What I object to is being told that all Democrats must embrace these things as the party's core values . . . .
On August 21, 2005, I did a post entitled "Democrats struggle with cultural divide. Study: Party fails to project moral values." Just yesterday a comment was made to this post that is set forth below since otherwise you would probably miss it given the lapse in time:
I consider myself to be an "old school" Democrat. I believe in unions, Social Security, the New Deal legacy and racial equality. For the past 25 years, I have watched the tremendous harm done by deregulation and tax cuts. We have seen organized labor weaken and a loss of opportunities for lower income Americans. While Bush and the Republicans are losing credibility over Iraq and the handling of the economy, I question if there is any real hope of reversing 25 years of "trickle down" economics as long as Democrats fail to connect with mainstream Middle American values. Democrats need to do so if there is any hope of building a solid Democratic majority that can effectively govern.
Supporting organized labor is a mainstream Democratic belief. Social Security and Medicare are mainstream. A social safety net which everyone must recognize in the aftermath of Katrina as quite important is mainstream. Civil rights is mainstream and some may disagree but even some affirmative action programs are in my view, mainstream, although I do not like to see rigid racial quotas for hiring and colleges admissions. I do recognize that African Americans were oppressed and denied educational opportunities. We should all be concerned when any segment of the population lags behind in education and economic opportunities.
What is not mainstream in my view is how some socially liberal Democratic activists have attempted to define absolute abortion rights, gay marriage or civil unions with the equivalent benefits of marrriage and gun control as the core values of the Democratic Party. Most of these social liberal activists are far more passionate about defending late term abortion or advocating gay marriage than pushing for an increase in the minimum wage or expanding access to health care. The social liberal activist have produced an environment within the Democratic Party that is so self destructive and politically correct it is almost impossible to develop strong leadership and even communicate with mainstream America. That is the kind of liberalism that I object to - not traditional New Deal liberalism which is still very much in the mainstream. In fact, it is the social liberal activists which have moved us away from our traditions of representing the common person.
I have no problem with anyone's belief in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage or gun control. What I object to is being told that all Democrats must embrace these things as the party's core values - something that is equivalent to a suicide pact for the party and a free pass for big business Republicans to rule America for at least another generation.
RightDemocrat
http://www.rightdemocrat.blogspot.com
I consider myself to be an "old school" Democrat. I believe in unions, Social Security, the New Deal legacy and racial equality. For the past 25 years, I have watched the tremendous harm done by deregulation and tax cuts. We have seen organized labor weaken and a loss of opportunities for lower income Americans. While Bush and the Republicans are losing credibility over Iraq and the handling of the economy, I question if there is any real hope of reversing 25 years of "trickle down" economics as long as Democrats fail to connect with mainstream Middle American values. Democrats need to do so if there is any hope of building a solid Democratic majority that can effectively govern.
Supporting organized labor is a mainstream Democratic belief. Social Security and Medicare are mainstream. A social safety net which everyone must recognize in the aftermath of Katrina as quite important is mainstream. Civil rights is mainstream and some may disagree but even some affirmative action programs are in my view, mainstream, although I do not like to see rigid racial quotas for hiring and colleges admissions. I do recognize that African Americans were oppressed and denied educational opportunities. We should all be concerned when any segment of the population lags behind in education and economic opportunities.
What is not mainstream in my view is how some socially liberal Democratic activists have attempted to define absolute abortion rights, gay marriage or civil unions with the equivalent benefits of marrriage and gun control as the core values of the Democratic Party. Most of these social liberal activists are far more passionate about defending late term abortion or advocating gay marriage than pushing for an increase in the minimum wage or expanding access to health care. The social liberal activist have produced an environment within the Democratic Party that is so self destructive and politically correct it is almost impossible to develop strong leadership and even communicate with mainstream America. That is the kind of liberalism that I object to - not traditional New Deal liberalism which is still very much in the mainstream. In fact, it is the social liberal activists which have moved us away from our traditions of representing the common person.
I have no problem with anyone's belief in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage or gun control. What I object to is being told that all Democrats must embrace these things as the party's core values - something that is equivalent to a suicide pact for the party and a free pass for big business Republicans to rule America for at least another generation.
RightDemocrat
http://www.rightdemocrat.blogspot.com
posted by Sid Cottingham | 2:05 PM
9 Comments:
Thanks for posting my comments !
Right Democrat
http://www.rightdemocrat.blogspot.com
I agree that there it is assinine to suggest we, as Democrats, need to all subscribe to a certain philosophy.
I dont know why my post was cut off...
However, we need to chose a philosophy and run with it. That philosophy needs to be one that makes sense and is appealing. We have beliefs like that, otherwise we wouldn't have been in power as long as we had been.
Part of our problem is that we represent so many views it is hard to take a position and not isolate a core constituency.
What we seem to be doing now is supporting the lower class which is seen as problematic to the middle class because we are no longer represnting them, and this causes fear in the middle class that they might lose said status.
I hope you realize, Sid, that your "Democrat" friend that you linked to here is nothing more than a right wing religious nut. In defending his right wing propoganda about homosexuality he cited the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and tells gay people to go to Exodus International and NARTH so that we can "change." No Democrat talks like that or uses those sources.
Thanks for being so tolerant, Decaturguy. I have made no secret that I am a conservative on most social issues and a populist on economic matters. Decaturguy admits in a post on my blog that he thinks like a Republican on economic issues. How is it that he is allowed to hold non-conforming views as a Democrat on economic issues, but I am not allowed to dissent from current party orthodoxy on social issues ?
I am afraid that individuals like this are a good example of what is wrong with today's Democratic Party - single issue fanatics ready to label anyone who differs regarding their pet issues as a enemy and not a Democrat. Sorry, but I read both the American Prospect and National Review, the Nation and the Weekly Standard. In fact, if Decaturguy would "come out" of his narrow little world view long enough to look over my blog, he would see a variety of links from far left to far right.
Decaturguy is far out of mainstream opinion in Georgia/North Florida on the issue of gay marriage. Try taking a look at your state election returns. I'm sure that the Georgia Democrats will have a bright future (thinly veiled sarcasm) outside of Midtown if they follow your demands and embrace gay marriage as a core value. Decaturguy, you have done a great job of making my point about the hijacking of the Democratic Party by single issue activists.
Whatever, right wing nut job Democrat. If you look at the election returns in Georgia, you will find many, many heavily Republican districts in the Atlanta suburbs who voted strongly against the gay marriage amendment. Athens-Clarke County had the 2nd highest percentage of votes against he marriage amendment as any county in the country. The big differnce was that black voters voted heavily against the marriage amendment. Do you seriously believe that these voters are going to start voting for Republicans?
So, how are Democrats going to pick up these votes of socially moderate Republicans, by adopting a conservative social policy? No, you've got to give these folks a reason to vote for Democrats.
The days of socially conservative Democrats are dead. These people are Republicans now, and for good reason. If Democrats continue to chase these votes by being social conservatives they will continue to lose elections like they are currently doing. If we awake to the new political landscapes in states like Georgia and Florida, and figure out how to win new voters (as the Republicans did 20 years ago) we will begin to build our party again.
The days of the Democratic Party of the 1950's and '60's in Georgia and other southern states are dead. Stop trying to relive it.
Sorry, I meant to say black voters voted heavily for the marriage amendment.
Unlike my open minded and tolerant socially liberal friend from Decatur, I have never suggested that all Democrats must embrace my belief system. It is the social liberals who want demand that everyone agree with them or leave the party. I am a social conservative on most issues and make no secret of it. I have suggested that Democrats need to move to the center on the social issues. A Democrat running for office in a conservative district needs to have the freedom to oppose gay marriage. I would never demand that the Democratic platform take a position supporting my view on a federal constitutional amendment, but I do think it would be harmful for the party to endorse gay marriage.
I am well aware of the decline of the conservative wing of the party and we can see the results of that trend in the election returns. The conservative Democrats were replaced by Republicans not more liberal Democrats. The Democrats need to attract working class socially conservative to moderate voters. Given the strong influence of single issue gay rights and abortion activists on the Democratic Party, I realize that is an unlikely prospect. Single issue fanatics don't realize that there are socially moderate to slightly conservative Democrats who could still be won back from the Republicans and probably don't care since their pet cause is the only real concern - not the future of the party. I am a Democrat because of my belief in activist government and economic populism. Let me remind everyone that our Decaturguy is an admitted economic Republican so he probably won't mind that the GOP continues to control America because voters are alienated by advocacy of gay marriage.
If you were so concerned about the state of the Democratic Party why would you endorse referendum on conservative social issues that promise to drive up the social conservative base of the Republican Party? That is what happened in Georgia when conservative Democrats voted to put the marriage amendment on the ballot. Many of them lost as a result of that amendment being on the ballot.
On the other hand, not one Democratic state legislator who voted against putting the marriage amendment on the ballot (inlcuding some rural legislators) lost their seat to a Republican. Not one! Several Republicans who voted for the marriage amendment lost their seats to Democrats.
Post a Comment
<< Home