start a new life" "there are so many cultures living side by side". I absolutely 100% stand behind the fact that the only thing most liberals like about America is the presence of foreigners.

You have never heard a liberal say they value the following about America:

- our superior legal system
- our value of civil rights
- our commitment to the environment
- our commitment to democracy

No. I have never heard a liberal praise the legal system or our commitment to civil rights, at least not in the last 5 years, at least not since Black Lives Matter.

I have never heard liberals praise our commitment to the environment, which is good because that would be wrong to do so.

"Hey, we're not a dictatorship" I guess liberals might sometimes acknowledge this. Not exactly high praise or the foundation for a return to "patriotism".

[Bigby]

You can still love your nation while thinking reforms are needed. I personally feel that was the GOP mindset this cycle. Democrats still consider America bigoted to the core, so it's hard for them to be a patriotic party.

[Devils30]

I don't think the Democratic establishment is going to be for globalization for much longer. The Bernie/Warren wing is coming in 2020 and I expect the populist left to grab the nomination, either with Warren or someone like Brown/Bullock. Most rank and file Dems are tired of Pelosi too, a smart candidate will run against them as well.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Maybe in an ideological sense they can be patriotic, presenting themselves as defending liberal values worldwide, once they resolve a few contradictions.

In a cultural sense, never. As long as the Democratic establishment favors globalization and social atomization they can not successfully pull off a "patriotic" image.

This.

I recommend all Democrats who hope to win the White House again read this article. it explains their problem coming off as less patriotic.

http://nypost.com/2015/02/21/sure-obama-loves-america-just-not-the-america-we-live-in/

"In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the US had “used a nuclear weapon,” as though winning a war that Japan started was shameful."

"Obama’s famous view of American exceptionalism — “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism” — is curiously qualified: When you ask a mom whether she thinks her baby is cute, you expect to hear, “Of course!” not a reflection on the nature of subjectivity."

Basically, if today's liberals had their way we wouldn't have had this:


or this


Or even this:


Would modern day liberals have even supported the American Revolution?

What are you even talking about? The American Revolution wasn't started because we thought we lived in a flawless country- it was started because of the flaws in the existing country. Likewise, Obama is stating that we have flaws, and we need to fix them. HE is not suggesting that winning WWII was shameful- he is suggesting that we consider the costs that were entailed, and that we need to prevent the use of such force (if possible) in the future. About your last (ludicrous) point- would conservatives even have supported the American Revolution, or would they have stayed home waving their English flags and suggesting that there was nothing "shameful" about punishing the rebellions (which America started, after all) with oppressive taxes? You tell me.

[Person Man]

I honestly believe that a lot of conservatives today (not all, by any means) would have supported Britain during the American Revolution. They seem to recoil at the thought that society could be in need of any reform whatsoever. Just bizarre, to be honest.

I thought conservatives were influenced by Edmund Burke and William Buckley. Those guys supported the American Revolution. What happened, guys?

Or at least I do not understand that they advocate for things that obviously didn't work. If they did, we would still have their policies today.

Though if we aren't going to be "patriotic", why do we even "American"? Perhaps we are Post-American? We can't just become Canadian. Do you think Liberals and Democrars of today become their own national identity many decades from now if they are unable to integrate our values or somehow align themselves  into the Greater American Identity?

[Reaganfan]

The problem liberals have is that they have empty rhetoric.

For example, they say they "support the troops". Do they really?

They don't support the wars they fight, or the guns they shoot, they're willing to cast votes against funding for them as a sign of an anti-war vote (2007). They don't support the candidates that overwhelmingly win the votes of the troops.

Do they really "support the troops"? No. It's empty rhetoric and many people (Yes, mostly
no–nonsense old-fashioned white voters) don't fall for it anymore. Even in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

[Person Man]

The problem liberals have is that they have empty rhetoric.

For example, they say they "support the troops". Do they really?

They don't support the wars they fight, or the guns they shoot, they're willing to cast votes against funding for them as a sign of an anti-war vote (2007). They don't support the candidates that overwhelmingly win the votes of the troops.

Do they really "support the troops"? No. It's empty rhetoric and many people (Yes, mostly
no–nonsense old-fashioned white voters) don't fall for it anymore. Even in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

So, supporting war is inseperable from supporting war fighters?
Everyone acts like war is like a factory and if we close it down, we have to lay off the workers. And that being Patriotic is only about fighting wars and fighting wars for the sake of fighting wars. It is as if rehabilitating hostile regimes like Putin's makes it so that there can be more wars to fight in.

[Famous Mortimer]

The problem liberals have is that they have empty rhetoric.

For example, they say they "support the troops". Do they really?

They don't support the wars they fight, or the guns they shoot, they're willing to cast votes against funding for them as a sign of an anti-war vote (2007). They don't support the candidates that overwhelmingly win the votes of the troops.

Do they really "support the troops"? No. It's empty rhetoric and many people (Yes, mostly
no–nonsense old-fashioned white voters) don't fall for it anymore. Even in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War and Donald Trump opposed it. Hillary Clinton supported escalation in Syria and Donald Trump opposed it. So I guess according to you, voters in MI, WI, and PA must just automatically vote for whoever hates the troops?

[Fuzzy Bear]

You can still love your nation while thinking reforms are needed. I personally feel that was the GOP mindset this cycle. Democrats still consider America bigoted to the core, so it's hard for them to be a patriotic party.

This is a narrative that Democrats need to push in order for their identity politics agenda to work.  It is tied to their immigration policies, which is, basically, to ignore existing immigration laws so that we will become a "majority minority" nation, with a coalition of minorities leading the Democratic Party to dominance over a GOP that is "The Old White Guy Party".

The GOP has a real problem with diversity.  They could address this with several strategies:

1.  They need to drop their "Voter ID" initiatives and opposition to former felons voting, overcriminalization and over-sentencing.  These initiatives are perceived as being aimed at blacks and Hispanics, and while the motive may not be racial, it will inevitably be perceived that way.  These are viewed by blacks as "survival" issues, and Republicans need to respect the logic of that thinking.  It is a case of there being an appearance of impropriety that needs to change.

2.  They need to make serious outreach to Black Churchgoers.  There are two (2) classes of these.  One is the churchgoer to a church that is "politicized".  These are Democratic bastions with little payoff.  The other is the churchgoer that attends churches with a Fundamentalist Biblical focus.  "Holiness" and "Pentecostal" churches are in this category, as are some Baptist churches.  (There are many separate Baptist denominations in America.)  They need to talk moral issues, and they need to honestly discuss how the Democrats have caused them to choose politics over faith on many key issues (abortion, SSM, marriage and family).  While blacks are almost monolithically Democratic voters, they are NOT monolithically liberal; there are many blacks who are surprisingly conservative in their social outlook.

3.  They need to engage blacks LOCALLY.  Lots of folks can be LOCAL Republicans even if they vote Democratic on a national level, and this is especially true in states where there is no party registration.  Republicans will do better with blacks if they can get black voters to see themselves as stakeholders in the GOP.  In the South, Republicans can encourage incumbent black officials to switch parties, and allow for accomodations in voting records.  

4.  With Hispanics, the GOP can advocate enforcement of current immigration laws without some of the bells and whistles that make them unattractive.  They can stop the "official language" nonsense; English is already that in a de facto way.  

There are things the GOP can do without becoming a mirror image of the Democrats to help themselves in this area.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The problem liberals have is that they have empty rhetoric.

For example, they say they "support the troops". Do they really?

They don't support the wars they fight, or the guns they shoot, they're willing to cast votes against funding for them as a sign of an anti-war vote (2007). They don't support the candidates that overwhelmingly win the votes of the troops.

Do they really "support the troops"? No. It's empty rhetoric and many people (Yes, mostly
no–nonsense old-fashioned white voters) don't fall for it anymore. Even in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War and Donald Trump opposed it. Hillary Clinton supported escalation in Syria and Donald Trump opposed it. So I guess according to you, voters in MI, WI, and PA must just automatically vote for whoever hates the troops?

The Democrats support women in combat in all areas without regard to whether or not it is in the best interests of the military and the Nation.

The Democrats support open homosexuals serving in the military without regard to whether or not it is in the best interest of the military and the Nation.

The Democrats provide most of the criticism of the missions our troops are called on to carry out, to the point of displaying sympathy for our enemies (e. g. Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark traveling to Hanoi in the midst of the Vietnam War).

The Democrats provide the most aid and comfort to those who would actively disrespect the American Flag in political protest (Colin Kaepernick, Flag Burners).

[Person Man]

The problem liberals have is that they have empty rhetoric.

For example, they say they "support the troops". Do they really?

They don't support the wars they fight, or the guns they shoot, they're willing to cast votes against funding for them as a sign of an anti-war vote (2007). They don't support the candidates that overwhelmingly win the votes of the troops.

Do they really "support the troops"? No. It's empty rhetoric and many people (Yes, mostly
no–nonsense old-fashioned white voters) don't fall for it anymore. Even in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War and Donald Trump opposed it. Hillary Clinton supported escalation in Syria and Donald Trump opposed it. So I guess according to you, voters in MI, WI, and PA must just automatically vote for whoever hates the troops?

The Democrats support women in combat in all areas without regard to whether or not it is in the best interests of the military and the Nation.

The Democrats support open homosexuals serving in the military without regard to whether or not it is in the best interest of the military and the Nation.

The Democrats provide most of the criticism of the missions our troops are called on to carry out, to the point of displaying sympathy for our enemies (e. g. Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark traveling to Hanoi in the midst of the Vietnam War).

The Democrats provide the most aid and comfort to those who would actively disrespect the American Flag in political protest (Colin Kaepernick, Flag Burners).

Is it not the best interest in the nation to have who want to serve and who can serve to serve? You act as if not one homosexual or woman could pass basic. I am sure that out of every 100 men, 3, 5, perhaps as many as 10 women could pass. I've seen them at the gym.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The problem liberals have is that they have empty rhetoric.

For example, they say they "support the troops". Do they really?

They don't support the wars they fight, or the guns they shoot, they're willing to cast votes against funding for them as a sign of an anti-war vote (2007). They don't support the candidates that overwhelmingly win the votes of the troops.

Do they really "support the troops"? No. It's empty rhetoric and many people (Yes, mostly
no–nonsense old-fashioned white voters) don't fall for it anymore. Even in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

The false idea that one must support every foreign entanglement the US involves itself with in order to "support the troops" is one of the most perverted forms of 'patriotism' ever to come into being.

[Blair]

Come on this isn't 1993 having 'homosexuals' in the military isn't the issue that should some how be turned into a litmus test of whether you're a patriot.

I mean asking 'would liberals have even supported the American Revolution' is rather ironic