Which political party is out of touch?

[CAHoya07]

Badger, thanks for the link.

As for the whole "moral values" idea, when are people going to start realizing that war and the economy, specifically the poor, are moral issues as well? When it really comes down to it, everything is a moral issue influenced by one's moral values - this is how we decide what we believe to be right and how we vote in society. "Moral values" should not be a guise to hide behind. Republicans should not have the monopoly on values they seem to own, when on some of the most important moral issues of our time they seem to be blundering profusely.

[EasyEd]

I think this thread should have been labeled "Which Hoya Talk posters are out of touch". One takes the word of one professor who had his interpretation of Leviticus despite the fact that, for centuries, all Christian religions believed homosexual acts were immoral. But this one professor and the poster know better. And, it seems to me that Democrats have been trying unsuccessfully to say moral values are not just abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. but also caring for the poor (as if Republicans don't care for the poor) when most in mid-America (not midwest) think that the killing of 1.3-1.5 Million innocent people each year in this country is a bit more important than whether we devote $300 Billion instead of $295 Billion to care for the poor. As long as the Democrats continue to foster abortion on demand (though they won't call it that), they will lose on "moral issues". And you posters who, for the most part, have been exposed recently to a most liberal education, don't have a clue as to what is important to a very large portion of America. And to bring up miscegenation as an example is insulting to those of us who believe strongly in some things and is an example of people looking down their noses at people they regard as inferior, that is conservative religious people.

Sorry for the rant but it's obvious to me who is really out of touch.

[hifigator]

ed said:

I think this thread should have been labeled "Which Hoya Talk posters are out of touch". One takes the word of one professor who had his interpretation of Leviticus despite the fact that, for centuries, all Christian religions believed homosexual acts were immoral. But this one professor and the poster know better. And, it seems to me that Democrats have been trying unsuccessfully to say moral values are not just abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. but also caring for the poor (as if Republicans don't care for the poor) when most in mid-America (not midwest) think that the killing of 1.3-1.5 Million innocent people each year in this country is a bit more important than whether we devote $300 Billion instead of $295 Billion to care for the poor. As long as the Democrats continue to foster abortion on demand (though they won't call it that), they will lose on "moral issues". And you posters who, for the most part, have been exposed recently to a most liberal education, don't have a clue as to what is important to a very large portion of America. And to bring up miscegenation as an example is insulting to those of us who believe strongly in some things and is an example of people looking down their noses at people they regard as inferior, that is conservative religious people.

Sorry for the rant but it's obvious to me who is really out of touch.

Ed, actually I understand your point but I think what ultimately comes from such thinking is counter-productive. I think that people are very split on the abortion issue. I think the right could do themselves a lot of favors to get away from some of these firestorm issues. They allow themselves to get painted as the "religious right" when they discuss such topics. I'm not saying that these issues are unimportant but merely that they would have a lot more on their side of many other issues if they would merely leave the abortion issue alone. If they would focus on fiscal conservatism ... if they would focus on alternative fuels ... if they would stick with the nuts and bolts of growing the economy through tax incentives and the sort then I think they would only strengthen their voting base. But when they keep harping on polarizing issues like abortion and stem cell research I honestly believe they do more harm than good.

[SoCalHoya]

Well, all of a sudden I'm an elitist! Ed, I think you'd be surprised to know that we agree on quite a bit. And remember, miscegenation was taboo for centuries, too.

[EasyEd]

Hifi - the issue of the killing of 1+ Million innocent people every year is the most important issue around and should not be downplayed because you think it's better for the right. Sell you soul for 30 pieces of silver?
The issue of abortion is very simple if everyone is honest about it. The DNA of an embryo is identical to the DNA of an adult allowed to mature from that embryo. Even the term embryo is intended to mislead. It's an unborn child.

[EasyEd]

SoCal - yes I guess I would be amazed to find out we agree on anything. You must be shy about posting anything that backs up that claim.

[SoCalHoya]

For starters, we probably agree on stem cell research and other similar issues.

[hifigator]

socalhoya said:

For starters, we probably agree on stem cell research and other similar issues.

I don't know about you or ed, but I am for stem cell research. I think Nancy Reagan is right on target on that issue.

Ed, I understand your point and I know many people feel the same way. I am not talking about selling your soul. My point is that people disagree on that issue. To stick so staunchly to that one issue turns many people away who would otherwise be in agreement on many other issues. That still doesn't mean they would then agree on the abortion issue. But by forcing that issue to the forefront they aren't winning on that issue EITHER. Do you see the point? You can call that selling out if you want but I think it is simply good fiscal sense. You aren't changing your stance on the abortion issue, just understanding that people disagree dramatically and moving on to a different issue that maybe there can be more agreement.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

This is the problem with politics and political discussion: the freakin' NAME CALLING! Seriously, why do certain people always feel the need to label others? What the heck do the terms "liberal", "conservative", "religious", "elitist", "mainstream", and "values" mean in this context anyway? I say they mean nothing; the terms are a convenient way for people to call other people out for espousing a belief they don't subscribe to. Those types of catch-all terms (like the catch-all parties) are counterproductive. I hold that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are far more important, historied, and meaningful than as mere representative synonyms of the left-right political split. I also think using political terms as labels leads to the kind of meaningless powermongering, posturing, and wastefulness consuming American politics. That said:

1) Both parties are BADLY out of touch. So much so that neither has any idea what they actually stand for anymore, other than trying to act as "catch-alls" to the so-called "right" or "left." Really, think about this: in today's complex political climate, does it really make sense to have only two viable parties that are supposed to set, execute, and be accountable for the agenda of a nation of almost 300 million people? I think not. I've posted this before, but it's high time we either (a) start going the way of almost every other democratic nation and allow other parties into the fray to form coalition governments, and maybe - gasp!- inject some innovation and pro-activeness into American politics or (b) listen to President Washington's Farewell Address and shy away from political parties as much as possible. And for the love of all that's holy, keep them out of beer league softball!

2) I've always wondered why certain members of certain religions casually throw around terms like "values" and "faith" and construe them to mean that their values and faith are the only legitimate ones. They then take that assumption and translate it into political discourse and decision making. I concede: this nation was founded on certain religious values, but it was NOT founded on religious dogma. It was founded as a secular society based on certain ideas that make sense for a civilized, forward-thinking society to have. It was never intended to be the political arm of any one religion. How people have forgotten this is beyond me. Call me whatever name you want, I don't think it's ever right - in politics - to categorically exclude the views of one who holds a different view of religion.

Take the creation-evolution debate, for instance. Irrespective of where one comes down on the issue, let's say that, hypothetically, all 50 states and DC choose to teach both in elementary education. Let's even assume (though it gives me the creeps to even say it) both are taught as science. Obviously, most people would assume that the Christian creation story would be the creation story taught. Would it not be entirely valid, justified (and perhaps choiceworthy), though, to teach every available creation story, from the Catholic version to the Hindu version to the Navajo, Creek, Shoshone, and Shawnee versions, to the Wiccan version? I'd love to hear why people disagree on this point, considering our nation's secular status.

3) Offering a religious justification for intolerance of another person based on a particular reading of that religion's sacred text? Sounds kinda like something we're fighting wars against and spending bizillions of $$ to combat ..... The biggest threat to the family and marriage (which is what I hope is the justification people use for being anti gay marriage) is not gay marriage, it's adultery, abuse, and divorce.

4) "Embryo" is a scientific term applied to all living things at certain stages of development. It has no intention. Same goes for fetus, zygote, mitosis, chromosome, and cell. If you want to talk about misleading terms, let's talk about the terminology of the law.

5) I love politics, but living on the Hill is discouraging. Seems like the parties (and the staffers) spend 90% of their time and energy trying to beat the other side. I'm hoping this will change soon. If not I'm running for Congress - in boardshorts and sandals baby.

[Filo]

Nice post.

Let's link 2 thoughts you have here:

it's high time we either (a) start going the way of almost every other democratic nation and allow other parties into the fray to form coalition governments, and maybe - gasp!- inject some innovation and pro-activeness into American politics
AND
If not I'm running for Congress - in boardshorts and sandals baby.

I'm in. When do we start working on the platform?

[Nitrorebel]

Nice post C2C. One of the time-honored "laws" in political sociology was formulated by Maurice Duverger in 1954: First-past-the-post electoral systems lead to 2-party systems; proportional representation leads to multi-party systems.

The root problem of a lot of DC's ills is the arcane nature of the electoral college, the make-up of the Senate, the outrageous partisan gerrymandering (on both sides, tho DeLay's 2003 re-districting is an outrage for any true democrat), and the Presidential primaries being decided in completely unrepresentative states (NH and Iowa).

Change those laws and there will be a sea-change in American politics, and the emergence of new parties: off the top of my head, I could see the Greens on the new left, a libertarian center-right party, and a hard-core conservative Buchanan-type party emerging. Unfortunately for everyone, the 2 parties have everything to lose in changing any of these laws, so I can't see anything happening, unless the public pushes for a referendum or something.

A great book in this context is Robert Dahl's "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" (Yale, 2002).

[badgerhoya]

Actually - not sure if you've heard of this yet, but it's been in the news a couple of times over the past few weeks.

Essentially, it's a bipartisan group that wants to "harness the Internet" to nominate a bipartisan ticket for President/VP in 2008.

Interesting thought, and a pretty good mix of people they've brought in... but I don't know how much traction they'll get.

Take a look...

www.unity08.org

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Thanks Filo and Nitro ... let's see I'm 25 now, so as soon as I get my sh** together, I figure we can start working on it! Of course this is all contingent on how the Hoyas are doing. It will be hard to leave DC while we're still playing well (altough us playing badly didn't really make me leave the first time!). Of course, being in Congress would mean I'd be able to spend a lot of time in DC anyway ..... hmmm ....

Badger, thanks for the link. I have actually heard about this. I think it's fascinating, and seems like a good sign that people are trying to make a positive difference rather than becoming apathetic like many members of my generation.

Unfortunately, while it seems like an interesting idea, I don't think it's too compelling in terms of galvanizing voters' (and more importantly, voting age non-voters') discontent and disenfranchisement. What it lacks is any kind of platform, althought the idea of letting potential candidates choose the agenda is pretty fascinating. To me, that says "we don't care WHAT you come up with, as long as it's something different than the Dems and 'Pubs are saying." This is, in some ways, the next logical step from picking the "lesser of two evils" (i.e., picking a third way just because it's different). Doesn't this speak volumes about the state of American politics? I think the results could be good or bad, but either way, it's another sign that we're at a crossroads in American politics: people want and need change, the two parties are ever more focused on entrenchment and "butressing the fortress," and it's up to those who (a) care, (b) have a plan, and (c) can work with people of other views, backgrounds, and status to get the job done. (NB: that's vague, I know, but I think one major problem with politics now - from the Hill on down to the towns - is a lack of working together and putting together a plan before jumping into legislation, war, budgeting, program management, etc.).

[CAHoya07]

ed said:

Hifi - the issue of the killing of 1+ Million innocent people every year is the most important issue around and should not be downplayed because you think it's better for the right. Sell you soul for 30 pieces of silver?
The issue of abortion is very simple if everyone is honest about it. The DNA of an embryo is identical to the DNA of an adult allowed to mature from that embryo. Even the term embryo is intended to mislead. It's an unborn child.

This is what I don't understand about people who believe that abortion is murder. If it's murder, then do you suggest that that both the woman and the doctor be imprisoned for such a charge and face the rest of their life in prison or even the death penalty? That's what a charge of murder entails, and it seems pretty fanatic from my point of view. But maybe I'm just out of touch.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Actually, CAHoya07, I think that analysis shows how in touch you are. It's not as simple as murder, not as simple as a choice to euthanize a pet. What I think your post showed is that you have insight into the problem and aren't so set in your opinion that you can't see the inherent difficulties and nuances of the larger issue.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could think about it that way? We might actually spend our time crafting national policy instead of yelling at each other across cyber-picket lines.

[hifigator]

tothebeach said:

Actually, CAHoya07, I think that analysis shows how in touch you are. It's not as simple as murder, not as simple as a choice to euthanize a pet. What I think your post showed is that you have insight into the problem and aren't so set in your opinion that you can't see the inherent difficulties and nuances of the larger issue.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could think about it that way? We might actually spend our time crafting national policy instead of yelling at each other across cyber-picket lines.

C2C, we don't agree on a lot of things but I normally credit you with making a decent argument ... but not this time. When CAHoya asks his question he is shallow and naive at best. Obviously no one is implying that we should arrest doctors and expectant mothers should they decide to have an abortion. The pro-life crowd is trying to have the laws changed. They aren't running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions, trying to have them arrested. To suggest such is silly at best.

To those of a certain mindset, abortion takes an innocent life. I understand that point and I understand the pro life crowd's dedication. I am not on that soapbox, but to suggest that they don't at least have a legitimate concern politicizes the issue for no reason.

[Filo]

Hifi - you're engaging in name-calling and you're well on your way to being a perfect example of why the abortion debate is so incendiary. Start throwing out stuff like "murdering an innocent" and labeling doctors "murdering abortionists" and you are there.

And to portray the pro-life crowd as some laid-back group whose modus operandi is to change the laws speaks volume about your naivete. Maybe someone should let Paull Hill and his ilk know about this peaceful approach.

[hifigator]

filo said:

Hifi - you're engaging in name-calling and you're well on your way to being a perfect example of why the abortion debate is so incendiary. Start throwing out stuff like "murdering an innocent" and labeling doctors "murdering abortionists" and you are there.

And to portray the pro-life crowd as some laid-back group whose modus operandi is to change the laws speaks volume about your naivete. Maybe someone should let Paull Hill and his ilk know about this peaceful approach.

Um, ... here is what I wrote:

HiFi wrote:

C2C, we don't agree on a lot of things but I normally credit you with making a decent argument ... but not this time. When CAHoya asks his question he is shallow and naive at best. Obviously no one is implying that we should arrest doctors and expectant mothers should they decide to have an abortion. The pro-life crowd is trying to have the laws changed. They aren't running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions, trying to have them arrested. To suggest such is silly at best.

To those of a certain mindset, abortion takes an innocent life. I understand that point and I understand the pro life crowd's dedication. I am not on that soapbox, but to suggest that they don't at least have a legitimate concern politicizes the issue for no reason.

The only thing even remotely close to name calling was shallow and/or naive. And I stand by that comment. I think each of us has called and been called worse. I responded specifically to what was said. The implication was that the goal was to criminalize the abortion process so as to create a new group of criminals which we could then round up. I have never heard anyone suggest anything of the sort. Accordingly no one is trying to round up these doctors and patients for such a cause.

As to this:

And to portray the pro-life crowd as some laid-back group whose modus operandi is to change the laws speaks volume about your naivete.

I don't dispute the handful of nutcases who have bombed abortion clinics and condemn any acts of that sort. My point is that the abortion issue is very emotional to people on both sides. And for those who are of the mindset that abortion is taking an innocent life, they are very devoted in their cause. Do some take such devotion to extreme levels? Yes, but they are the vast minority. Don't discredit all who have such beliefs because of the actions of a few. Accordingly, don't condemn those who hold the opposite view. Many on both sides of this issue are totally devout in their beliefs.

Likening all pro-lifers to the extreme minority of wackos who have bombed clinics is as unfair as labeling those pro-choicers as murderers. Both labels are patently unfair, but for some reason you only see half of the argument.

[hoyasaxa2008]

afirthionado said:

Gay marriage specifically may not be the number one priority for most Americans, and the 80% statistic is probably fairly inaccurate, but it still interesting that in the exit polls for the 2004 election, 22% of the country listed "moral values" as their most important issue.

Of course, a lot of other things are being lumped into this category, including abortion, stem cell research, etc., but it is still important to note that THIS category got 22%, while the economy/jobs got 20%, terrorism 19%, and the war in Iraq 15%. While 22% may not be that much higher than 20%, this is still the first poll that shows a plurality for the 'moral issues' category in a presidential election.

Everyone is probably familiar with these results by now, but when looking at how out of touch political parties are with their constituents, it is sad, but understandable (in the political world, at least), why politicians are going to focus on the issues that voters said they cared most about, even if they don't seem nearly as relevant as the ongoing war, the slowing economy, globalization, or poverty/health issues.

An expanded breakdown of the election is here: www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

According to a class I took a few semesters back: Regarding that exit poll, the reason that it was the first time that this poll showed that "moral values" held a plurality of the "most important issue" category was because this was the first time that the poll ever included "moral values" as a category!

So, this isn't a shift, and this doesn't show that "moral values" were more important in this election than they have been in the past. Furthermore, this polling method has been largely panned since the election exactly because it includes relatively discrete categories such as "the economy" and "terrorism" alongside a broad super-category like "moral values". According to some critics (again this is coming from stuff my professor showed the class), people chose "moral values" because they didn't feel comfortable choosing "the economy" over "terrorism", but instead felt that "moral values" encompassed all of it.

Just thought that the clarification should be made.

[CAHoya07]

Hifi, I think you missed the entire point of my post. In no way do I suggest that pro-lifers believe that women and abortion doctors should be arrested and put to death. In fact, my point is that almost no one believes this, and yet I've seen many pro-life signs that proclaim, "Abortion is Murder." Abortion simply is not murder, it's far too complex of an issue to label it as that. If it really was murder, then abortion doctors and the women who choose to have them could and would be tried for it. And as you said, that's not what pro-lifers want to do. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of such a statement that I believe many pro-lifers espouse without really thinking about what it entails.

Abortion is a complex and polarizing issue, and to sort of bring it back to the original theme of the thread, I feel that people at both extremes of the debate are out of touch with what we really should be discussing: how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and how to cope with unwanted pregnancies if and when they occur.

And finally, to put another spin on this whole thing, I believe that both political parties in America, and probably most Americans, are out of touch with what is happening throughout the rest of the world. Though I do not justify it, this is probably the biggest reason why anti-Americanism occurs.