Why Americans Hate Democrats- A Dialogue- Let's Talk About Faith

[NATO AIR]

a really good argument by the CEO of beliefnet

http://www.slate.com/id/2109267/

Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
Let's talk about faith.
By Steven Waldman
Posted Friday, Nov. 5, 2004, at 1:11 PM PT

When thinking of values, faith, and how to win elections, it's useful to ask, What Would Clinton Do? Bill Clinton always combined economic liberalism with a handful of cultural issues designed to appeal to red-state voters: welfare reform, crime, and national service. He picked these issues carefully, knowing that they would show traditional Americans that he wasn't a morally permissive liberal who didn't understand right from wrong (tee-hee).

What was John Kerry's equivalent of welfare reform—his way of connecting with culturally conservative blue-collar voters? His willingness to shoot geese?

Kerry's method was to highlight his military service, but when the Republicans destroyed his veteran mystique he was left as a standard issue Massachusetts liberal. In other words, if Democrats think they're going to woo values voters merely by putting religious clothing on liberal ideas, they're kidding themselves. They have to promote ideas that appeal to red-state moderates substantively.

Look at it another way. Since 1968, Democrats have fielded liberal nominees in six elections (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry). They went 0 for 6. They've fielded centrist candidates in four elections (Carter twice and Clinton twice). They won 3 out of 4.

Let's be clear about who these "values voters" were in 2004. Somewhere between 30 percent and 40 percent of Americans are born-again Christians. About 15 percent of the population is religious conservatives of the sort we used to call the "religious right." The other born-agains consist of a group that Beliefnet has labeled "freestyle evangelicals"—Bible-centered, religious, church-going, and politically moderate.

How could Democrats reach freestyle evangelicals? Bob Wright nailed one way: cultural pollution. Violence and sexual explicitness in the media are something on which red-state and blue-state parents can agree.

But it wasn't just evangelical Protestants who gave Bush the margin, it was also moderate Catholics. Last time, Gore won Catholics; this time, Bush did. In fact, with the exception of the 1984 Reagan landslide, John Kerry did worse among Catholics than any Democrat since the Gallup organization start measuring such things in 1952. And the most ominous trend in the election for Democrats was Bush's strong performance among Hispanic Catholics.

For that reason, I think the Democrats must swallow hard and reassess their approach to abortion. No, Catholics are not all pro-life, but even the ones who are pro-choice are uncomfortable with partial-birth abortion. On that issue, Bush came off as the sensible, moral moderate. Kerry, on the other hand, came off as an amoral extremist.

Katha Pollitt asked how the Democrats could attract "anti-choicers" without alienating pro-choicers. Actually, John Kerry had secretly discovered the formula, but he forgot to mention it. In 1997, Kerry voted for an amendment banning abortion of post-viability fetuses. That's perfectly consistent with Roe v. Wade, which also pegged abortion rights to viability, and yet it would have banned more abortions than Bush's partial-birth abortion. Kerry could have talked about his plan to curb late-term abortions—"because that's a life and killing a life is immoral"—and at the same time hammered the Republicans for supporting a constitutional amendment banning ALL abortion. (Yes, that was in the Republican platform. Why didn't Kerry mention that?)

Yet Kerry refused to talk about this—presumably because he didn't want to offend pro-choice voters and fund-raisers. Well, Republican leaders routinely sit down with their interest groups and say, in effect, "Cut me some slack and we'll win this thing." And the interest groups do—and they win. Democratic politicians have to say to pro-choice groups, "You got 100 percent pro-choice purity from the Democratic nominee—and Republican control of the White House, Senate, the House, and Supreme Court. Perhaps we could try a different approach?"

What about the God talk? As I've argued often in these pages in the past, the Democrats need to be able to speak about faith in a way that doesn't seem phony and alien. Perhaps the most telling moment was during the Democratic Convention when, in the midst of a very good riff on his faith, Kerry declared, "We welcome people of faith." It sounded like he was the leader of a secular party graciously opening the doors to strangers.

Democratic politicians should never forget something simple: Most Republicans and most Democrats are religious. Using faith language is not just about sucking up to their voters, it's about talking to your own base, too—and those Catholics who abandoned the party this year.

On some level, the hardest thing that Democratic leaders, activists, and journalists have to do is honestly ask themselves this: Do you hold very religious people in contempt? If you do, religious people will sense it—and will vote against you. And there are more of them than there are of you.

Steven Waldman is the editor in chief and CEO of Beliefnet, the leading multifaith (and nonpartisan) religion and spirituality Web site.

 

[Avatar4321]

I disagree on a few things. First, i disagree that Clinton or Carter were moderates. If they were moderates then we ought to be very afraid of moderates and even more so the extreme left.

If they are moderates look at what damage a moderate can do, why would you think of voting for anyone short of conservative?

 

[NATO AIR]

I disagree on a few things. First, i disagree that Clinton or Carter were moderates. If they were moderates then we ought to be very afraid of moderates and even more so the extreme left.

If they are moderates look at what damage a moderate can do, why would you think of voting for anyone short of conservative?

i really do think clinton was a moderate, in the worse sense of the word. he may have had a few liberal attitudes, but he was purely political cunning, he'd do anything to win the day. hence, pro-death penalty, pro-welfare reform, etc etc.

i wasn't around for carter, so i can't really say. he wasn't much of a liberal, but at the same he wasn't much of a president from what it seems.

bush is conservative, his father was moderate. reagan was a conservative who leaned moderate (and with great success). bush is a conservative who leans everywhere (great success on terrorism, not much else except taxes). we'll give him time in his second term though to see where he goes and what he achieves.

 

[freeandfun1]

bush is a conservative who leans everywhere (great success on terrorism, not much else except taxes).

You have fallen for the liberal spin. Bush has been steadfast in his positions (therefore, he cannot be "leaning everywhere" and his policies have been good. He just hasn't been given any credit.

 

[NATO AIR]

You have fallen for the liberal spin. Bush has been steadfast in his positions (therefore, he cannot be "leaning everywhere" and his policies have been good. He just hasn't been given any credit.

i mean that in a relatively decent way. aside from the converted jesse helms, i had not met a single conservative who had any interest in providing 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS in the world.

i can think of numerous other examples.

to be more exact, bush does a clinton... he steals the opposition's ideas and upgrades and improves them. nothing wrong with that.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Some think that the Democrats can win if they hide their social agenda. But how can they? I think people have become much more aware. Unless the Dems support actual moderate candidates, I don't think they will stand a chance in the future.

A majority of people are obviously sick and fed up with the decline of moral leadership within the Democrat party. People aren't as stupid as the liberal Democrats think they are. No fakey moralistic Democrat like Kerry is going to win unless it's a fluke election. Dems have been steadily losing ground all over the U.S. because of their lack of American values. And the liberal Dems can't run on the values they really represent: a marxist agenda which rejects God.

I also think the Democrat's economical agenda "tricks" are also becoming more well-known and people will reject them more and more too. Especially since Democrats are never in support of accountability as Republicans sometimes are. They just want a blank check. People don't live that way, and they don't think their government should either.

 

[musicman]

Those are great points, Screaming Eagle. To your thoughts I can only add that, in my opinion, a huge part of the Democrat's past success has been their thirty-year monopoly on the dissemination of information. The filthy, lying, underhanded media tricks we've been reading about are not remarkable occurrences - this is the way they've done business and retained power for all of our lives. The only difference is - thank God - they're not the only game in town anymore.

 

[nakedemperor]

The pervasive argument of this article seems to be "how can Democrats appeal to the red states? change their convictions." To be honest (and running the risk of sounding like Ralph Nader), I really don't think one should ever comprimise his own convictions merely to appeal to those of another person. If you're pro-life, be pro-life. If you're pro-gay marriage, be pro-gay marriage. You can disagree with these people, but at least they're not going to end up being two-faced on just about every issue like the most recent Democratic candidate.

Stand by what you believe, and don't make compromises just to get votes when you're going to shed the mask as soon as you're elected. That is what Bush did INFINITELY better. He made his values, convictions, and ideas clear. And even if I didn't agree with them, I can respect him being resolute in terms of them.

But never never never change your opinion just to get more people on board.

 

[musicman]

 

[NATO AIR]

The pervasive argument of this article seems to be "how can Democrats appeal to the red states? change their convictions." To be honest (and running the risk of sounding like Ralph Nader), I really don't think one should ever comprimise his own convictions merely to appeal to those of another person. If you're pro-life, be pro-life. If you're pro-gay marriage, be pro-gay marriage. You can disagree with these people, but at least they're not going to end up being two-faced on just about every issue like the most recent Democratic candidate.

Stand by what you believe, and don't make compromises just to get votes when you're going to shed the mask as soon as you're elected. That is what Bush did INFINITELY better. He made his values, convictions, and ideas clear. And even if I didn't agree with them, I can respect him being resolute in terms of them.

But never never never change your opinion just to get more people on board.

well NE, the democrats have been doing just the opposite of what you so passionately said for the past 3 decades.... as soon as RFK was killed, the democratic party lost whatever soul it might have had.

 

[Merlin1047]

Stand by what you believe, and don't make compromises just to get votes when you're going to shed the mask as soon as you're elected. That is what Bush did INFINITELY better. He made his values, convictions, and ideas clear. And even if I didn't agree with them, I can respect him being resolute in terms of them.

But never never never change your opinion just to get more people on board.

Oh shit. I agree with you. I'm going to hide in the damn basement. Surely the sky is about to fall.

 

[Gem]

NakedEmperor,

The only thing I would add to your last post...is that we as a nation have to do better at understanding (not neccessarily agreeing with, or changing your mind) but understanding where people in our own country are coming from.

I have listened to people on the left tell me that they can understand suicide bombers mindset's when they blow up children...but for some reason they balk at trying to understand a college-educated, moderate American who happens to be pro-life?????? I've listened to people on the left demand for fundamentalist islam to be given the respect it deserves...and yet...they have no qualms calling Christian Evangelicals "Bible-Thumping, brainwashed freaks"

I have heard people on the right tell me that they can understand people being turned into pillars of salt, and they can believe in miracles and saints...but for some reason they refuse to understand two people who are in love wanting to marry.

Note: I am not talking about acceptance...or agreement. I'm talking about a rational dialogue in which we understand why the other person feels the way they do. And for some reason...in this country we SUCK at that.

I think that we could go a long way towards bridging the divide we all see in our nation...not by getting one side to agree 100% with the other...not by selling our our values...but by simply trying to see why the other side feels as strongly as it does...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

NakedEmperor,

The only thing I would add to your last post...is that we as a nation have to do better at understanding (not neccessarily agreeing with, or changing your mind) but understanding where people in our own country are coming from.

I have listened to people on the left tell me that they can understand suicide bombers mindset's when they blow up children...but for some reason they balk at trying to understand a college-educated, moderate American who happens to be pro-life?????? I've listened to people on the left demand for fundamentalist islam to be given the respect it deserves...and yet...they have no qualms calling Christian Evangelicals "Bible-Thumping, brainwashed freaks"

I have heard people on the right tell me that they can understand people being turned into pillars of salt, and they can believe in miracles and saints...but for some reason they refuse to understand two people who are in love wanting to marry.

Note: I am not talking about acceptance...or agreement. I'm talking about a rational dialogue in which we understand why the other person feels the way they do. And for some reason...in this country we SUCK at that.

I think that we could go a long way towards bridging the divide we all see in our nation...not by getting one side to agree 100% with the other...not by selling our our values...but by simply trying to see why the other side feels as strongly as it does...

I think the reason a "rational dialogue" is not happening is because one side "feels" strongly as you say. How can one have a rational dialogue when you are pitting reason against emotion?

 

[wolvie20m]

You've got to stand for something I agree NE, but I haven't seen one Dem who stands for anything good. Good meaning something most of America agrees it needs/wants. Also on that note Gem I don't know if it was for marriage or civil unions but, Marriage is a religious joining. I can't think of one religion that condones gay Marriages. They should aim for civil unions but, the fact is America in whole rejects Gays rights just as we did back in the 50's, 60's with blacks.

 

[Gem]

You are hitting on part of the problem. We can not discuss with emotion...if we are to have rational discussion. A religious person can certainly argue from a faith-based point of view. And yes, someone who does not believe in Christianity is, quite possibly, going to disagree with them for believing that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. What we have to get past is the religious person screaming about burning in Hell and evildoers...and the non-religious person screaming about Bible-Thumping, incestuous hicks. The issues, or at least some of them, ARE emotional issues on both sides....but we have to overcome that, or work with an understanding of trying to deal with that.

I am not saying that our problems will be solved by sitting down and talking civilly to one another....I'm saying that CERTAINLY it isn't going to happen by both sides hurling insults...so why don't we start with civility, coherance, calm dialogue...and go from there.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You are hitting on part of the problem. We can not discuss with emotion...if we are to have rational discussion. A religious person can certainly argue from a faith-based point of view. And yes, someone who does not believe in Christianity is, quite possibly, going to disagree with them for believing that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. What we have to get past is the religious person screaming about burning in Hell and evildoers...and the non-religious person screaming about Bible-Thumping, incestuous hicks. The issues, or at least some of them, ARE emotional issues on both sides....but we have to overcome that, or work with an understanding of trying to deal with that.

I am not saying that our problems will be solved by sitting down and talking civilly to one another....I'm saying that CERTAINLY it isn't going to happen by both sides hurling insults...so why don't we start with civility, coherance, calm dialogue...and go from there.

You will first have to get the ACLU to lay off Christians. :finger:

What you say sounds ideal, but let's face the truth here. There is a Communist-style ethic undermining our country. They MUST destroy God from the culture so they can institute their godless policies, making the State the god that everyone must follow and obey.

You can have all the dialogues you want with them, but they are not going to change their stripes. The best we can do with civil discourse is to uncover their ultimate objectives and make them known.

It kinda boils down to this: Christians vs. Communism

 

[nakedemperor]

I think the reason a "rational dialogue" is not happening is because one side "feels" strongly as you say. How can one have a rational dialogue when you are pitting reason against emotion?

Or reason against faith, for that matter.

 

[wolvie20m]

No you know what it really comes down to is people don't want to see gays kissing on each other. Now I'm not saying they shouldn't or can't I'm just saying it disgusts me and quite a number of other people. It boils down to why do you feel you need to marry if your in love and want to spend the rest of your life togehther? Just do it you don't need some peice of paper that makes it official. If its cause they want to be like other married couples well guess again thier not normal, they have to accept it. Now don't get me wrong thier people just like us but, they sexual prefrence differs from the norm. I just don't understand why they have to be husband and husband/wife and wife. Boggles me to tell you the truth. I mean shit whats the real big deal?

 

[Gem]

wolvie,

if you name identifies you honestly...then you are a 20 year old male...yes?

are you married? in love? ever want to get married?

we teach our children how life is supposed to be lived. grow up. go to school. learn something. find something that interests us to excel at. go to college or the workforce. get a job. do it well. meet someone. fall in love. MARRY THEM. have children. love your family. try to enjoy your life. be a good person. die.

now, of course. every person looks at this little map of life a little differently. some people buy into it. some don't. but the bottom line is, the majority of Americans grow up thinking that marriage is something that they will eventually do.

straight or gay...most people think they will marry at some point in time...

so you fall in love...and you want to be with that person forever...you can't imagine life without them...you want to make a commitment to that person to love, cherish, protect, etc etc etc. YOU WANT THE WORLD TO RECOGNIZE THE COMMITMENT YOU HAVE MADE TO ONE ANOTHER. you want God to recognize that you have chosen this person as your partner for life.

thats why people get married...and MOST people, gay or straight have some semblance of those feelings when they fall in love with the person they want to be with forever.

now...I agree...when gay people do this they are doing it in an unusual, atypical manner, with someone of the same sex as opposed to the opposite...but their FEELINGS on the matter don't change. hence why they want to marry.

ask all of the straight married people you know if they would have rather lived together without getting married...ask them why they married...their reasons will be the same reasons gay people want to marry...

I understand that you are against homosexuality, wolvie...but use your brain a bit and try to understand that they are not asking for marriage to piss you off...to change the world...to piss on American values...to laugh at Christianity...to gross you out when you see them in public...they are asking for marriage for the same reason all the married people you know are asking for it...and you should try to understand that....their reasons for wanting to marry are not abnormal...it is only the fact that they both happen to be men or women that is different.

 

[NATO AIR]

They should aim for civil unions but, the fact is America in whole rejects Gays rights just as we did back in the 50's, 60's with blacks.

your president personally supports civil unions.

in addition, many people are more openminded in 2004 than in the past. what happened to gays via anti-gay marriage legislations this year was a result of the overreach of a few gays. be wary that americans do not hit the religious right upside the head for the overreach of a few christian conservatives who try to go too far (they already have and are, they just haven't commited a public, huge screwup in the disasterous vein of gay marriage)