Take Two: Tolerance is a two-way street.

[BurtWorm]

The original thread was locked as the result of a hijacking, so I'm reposting it:


The latest American Prospect has two facing "Prospects," one by Paul Starr and one by Robert Kuttner. Kuttner is less apologetic about progressivism and more critical of the way Democrats ran their campaigns this year. Something Starr said, however, really caught my attention. He wrote something about how a party that keeps making enemies shouldn't be surprised to find itself outside the majority. My first thought is that he must be giving Prospect readers a bit of hope, especially after he had been laying out how the GOP has attacked Democrats for being pro-woman, pro-minority, pro-gay, pro-labor...and then I realized Starr was actually chastising Democrats--it was Democrats, he was implying, who keep making enemies! But who are the enemies Democrats are making? Straight white people outside of urban centers. Democrats court constituencies but all they need, Starr seems to believe, is this one class of enemy to remain the minority party. Now is the solution really to court this one class of enemy to turn the party's fortunes around? Wouldn't that result in making many, many more enemies?

I bring this up because I think people who view the "left" as intolerant might want to remove the logs from their own eyes. And those of us at DU who believe one side is being intolerant of the other should simply consider the way that filthy other party operates. How tolerant are they of anyone but their one shrinking (albeit bewilderingly powerful) constituency? I don't want that kind of tolerance. Do you?

[Misunderestimator]

1. I'll give it a kick, never got to respond to the first one...

so... :yourock:

[BurtWorm]

3. Thank you!

:blush:

[axordil]

2. Toelrance..

...is wasted on the intolerant.

Respect only the respectful.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi axordil!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[m berst]

4. this issue has been difficult

When this issue has come up in the past, no one argues that Democrats are not intolerant, rather people say that the right wing is worse, or that the right wing did it first, or that the right wingers deserve to be hated. Any posters taking any other position than these is accused of being an infiltrator, or of shoving their religion down people's throats or is just generally insulted.

This is unfortunate, because a discussion about this could be the most powerful thing that could happen for the future of the party imho.

Why does it seem to people that by acting differently than the opposition, that means we become like them? They are intolerant, so therefore we should not talk about our own intolerance, many say. This is confusing to me. Why would we measure the Democratic party against this bizarre theocratic fascism? Why should we surrender issues to them, and let them set the tenor for the debate, as well as defining the issues and the context for the issues?

Somehow hatred and intolerance are seen as the only alternative to moving to the right and becoming like "them." Why do we have to hate "them" and doesn't hating them make us more like them rather than less, presuming that they are all as hateful as the posters here say they are, and assuming that the posters mean Republicans when they say "them."

Are people saying that it is OK to hate them, because they are such haters?

I just can't see my neighbor as the enemy somehow and I am not prepared to kill him. I think we have a common enemy - the tyrants in control of the government. Hating my neighbor who voted Republican seems to me to help the tyrants in Washington, not hurt them.

I can't understand why so many Democrats are so militant and intolerant when it comes to their neighbor, yet so moderate and hesitant when it comes to taking on the tyrants. Is it easier and safer to hate the neighbor then to consider taking on the real enemy?

Are the posters here saying that there is no alternative to a civil war? Is that not where this leads?

Does it occur to anyone that if we took a strong stand against tyranny that the neighbor might not then join us? That he might not actually be what George Bush and Pat Robertson want us to believe him to be - their loyal slave?

What is so dreadful about compromising with your neighbor, when you vehemently defend a party and a life and a set of ideas that compromises with tyranny, morally and politically as well as economically, every day in almost every way?

The prime way that we support the tyrant is by fully embracing the tyrant's desire to have us hate our neighbor, rather than turn our wrath on the tyrant, and allow for the possibility that if we have the courage to face up to the threat, that "mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging" neighbor might join us.

How can we know which side the neighbor will choose when we as Democrats are too cowardly to take a stand, except against him? That may be the only circumstance in which he would stand against us, and that may be just what the tyrant is counting on from us.

George Bush and Pat Robertson, among others, are telling you that half of the people in this country hate you. That is a lie. Don't buy it. They want you to hate back. Then they win.

You think this is weak? You think this is ineffective, or that this means becoming "like them?" Read about Ghandi and Martin Luther King and Malcom X. Then tell me if the average Democrat sounds and acts more like these imagined "knuckle draggers" of their's or more like the great resistance leaders from the past.

[BurtWorm]

7. I find the issue of intolerance on the left to be a red herring.

This is not to say that the left is perfectly tolerant. Far from it. It does seem peculiar, though, that only now, after an election many of us wrongly believed (much to our excruciating surprise) was in the bag, it's become a bit of a vogue on DU to complain about intolerance on the left for positions on certain moral issues or intolerance of religions or demographic circumstances.

I'm certainly not arguing that it's okay to "hate" anyone. At the same time, I do think it's wise to write off the hopeless--by which I mean those who are hopelessly right-wing and anti-reason. We're not going to reach a certain demographic, and who but the right-wing wants them anyway? So I'm puzzled by arguments that Democrats should pay attention to the pet motivators of this demographic by suppressing the party's heretofore accepted positions, on a woman's right to choose abortion, for example, or its evolving positions, such as consenting adults' right to marry whomever they want to. Certainly there should be room to discuss how these issues continue to evolve, and how they should be presented so that they make sense to the majority of voters. But if we suppress the value of liberation that is essential to the left, if not to the Democratic party, in order to win votes, then what's the point of being a liberal or a leftist?

[sangh0]

10. Some people can't see the beam in their own eye

and will deny intolerance when it comes from the left, such as the opinions many DUers have expressed towards southerners.

We're not going to reach a certain demographic, and who but the right-wing wants them anyway? So I'm puzzled by arguments that Democrats should pay attention to the pet motivators of this demographic by suppressing the party's heretofore accepted positions, on a woman's right to choose abortion, for example, or its evolving positions, such as consenting adults' right to marry whomever they want to

Translation: Only freepers disagree with us. Moderates would never be repelled by democrats who are intolerant of Southerners.

[BurtWorm]

11. Sangh0, if you have no tolerance for the left

what are you doing here? :shrug:

[sangh0]

12. That's a question that answers itself.

.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. This is a gross misrepresentation of BurtWorm's posts

It's clear "certain demographic" means radical RW nuts / religious fundamentalists, regardless of geographical location. Where the intercourse did you see "southerner"?

[m berst]

21. hi cpd

I think that we are picking up on some things from the previous thread.

[BurtWorm]

23. Thank you, Dirtbag.

(It's hard to write that with a straight face. ;) )

You read me right.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. I'm itching for those automated PMs that come at DU fund drive times

"Dear Commie Pinko Dirtbag"

I think I'll alert on them as a PA. :evilgrin:

[m berst]

13. yes understood

Thanks for responding BurtWorm, and thanks for reviving this thread.

I know that we are not connecting on this. We are talking about two different things and I am not sure how to get around that.

You hear compromise differently than I mean it, or perhaps I am not expressing it clearly. I am not saying give up on principles, or cater to evil, or endorse bigotry.

Part of the reason that you are hearing it now is because before the election we critics were told "not now! We need to oust Bush! We will talk about all of that other stuff after the election."

There is an irony here, because what I am suggesting is not moving closer to the right wing - quite the opposite. I am suggesting that Democrats break free from the death grip with the Republican (reactionary and theocratic, really) philosophy. What I see is Democrats in lock step conformity with the right wing - precisely opposite in each and every detail. Pat Robertson can define the ideology of the Democratic party, in fact he does and has, and he knows that he does. Whatever comes out of his mouth, we take the precise opposite position. The problem is that the opposite of a nonsensical position is still nonsense, and their is no power, no freedom of operation and no creative intelligence in mirroring your opposition.

But if we suppress the value of liberation that is essential to the left, if not to the Democratic party, in order to win votes, then what's the point of being a liberal or a leftist?

None whatsoever, so we are in agreement here. How we get there is where we are seeing things a little differently.

I reject the DLC idea that principles and winning are at odds with each other. I think that you can't have one without the other.

[BurtWorm]

14. Very interesting posts, m berst.

I've got to leave, but I will definitely mull them over. Civility is always appreciated, because I suspect most of us who choose to post here are closer than some of us let on. :toast:

[m berst]

20. talk again n/t

[BurtWorm]

24. I think I see your point. But let me be sure.

Are you suggesting that when Democrats put their liberation-politics on the table, it's because they haven't wised up to the fact that the right wing plays the framing-game on those issues much better than Dems do and, therefore, to do so is essentially to slit one's own throat? Is that sort of what you're saying?

[m berst]

29. yes

In fact we Democrats - and I include myself as guilty of this - are so mesmerized by the way that the Republicans set these issues up, that it is difficult to think creatively about it, and when we try, other Dems think we are "caving" on core principles.

I believe that the Republican party intentionally takes outrageous positions. These have a frightening effect on Democrats, and that locks us into defensive postures.

[Nordic]

5. with all due respect I think that's absolute bullshit

That's blaming the victim for the abuse.

People in red states who think that way do so because of right-wing propaganda, not due to anything that Democrats say or stand for.

End of story.

[Nordic]

6. which means, I think, that I'm agreeing with you

sorry, screaming child in my room

[m berst]

35. maybe I wasn't clear

Hi Nordic. I hope the kids got to bed ok.

I am saying the opposite. I think that Democrats react to the Republican positions too much.

To some extent rural voters are influenced right wing propaganda, but much less so then suburban Republicans.

Most city people have no idea how badly the Democratic party abandoned and betrayed farmers, and still does. NAFTA was a crusher for them. Ironically, in my almost completely Republican district, they send a liberal Democrat to the state senate, and Carl Levin does well. Both of these men have taken the time to work with farmers, and even though they take liberal positions, they aren't afraid to come to farm meetings and speak out strongly on liberal views. That earns a lot of respect, whereas the catering and pandering and shuffling that a lot of Democrats do is just disastrous.

Levin has gone to bat strongly for Michigan family farmers, and he wouldn't have to. They aren't his constituency and he doesn't need their votes. But he recognizes that Michigan needs them.

Most Democrats are so in bed with the farmer's enemies - corporate agribusiness - that it is a hard sell. And what constituency does Monsanto represent? That is what the farmers ask me. I don't call that stupid or brainwashed.

[BurtWorm]

40. This is exactly the kind of bullshit--this upscaling of the DNC

that has to be fought tooth and nail, this cozying up to the enemies of labor because that's where the money is. It's worse than the cozying up to people with the "wrong" "moral values," but it's of a piece. The party is on the road to Republicanizing itself.

[m berst]

45. prioritizing issues

Robertson, Falwell and the gang want us to believe that abortion, guns, and gays are the most important issues in the country, and that this is why people vote Republican. Does it occur to Democrats that this is a lie and a trap?

I will give you an example. I got trapped in a political discussion last winter with 6 farmers around the kitchen table. They know that I am the only liberal within 100 miles, so I was on the spot. I said that I was supporting Clark. Right away the three hot button issues came up.

I said those are non-issues. Let's walk through them one at a time. They have no business being national political issues. Abortion? That is a health issue and a church issue. Guns? What works in Chicago is different then what works here in the county. Gays? If the mayor of San Francisco wants to perform marriages there, what do we care? Live and let live.

Now, did I win them over to "our side" completely? No. But that isn't going to happen in any case. But what did happen is that we got those issues off of the table, and the next subject that came up was the war and how none of them wanted their sons and daughters going to Iraq to fight for Cheney's oil wells. And the next subject that came up was the way Monsanto and corporate agribusiness was screwing them. And the next issue that came up was the unfair imports - food from China. And the next issue that came up was the roof falling in on the local school, and the health clinic closing and the Hispanic outreach program for the migrant workers losing its funding. I had a hotbed of radical progressive politics on my hands, and six Republicans voting for Clark.

That is how we can win the deal. Now, sadly, here is how we lost it.

Once we broke the spell of the three hot button issues, the real concerns came out - the war, free trade, the schools, and health care. Six Clark voters, but not a one would consider Kerry. Why?

Clark promised an end to the war, Kerry promised a better war.

Clark promised government intervention to stop unfair trade practices. Kerry promised tax breaks to corporations for "doing the right thing."

Clark promised direct government funding for rural communities to rebuild roads and schools. Kerry promised tax breaks to corporations that would develop rural land and create new jobs. (Great, that is all we need! More golf course and more development.)

Clark promised no income tax for families making less than $50,000 a year. Kerry promised taxes would be more fair.

Clark promised no child would go without health care in rural areas. Kerry promised tax breaks to corporations to help pay for insurance for their employees.

It has been a year, and my details may be a little off there, but I think I have fairly captured the rural Republican view of the Democratic party. I am not saying that their view is correct, I am saying that most Democrats are ignorant about it, and it is intolerance that has fostered this ignorance to some extent.

[BurtWorm]

47. I hear what you're saying.

Dean was saying a lot of the same things as Clark. They should be the future of the party. Not more of the same old uninspired shit.

[m berst]

52. absolutely

I didn't mean to leave Dean out, I just happened to be more familiar with Clark from being involved in his campaign. I do believe that Howard has a grasp of this dynamic as well.

Kerry was the perfect choice for activist suburban educated Democrats to identify with. Unfortunately, that is a handicap elsewhere.

I don't mean to bash Kerry at all, because I believe that he is a good man caught in this trap, and I also believe that he won. Had he taken - or should he take, I will leave that open - office, these issues won't go away.

Just think (and don't beat on me too much) if Kerry was able to win (which I do believe he did) can you imagine Dean hammering on the war everyday on the campaign trail, or Clark talking about the misuse of our military and mistreatment of our service men and women? (Just a daydream :) )

[BurtWorm]

54. I daydream about that kind of thing all the time.

I wish Kerry had followed Dean's advice and gone head-to-head against Bush in the South--had not written off the South as unwinnable. That is such a freakin' DLC strategy. But the DLC still wants Dems to talk like Republicans and maybe fool them into voting for them accidentally because they can't tell them apart. Dean would have had the candidate asking point black: What have the Republicans done for you lately, Southerners? Have they given you jobs, or lost them? Spread the wealth around or concentrated it? Enfranchised and empowered you or played you for suckers?

[Nordic]

49. I am so with you on this

The Democratic Party took the GOP bait on ALL of those issues.

All of us here know that your average GOP fat cat doesn't give a damn about abortion. I crashed a Bush fundraiser once, not one of those people gives a rat's ass about those issues. But they know they can manipulate the fundie "base" by trumpeting all that stuff.

Who made "gay marriage" an issue? Republicans!

The GOPers are laughing all the way to the bank. They're laughing at the Democrats for being so easy to manipulate.

Now we're known as the "abortion and gay marriage party" to a WHOLE lot of people.

Think the Democratic Party is ever gonna live that down?

I don't think so.

We need an entirely new party. I'd be quite happy if Clark headed it. What I like about Clark is that he's not a professional career Democratic Politician. For this reason he has WAY more credibility than your Joe Bidens or your Barney Franks or your John Kerry's.

Anyway, M Berst, I'm wiith you 100%. I'm originally from the midwest. My people are farmers, at least one half of my family. They're not stupid. They usually know when they're being lied to.

[Nordic]

46. well I wasn't responding to your post, but you make excellent points

as usual. I always enjoy your posts, sir.

I agree that we all need to band together to fight the common enemy, the tyrants in Washington.

This hits on why I think we need an entirely new party.

One that isn't the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Maybe call it the Take Back Our Country Party.

The two parties have fought their way into positions where neither one of them represents the people of this country worth a damn.

When I find myself, as I have, and many others here have, agreeing with the likes of Pat Robertson on a whole LOT of issues in the last three to four years, well that speaks volumes.

I think a new party would have democrats, republicans, libertarians and greens all as its rank and file, and it would absolutely kick ASS.

We need a party that represents plain old common sense and practicality and that avoids all the connotations of "liberal" and "conservative" which have been abused so much by all sides that they are now utterly meaningless.

I really don't see any way out of this mess we're in using the parties as they currently exist.

It just can't happen. Both sides have been conditioned to think of the other as their enemy.

[ixat]

76. Oh, what did you agree with ol' Pat on? Just curious!

[Nordic]

86. oh shit! I meant Buchanan, not Robertson!

Wow, that flu medication really did mess me up!

Thanks for catching the mistake.

No, I've never agreed with Pat Robertson on anything

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donhakman]

17. Many people have felt the way you do

but then there was John Brown and the eventually firing on Fort Sumter.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. The only thing I cannot tolerate

is intolerance. In any form. From any quarter.

I do think, however, that there are aspects of the left, as a whole, that *appear* intolerant to those on the other side.

(This post is NOT to discuss these issues. They are cited here merely as examples and I am espousing NO position on them here.)

We call for gun control and appear intolerant of any gun owner, even when its a rancher in Montana who used to be a life long democratic voter.

We vilify the religious fundamentalists in a way that makes us appear intolerant of all religion.

We condemn all republicans yet the moderates in that party have more in common with us than with their own party.

No doubt any one can add to this list.

So yeah, we can be seen as intolerant, and in some cases we actually are. And that's not good when it affects those who would rightly vote our way save for one issue or another.

Intolerance is based in some measure in absolutes.

The No Guns No How statement is an absolute that is, to be honest, untested. It is also intolerant, virtually by definition, whereas Common Sense Regional Gun Laws is accommodating and tolerant. Common ground. Compromise. Not a change in principle, but a change in strategy. A tolerance for the notion that the call for No Guns has never been tested and a more stringent but common sense based control of guns may come much closer to giving everyone what they need while not appearing intolerant of anyone. Once the compromise is reached, it can be evaluated and negotiated further, one way or another. (Again, this is an EXAMPLE, not a proposal for a gun control position.)

So, before see others as being intolerant, let's have good, honest look at ourselves.

(I am NOT a DLC-er .... I'm a liberal and a grownup)

[sangh0]

18. Well said

take a donut out of petty cash. YOu earned it

[m berst]

22. well said

The Democratic party has an opportunity right now that I would hate to see squandered, and that is to take the moral high ground. I think that the word "intolerance" is seen as bad and wrong, so the hint that anyone could be intolerant is seen as an insult. My, the Republicans have destroyed our language, haven't they? Besides reverse racism, we have reverse intolerance and accusations of tolerance of reverse intolerance. We are so busy picking teams and lining up on the right side and identifying the enemy that we can't talk to each other.

Just as overcoming racism starts with the willingness to recognize the possibility that one is racist rather than vehement denial and demands for proof, so too overcoming intolerance starts with the willingness to admit the possibility of one's own intolerance rather than vehement denials and demands for proof.

Approaching these rationally, with denials and demands for proof, doesn't work very well, because one has to care about them for this to have any meaning, and once one cares we are in the realm of the morality. Without meaning - who cares? Without morals - how do we find meaning? We must think things to be good or bad to make these determinations.

This debate is seen by the extremists on one side as reason versus superstition, and by the extremists on other as religion versus science. All seem to agree, however, that it is one or the other, so pick one and let the fights begin. These are the extremists that are driving our political agenda, and neither position has anything to do with left and right.

Oh, the right wingers will tolerate a little science in moderation as it serves their agenda, and the left wingers will tolerate a little religion in moderation as it serves their agenda.

The right wing has the corner on morality and the left on reason. The left sees the right as irrational - that is true, and the right sees the left as immoral - that is also true. This is not to say that there are not moral people on the left, nor that there are not rational people on the right. It could come to that though, and it is tending that direction.

The right thinks that they would need to give up their religion to talk to the left, and the left thinks that it would need to give up its reason to talk to the right.

Neither side has the corner on insanity; it is a case of folie-á-deux - madness shared by two.

I don't have the answers to these riddles, but I do know that we aren't talking about it and I believe that it is desperately important that we do.

[BurtWorm]

25. Okay, but who makes the No Guns No How argument?

I was for Dean in the primaries and for him as DNC chairman, and I thoroughly agree with his own common sense position on guns. But even before then, I never really ran into any one (nor was I myself) flat out opposed to guns. I don't understand the right's worship of them, and I believe in regulating their commerce, but I don't begrudge anyone the right to legally own them and worship them if they want to, and I don't know of many people who do. M berst was suggesting above that the left, or those on DU, anyway, sometimes step into issue landscapes that the right has mined with word-traps. Guns are one of them, if that's possible to say in English. Many of us don't understand gun culture and we have a disdain for it because it's so foreign. But not one of us is a "gun grabber." In fact in the aftermath of the election, I'll bet a lot of us are contemplating starting collections of our own.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Uh ... in my post I said, and I quote:

"(Again, this is an EXAMPLE, not a proposal for a gun control position.)"

guns are not the topic here.

[BurtWorm]

36. As I said in my post, "Who makes the argument" you attribute to

allegedly intolerant Dems. I think it's a fair question, given that you use the example, which must be based on your take on reality or it wouldn't be much of an example, of No Guns No How to explain how Dems can be seen as intolerant. I'm just saying I've never heard of this slogan. It could be a regional thing? :shrug: (I'm from a region where guns just aren't all that worshipped.)

[Stinky The Clown]

43. it.was.a.made.up.argument.....eom

[BurtWorm]

44. Then.why.did.you.make.it?

Why didn't you use a real argument to back up a real point? I don't understand. I'm usually not this obtuse. What was the point of making up an argument? I mean isn't your point that Dems should be more tolerant of things they usually are intolerant of, such as guns? So is it *not* reasonable to assume you were ready and willing to talk about Democrats and guns--just as an example of what you were talking about? Isn't that usually how people dialogue?

[Stinky The Clown]

50. can.you.spell.r-h-e-t-o-r-i-c-a-l.d-e-v-i-c-e.?

How hard is it to understand the idea that the example given was to make a point, not postulate a position.

If you wish to argue gun control, go to a gun control thread in the gun control forum which is for all the people who wish to argue with each other about gun control and to mentally masturbate with gun control issues.

That is not this thread.

k?

clear?

[BurtWorm]

51. I'm not arguing gun control; I'm probing the Democratic position on guns

which is what I thought you were doing, as an example of what they are doing generally on so-called moral issues. :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

55. This thread is about tolerance, not gun control

I have no desire at all, what so ever, in any way shape or form .....

.... to argue or discuss gun control. My original post used gun control as an ***example*** of tolerance or intolerance. The position I used for this rhetorical device was made up. Fabricated. Representative of nothing more than a way to provide some amplification of my comments about ....

tolerance.

[BurtWorm]

56. I don't know how to get closer to a subject without getting deeper

into the parts of it. But I can't stand arguing about arguing. Let's let this drop and maybe come back at this from another angle. M berst had some interesting things to say about guns and other points of contention.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. Thank you

[Pithlet]

98. That was mighty rude n/t

[m berst]

34. gun culture

I grew up and lived 40 years in the city. I suppose that I thought I knew all that there was to know about the gun control issue. The only thing we knew in the city was that drug dealers carried them and shot each other, and once in a while someone shot a family member. Pro gun people seemed like some sort of fringe nut cases living out in the country somewhere, no doubt stupid and generally despicable. Where I got those ideas, I don't know. The issue seemed simple enough - guns are dangerous, ban them.

Then work took me to farm country a few years ago. All of the farmers have guns. Are they "gun nuts?" No. Are they in love with their guns? No more than with their tractor or any other good tool or reliable piece of equipment. Why have a gun? Well, if I asked one of them that, I would probably get a laugh, and they would say "when the deer are eating up all the profits, what would you do? Say 'shoo, deer' and chase them away all night? Or just give the land back to the deer and let the deer eat and the people starve?" To which someone might add "naw, he'd read 'em Shakespeare and bore 'em to death."

And of course it means venison, which helps get the family through, since God knows that the city folk (who want to take their guns away, tell them how to farm like a hippie, and then want to build vacation homes nearby, drive the price of land up and then complain about the tractors on the road) don't care if they can make a living growing food for them. So they hunt and they fish. They also backpack and they ski and they swim and they work sunup to sundown 9 months out of the year.

Gun culture, vignettes -

One farmer asked me one night "Mike, do you now what the first thing the fire inspector looks at after a farmhouse burns? The gun rack. If the guns are there, it wasn't arson."

Another farmer was telling me about when he enrolled at Michigan Tech when he was a kid, and I asked him what it was like. He said "it's a long way from Ann Arbor, I'll tell you that. On the freshman orientation checklist they mailed out of things to bring, 'gun' was one of the mandatory items."

With the advent of homeland security, we saw an increase in dragnet operations aimed at farm workers...well, farmer workers with a certain skin shade would be more accurate. A man could be seized on any pretext - like not having ID on him out in the middle of a field - hauled off, no lawyer, no phone call, even his family and employer having no idea where he had been taken. It doesn't necessarily matter if a person is a citizen or not, if they are Hispanic, they are guilty until someone decides otherwise.

One day I saw a farmer out in his field standing down a group of federal agents to protect his workers, shotgun in hand. Gun nut? Wack job? I guess I would have thought that if I had read an account of it in the city paper.

But there is something about that 50 year old farmer standing on the hillside silhouetted against the sky, reciting the US Constitution from memory to a gang of Federal agents, standing firm and successfully ordering them off his land that will stay in my mind for a long time. I am not so sure that I want to live in a country where that guy isn't welcome.

[BurtWorm]

38. I hope he viewed "his" workers as people rather than property.

That might be my city lens tricking me into thinking he might not have. It reminds me of arguments I've had with "anarcho"-capitalists about the sacrality of property rights and why guns are necessary to protect them. Is it possible that the farmer stood up to the feds because they were about to haul off "his" workers? Was he standing up to them because he didn't want them be disappeared American-style, or because he didn't want his day's time and money wasted? If he kept immigrants out of jail, does it matter? I don't know.

[m berst]

39. another story

That particular farmer has had the same family of workers for some 25 years. The family is from Guatemala orginally, and I had an opportunity to interview them once for a project.

I was surprised (stupid me) how passionate they were about agriculture. Jesus, the patriarch of the family, spoke eloquently of the importance of agriculture and how much he loved working the land and bringing the harvest in, and being outdoors.

They live on the farm for 8 months and work in Alabama during the winter. Their arrangement is a profit-sharing situation, plus they do some farming of their own on the farmer's land, and have housing. The two families are intensely loyal to each other, and it is like one big extended family. This is not entirely representative, and like in any industry there are good and bad employers. With the shortage of farm labor, though, bad employers are fewer, because there is always work at the next farm.

Some farm workers have become year 'round residents, but this has been a struggle, not because of the employers, but because of the prejudice from the townspeople, who are often as not transplanted suburbanites from Chicago and other cities now.

In Washington state, where the apple industry has been struggling, I understand that farm workers are buying orchards and turning them around. I am anxious to see this first hand, as the return to small fanily farms is something unusual and goes against the current. This could be part of the answer to the eternal question in agriculture - where is the next generation of farmers?

[Seldona]

60. I hate to interject

in the middle of this thread, but your post absolutely floored me.
To see something like that in a thread about intolerance is mind blowing!

I am dedicated to fighting the right wing menace, but I have to admit to actually being driven away several times from here based on some people's propensity to hate those of us living in the bible belt.

I live in a rural, and very blue, community.

I admit I am not perfect. My particular intolerance generally shows itself as anti-Christian. And I have my reasons.

But I have actively taken steps to tolerate those that believe in a religous ideal.

Not totally because occasionally it is warranted. There are Christians that would simply love to dictate to me how to live my life and how to raise and educate my children. And to base the laws of this country off the literal interpretation of the bible.

That I do not tolerate.

But I understand that it is a small segment of Christianity that wants to turn this country into a theocracy. I didn't always believe that.

I was wrong and still find myself falling into that trap to this day.

But I have seen so many posts calling the middle of the country morons, retards, hicks, inbred, etc.

And I have to admit to taking offense and wanting to fire back aggressively because it is just wrong. And I guarantee you it has cost this party votes.

There is some truth behind the 'fancy-pants elitist' moniker often utilized by the right wingers. Not allot, but some.

I mean if 200 people tell me I are a great guy, and one person comes along and calls me an asshole, who am I going to remember?

It is human nature.

I lived in the big city, and left as soon as I could. Didn't like the crime. Didn't like the packed in feeling, especially coming from somewhere where you can get away from it all relatively easy.

Now do I hold a prejudice against the people that think that is a wonderful life?

No. I really do not. I actually go to the city quite often, or did before my current lack of finances limited what I do with my personal time.

And I cannot understand the prejudice of us rural folk by you urbanites.

Take issue with the person and their ideology and how tolerant they are of you, not with their ethnicity or demographic location etc.

In short I appreciate your honesty. But man that post really pissed me off.

As do all posts that lump rural people together as uneducated, sub par, inbred, slavery loving, ignorant, culturally bereft, or any of the other nonsense I have read on these boards occasionally.

That is not to say there are not issues with many southern voters.

But that is because many of them vote republican as a matter of course. And of these it seems they refuse to vote for a 'Yankee'.

I lived in Florida, and believe me when I tell you that although I have studied up on the civil war and the reasons behind it, I had no idea the issue was alive and well to this day with SOME people until I went there and lived it.

Do I rant against southerners because they contain a group of people whom I think are voting for all the wrong reasons, and who hate me because of where I was born?

No.

I do not lump them all together. There are just as many ignorant people, in way or another, in the city as there are in the country. Just as many in the north as there are in the south.

In short if you are a moderate or liberal southerner, yankee, urban dweller, black, whatever, you are my friend.

If you are a right wing fundamentalist, you are not.

Please watch the assumptions you make about those that do not live on either coast, or the north or the south.

It is hurtful, unproductive, and a waste of energy.

Not to mention, as my farmer grandmother used to say, you catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar.

Thanks for your time.

[BurtWorm]

61. Did I express hatred? I don't think so.

Did I make any generalizations about people in the "Bible Belt?" I don't think so. I simply offered a possible explanation why a person might stand down federal marshalls with a weapon, which given recent American history and a tendency in American political thought that reveres property above all else, is not that farfetched. Did I not make clear enough that I didn't know why this person would use a gun to excuse feds from his property and was open to other explanations? If so, I'm sorry. And I also thank you for your honesty and the time you took with your post, even if I think you misread mine.

[sangh0]

88. I think you missed her point

seldona didn't say anything about you, BurtWorm, have done. S/he merely spoke of posts s/he has read on DU.

[BurtWorm]

92. Not that you care, Sangha, but Seldona missed MY point.

Two way streets. ;)

[sangh0]

94. I disagree

I think s/he responded directly to your point, but for some reason you seem to think she accused you of saying something hateful, which s/he did not say.

[BurtWorm]

95. Seldona read the following into my post (It wasn't there.)

Take issue with the person and their ideology and how tolerant they are of you, not with their ethnicity or demographic location etc.

In short I appreciate your honesty. But man that post really pissed me off.

As do all posts that lump rural people together as uneducated, sub par, inbred, slavery loving, ignorant, culturally bereft, or any of the other nonsense I have read on these boards occasionally.

That is not to say there are not issues with many southern voters.


I didn't say word one about the south, about ethnicity, about intellect, slavery. (The person in the story is from Michigan, for one thing.) I was commenting on gun culture and libertarianism, not on anything to do with regionalism, ethnicity or what have you. She missed my point, likely through no fault of her own. Perhaps she was misled by my echo of M Berst's phrase "his workers."

[sangh0]

96. I did make a mistake in understanding seldona's post

After re-reading, I see that s/he DID take issue with something you said. However, s/he didn't say that you said anything about the south. I think s/he was offended by what you said about farmers, and how your words appeared (to her) to lump farmers together (which I don't think you did). I think that post had more to do with "rural people" than it had to do with "southerners". I think southerners crept in because they share many of the same concerns and perceptions as southerners, which shouldn't be too surprising seeing as how the south is a relatively rural area (as compared to some of the other areas of the US)

I was commenting on gun culture and libertarianism, not on anything to do with regionalism, ethnicity or what have you.

Yes, I understand that, and I agree, which is why I don't agree when seldona suggests that your post lumped rural people together.

She missed my point, likely through no fault of her own. Perhaps she was misled by my echo of M Berst's phrase "his workers."

You may be right. I also think it was the "his workers" remarks that s/he was concerned about.

[BurtWorm]

97. Thank you, sangha.

:toast:

[m berst]

87. good post

Thanks, Seldona, for the good post. A friend and I made a trip summer before last to see the "Mighty Menominee" and the Piers Gorge Falls. Near you?

I think there is a place in the party for the Ann Arbor, Madison, and Berkeley organic public radio alternative lifestyle folks - I kinda am one, I guess, and I apologize for the use of a stereotype here to illustrate the point - but there is a problem with the attitudes from such a small group dominating the party, especially when people are given license to be self-righteously hateful toward the people in the rest of the country.

[H2O Man]

19. We have our share of intolerance

right here on DU. And it's not simply "freepers" or "trolls" or "FBI agents". It includes us. I have no problem saying that at times I'm less patient than I should be.

We have differences in age, income, sex, sexual preference,education, intellectual capacity, and life experience, among other things. So it is natural that there will be significant differences in viewpoint, values, and belief.

That which divides us with the republicans is no more significant than that which divides us from other democrats and people on the left. And it remains unlikely that we will be able to reconcile differences with republicans, simply because very, very few people on DU have any talent for reconciling differences on here, much less in their personal lives.

We have excitable young people, filled with energy, and frustrated old people, filled with bitterness, who advocate that we not reconcile with republicans .... which is nonsense in so many ways. First, they are our parents/siblings/cousins/aunts/uncles/grandparents and our neighbors and co-workers.

There is another post on GD saying "Ghandi (sic) is wrong..." and I can't help but laugh, because if you can't spell Gandhi you certainly haven't become familiar enough to know what he was.

We have the potential to harness serious strength here, even on DU. But unharnessed power is destructive.

[Ferretherder]

26. OK, let's see if I can make a coherent argument, here.

This is in response to several of the above posts, and not only to you, H2O Man.

My problem with all of this tolerance/intolerance stuff is this......

....where is that elusive line in the sand?; the point of no return?; that bridge too far?
Where does tolerance MEET intolerance?

If I take a contrary position on an issue, and passionately believe in the inherent 'moral rightness' of my position on said issue, what amount of compromise is 'sufficient' as being acceptable to those who would decry MY proclivity toward intolerance? (Please forgive the obvious 'over-the-top' analogies, but...) Where were the rest of the world's Jews supposed to 'meet' Hitler in there attempt to not appear to be 'intolerant' to 'The Final Solution'? Where were African-Americans supposed to mediate there views on racial equality to appease those who would cry 'reverse-intolerance' during the fight for civil rights legislation? Where......, well, you get the picture.

I know that many would say that the examples I sighted do not make a 'fair' comparison to what we are dealing with now - I say that they are fair in the sense that history has shown us the FOLLY of appeasement of totalitarians. And yes, THAT is what we are dealing with, here - a group of people in this country who, out of fear for their safety, or fear for their future financial security, or who knows what, have abrogated their rights and freedoms under the constitution they claim so vociferously to defend, to empower a MADMAN who claims to guarantee their security in exchange for those intolerable concessions.

I understand the concept of compromise, and attempt to practice it at every necessary occasion. What is eluding me in this case is - WHY should we attempt to 'seem' intolerant when we feel in our hearts that the core values of our principle global view are just,.....and right?

[H2O Man]

28. Fair questions, mostly ....

There may be one exception: "WHY should we attempt to 'seem' intolerant when we feel ...." I'm thinking you likely do not mean that anyone is suggesting we "'seem' intolerant." And, if you intended to say that there is a suggestion that we should attempt to seem tolerant, you would do well to ignore that, too.

Tolerance isn't something that one fakes or feigns as a tactic. It must be -- and can ONLY be -- to borrow your words, "in our hearts ... (and one of our) core values."

Tolerance should never be confused with the concept of compromise. It may be true that a tolerant person is more likely to be able to find a "win-win" compromise with someone they oppose. Yet tolerance demands that we never compromise our core values.

Gandhi used to say that intolerance betrays a want of faith in one's cause. This is as true as anything any human being has ever uttered. The proof of it can be found not only on the right wing, but even here on DU, daily.

Tolerance does require that we develop the capacity to forgive the short-comings of not only others, but ourselves.

And tolerance requires us to be firm in not cooperating with evil. This will require great inner strength and a degree of discipline that few in this country are prepared for today. It is something we cannot fake or feign. It is a muscle that needs to be developed through exercise.

[Ferretherder]

32. You"re right about 'faking' tolerance...

...it is something that should NOT be able to be faked. (And yes, I MEANT 'seem to be tolerant', and yes, you are right about the 'seem' part).

I agree that we should not compromise core values, it is just that I have trouble finding that narrow line that divides tolerance from complicity.

I tolerate other peoples religious views, though I am an atheist. It is not that difficult, since I used to be a rather devout Christian, myself, AND, if they don't try to 'save' me.

I tolerate other peoples political views, as long as those views don't embrace oppression of every one else's political views.

But, how does one tolerate prejudice?
How does one tolerate hate?
How does one tolerate bigotry?...misogeny?...homophobia?

You are a very intelligent person, and very thoughtful in your reasoning, and it is probably 'I' who am lacking in the ability to understand the nuances of this problem.....but, I ask these questions in all sincerity.

[H2O Man]

33. I think you have understanding

and are equally intelligent and thoughtful.

I'm going to attempt to answer these questions in a way that doesn't add anything new to what you already know; instead, my goal will be to put some of these things in a slightly different sequence .... because context is important.

Tolerance is actually inside of us. When you "tolerate" someone different from you, it is merely a stance you take inside your head, and heart, and if you were religious, I'd say in your soul. But two out of three works. Then, when you have tolerance inside, you determine how you will act in your person-to-person contact. But your actions with that other person is not really "tolerance" in the truest sense: we are tolerant within, we accept the inevitable differences.

Being tolerant does not mean being weak, or backing down from evil. If you see an adult abusing a child, you never tolerate that abuse. You intervene. But you tolerate the person, because we will not end child abuse by using violence. I use this example because one of the last things I did before retiring was set up a program to deal with the most treatment-resistant abusive parents that our county dealt with. In my mind, I had to be tolerant, or else in my interactions, I could not possibly be objective.

You mention some of the other hatreds in our society. I've spoken about when my nephew was savagely attacked by a racist hate group, who left him for dead on a dark dirt road. They attacked other non-white people in a similar fashion for a couple years. Three men, who weighed 280, 290, and 310lbs, attacked my nephew from out of the darkness, with 13 other men; these three beat him as he lay unconcious with his hands in his pockets. He suffers muscle damage and is deaf in one ear. The gang leader was given a $50 fine -- for having an open beer at the time.

It would have been easy to respond with violence. And please believe me, in my earlier days I had the ability to take care of business. But violence would lead to more violence, and if I spilled blood, someone else would have come back, and on and on. And so tolerance in our mind doesn't mean being okay with evil. It means confronting it in a way that reduces violence. There is a long story involved, but I'll shorten it to say that the Southern Poverty Law Center is building a monument to honor civil rights workers, and it includes a Wall of Tolerance. And I'm proud to say that my name is going to be on it, for some of the work I've done over the past few decades. But the hardest work I ever have to do is within myself. I have to be tolerant of my own humanity. Does that make sense?

[Ferretherder]

107. Sorry, I've been away from the computer for a day or so, but...

...now that I'm back, let me just say, firstly, I am terribly sorry to hear the story of your nephew's attack - absolutely appalling - and secondly, you are an AMAZING individual. The ability to step back from such a gut-wrenching, emotionally explosive situation and think on any kind of rational, and even introspective level simply does not exist but in the most thoughtful and intelligent among us, in my opinion.

I agree, whole-heartedly, that violence begets violence. I've been saying to anyone who defends one side or the other in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that SOMEONE will have to take that seemingly impossible 'first step' and say, 'No More'. It will be a truly difficult concept to sell to either group embroiled in what they EACH feel is a 'morally' righteous endeavor.

And, therein lies the problem. I sometimes feel that modern man (as if to suggest that there was ever a point in our tumultuous history when things were different) , as a whole, simply does not possess the intelligence and depth of feeling to express TRUE understanding; TRUE compassion;.......TRUE tolerance.

I'VE certainly got a lot to learn, I am now sure.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. it seem you're asking where the tipping point is and that's a fair questio

Examine your motives and if they're true to you, move forward. Examine your own convictions on the issue you're considering and examine the motives for moving forward. If they're true to who *you* are yet respectful of others, move on.

No "appeasement". No changing your position for some strategic reason. The only reason to change is when you see a way that **to you** seems better than the one you held. And that, it seems to me, is compromise.

[BurtWorm]

37. I get the picture, and those are very good questions.

And it does bring to mind the question of what truly decent minded Germans were supposed to tolerate of their neighbors who may not have joined the Nazi Party or persecuted the targets of Nazism directly but were either apathetic or insufficiently intolerant of the Nazis. Or to make a more relevant example, what of the people in the US who tolerated or ignored the black list? Or who tolerated or ignored discrimination? Where is the present moment on the continuum of dark spots in American history? When does tolerance of Bushism cross over into complicity or guilt?

Food for thought.

[m berst]

42. great questions I think

"...the question of what truly decent minded Germans were supposed to tolerate of their neighbors who may not have joined the Nazi Party or persecuted the targets of Nazism directly but were either apathetic or insufficiently intolerant of the Nazis..."

I am wondering if we can break the idea of tolerance free from complicity entirely. I notice that when we discuss this we start talking about the Nazis, or the Republicans - as though we were the Texas Longhorn football team looking across the field at the Arkansas Razorbacks - clearly defined and identifiable. This never works very well with groups of people. The Texas football team couldn't expect to holler across the field "hey we are going to start running screen passes now" and have any expectation that opposing players would change jerseys and switch teams in the middle of the game to go with the better program. Yet, in politics this happens often. If we lock people into a group that we identify as the enemy - forever and ever, always the same, and nothing like us - we always will lose, one way or another.

Tolerance and acceptance of a fellow human being does not necessarily mean complicity and approval. Tolerance allows the opportunity to open communication, and that can lead to understanding, and that is turn can lead to changed hearts, which can lead to changed politics.

I want to share an intuition. I can't prove this, but I can visualize it very strongly. I believe that there are millions and millions of people whose allegiance to the Republican party is hanging by a very thin thread right now. Let's say - although I don't agree with this - that they are all stupid fundies. Are we willing to have them get unstupid, or do they need to be punished for life for not agreeing with us at one time?

I believe that we Democrats need to get unstupid as well, but we all think that we are the smarter ones. The rural voters know quite well that we think that, too. Yet when the summer vacationers come, you can watch cars with Kerry bumper stickers on them all day long driving 80 miles per hour past 20 farm markets to go 50 miles one way to buy produce shipped to a chain supermarket from Chile. And heaven help the farmer trying to move his equipment down the road to the next field. The need of the suburbanite to pack as much "fun" into his vacation as possible trumps the farmer's need to keep working to bring in the food that is ready to harvest, so lay on the horn and give a dirty look when you pass. "Stupid farmer! Get off the road!"

Who is stupid? Who is not being true to their values? Who needs to be more tolerant?

[Nordic]

53. I think you're missing the point

and I mean that in the most gentle way possible.

We're not talking about "compromising" with people who want to do us harm, or people who are truly destructive.

There's no "compromising" with Bushco. They are gangsters and criminals and they need to be stopped.

I think the discussion is more about the fact that our fellow citizens who are NOT gangsters and criminals and tyrants have a lot in common with us, and we need to find THAT common ground.

The brownshirts of the right-wing, well, screw them. They need to be thrown in jail or destroyed. We're not talking about those.

Like M Berst says, we're talking about neighbors, familiy members, farmers, whoever makes up this nation and who has similar interests to ours -- that is, making this country a better place, doing what's right, and figuring out a way to find the common good.

[frustrated_lefty]

41. What the hell????????????

Sorry, you lost me here in a huge way. The right is not tolerant. And their constituency is not shrinking. Hate gays, hate lesbians, hate single moms, hate husbands who prefer to have no children, hate muslims, hate "freedom fries," hate them damned ferruners who do our jobs better than us, hate them ferruners who don't fall in lock step, and espescially hate those rat toady bastards who demand transparency and accountability?

....
....

Ooooh. Ok. I'm slow. Yeah, tolerance IS a two-way street. Fuck those bastards and their offspring until they begin to play well with others. It is NOT time to get over it, it is NOT time to move along. It IS time to make clear 49.9% of the population is fed up.

Jesus, these sick fucks make me sick, my ulcer bleeds and migraines make frequent visits. God DAMN them!

[m berst]

48. welcome to the thread

You have done a wonderful job of describing a stereotypical caricature of every liberal's worst nightmare come true about Republicans, while simultaneously acting out for us a stereotypical caricature of every Republican's worst nightmare come true about Democrats.

We can see the problem clearly now. Any suggestions for solving the problem?

[uhhuh]

58. Kicking this for more input

This is a very important thread.

It illustrates the need for people to put down their anger for a minute and think about where others in our society are coming from.

M Berst, I liked your story about the farmer standing up to the Feds.

Something about it gave me a warm feeling about how I have always imagined this country could be. That one moment, with his gun in hand, reciting the Constitution to Federal agents encapsulated exactly how I believe the founders envisioned this country.

There are people in rural communities as you have accurately shown, who are open to the ideas that are at the core of liberal philosophy, and there are those on the left who have no problem with the moral reservations of conservatives who may not agree with certain things people do, but would not seek to impose their value chioces on them. These people, and those on our side, have been sold a caricature of the those who support the other side, and all have been hurt by it.

I think the core of this message of tolerance comes down to a realization that we Americans really don't have a "side".
We may have different views, and there may or may not be a way to reconcile all of them, but we don't have to. The discussion can only really begin when we seek the common ground that we share.

[aneerkoinos]

59. Why tolerance sucks

I can tolerate or intolerate only by putting myself above others, by tolerating I become a tolerator and cease to be fellow human being.

[H2O Man]

62. This defines

a total lack of understanding.

[aneerkoinos]

63. That's me

Definition of total lack of understanding. :)

What I was trying to do was introduce new angle, possibility of a-tolerance or post-tolerance, situation where the question of tolerance/intolerance is now longer present at all.

I don't take credit for this idea, but when I read it, for me, personally, it was eye-opener.

[m berst]

99. definitions

I was looking through the on line dictionary at the Princeton website. One of the definitions is "willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others" which is how we have been using the word here. I found this definition, relating to immunology interesting - "ability to experience exposure to potentially harmful amounts of a substance without showing an adverse effect."

I think there is a range of "what people will put up with" being near or being around other people, and I think you are suggesting something beyond tolerance aneerkoinos, so that a person wouldn't be judging other people at all to determine whether they were or were not within the acceptable range of tolerance.

[BurtWorm]

64. Or cease to think of the tolerated or intolerated as fellow human beings.

Interesting.

PS: And yet, tolerance is still preferable to intolerance. As far as most human activity is concerned.

[aneerkoinos]

65. Not disagreeing with your PS

But e.g. in medical field, when talking about allergies, the question about tolerance, how to become more tolerant, comes up only after there is intolerance towards a substance discovered. Same in psychology and tolerance treatment of phobias.

[BurtWorm]

66. But we're not talking about foreign substances.

We're talking about people. Social tolerance merely means ability to live and let live.

[aneerkoinos]

67. Are we not?

Isn't it allways some element we consider "foreign" (not belonging in our tribe, my value system etc.) that causes the social intolerance syndrome, and, in consequence, need for cure of tolerance treatment? ;)

[H2O Man]

74. No.

Not at all. As a rule, what we find offensive about others is what we find intolerable about ourselves. Although there are some exceptions, this is generally true. Those who say, "Well, not for me," tend to have built in a little defense system commonly refered to as denial.

[aneerkoinos]

91. Exactly!

What you describe is making something "foreign" by force of denial, the process of 'becoming your own enemy', with exceptions noted, and succeed to describe it objectively. I approached this from subjective point of view, this time. We seem to be in total agreement, unless you wan't to debate semantic finesses. :)

[H2O Man]

93. No, thank you.

Practicing tolerance! (grin)

[DoNotRefill]

68. When you piss off 80-100 million voters at a pop....

it's hard to win an election.

[BurtWorm]

69. Whom are you referring to? Kerry or Bush?

The Democrats or the Republicans?

[DoNotRefill]

70. Kerry...

In one photo op, he managed to piss off millions, if not tens of millions, of voters.

[BurtWorm]

71. This particular photo op did him in?

I don't remember ever seeing it. What was the occasion?

[DoNotRefill]

72. It was when they tacked the expanded AW ban onto the gun liability law...

and the NRA made much hay with it.

[BurtWorm]

73. I don't remember that ban being one of the major vote motivators.

Do gun owners view that issue as a moral value of some kind?

[DoNotRefill]

75. Depends on who you ask.

If you ask apolitical people in general, some people will say it affected things. If you ask apolitical gun owners, most will say that it affects things. It was a stupid law, and it should have been allowed to die without being referenced at all by Kerry, much less the way he did it. Of ALL the votes he could have flown back to DC to cast, WHY WHY WHY did he choose that one???? And WHY did he have to do a photo op afterwards??? (one of them had him with a big grin flashing a "thumbs up sign")

The political pro and anti gun people were not affected by it. (there are anti gun republicans and pro gun democrats, if you didn't know that) but for the undecideds? Remember, I don't think NRA membership ever topped 5 million, so there were a LOT of undecided gun owners out there, many of whom are our natural constituents (ie blue collar union people who like guns). The AW ban was hugely unpopular (some here will say it had a "70% approval rate among gun owners", but that's pure crap, it was a political third rail in '94, and has been so ever since, which is why the House Dems didn't even try to get it brought up for a vote.)

[BurtWorm]

77. Why is this allegedly hot-button issue so under the radar?

You could argue it's because the media are staffed by ignorant blue-staters, but that wouldn't explain why opposition to gay marriage or sympathy for creationism is on the radar screen. How is that we know most Americans don't support gay marriage, to the point that they'll vote against their economic interests, allegedly, to oppose it, but we don't know that gun owners were so reflexively opposed to the AWB that they would vote against their economic interests to punish someone who voted for it?

[DoNotRefill]

78. How was it "under the radar"?

It got a fair bit of media play, along with the typical "blood will run in the streets if this law isn't renewed" soundbites. For people who are into guns, it was a HUGE thing. And there are between 80 and 100 million legal gun owners in the US, ALL of whom are eligible to vote.

[BurtWorm]

80. I guess I will have to take your word for it.

:shrug:

[m berst]

101. good subject there I think

What people hear and what they don't hear from candidates is a pretty interesting subject. What flies under some people's radar can be the only thing that other people hear.

I know that I paid a lot of attention to the agriculture positions of all of the candidates, but 99 out of 100 people knew nothing about them. Anything that any of the candidates said about ag still sticks in my mind, while the rest of it has faded from memory.

[m berst]

79. Michael Moore and the farmers

On a another thread they are talking about Michael Moore and the DLC, and it reminded me of a story from one of the farmers I work with. Since it may be valuable in this discussion, I decided to post it here.

There are two brother farmers I work with who come from similar backgrounds as Moore - Catholic, Flint, factory worker family. They worked summers, as many young people do, on a farm in northern Michigan and their dream was to start their own farm some day rather than following their Dad and uncles and cousins into the auto factory. They realized the dream and have been farming successfully for some 30 years.

Moore has a place nearby in northern Michigan, and lives a pretty normal life compared to many celebrities (that may have changed) so it isn't too unusual to run into him.

One day the farmers, John and Jim, were in Traverse City, and while Jim slept in the truck (grab it while you can during harvest) John ran into the hardware store. Walking down the sidewalk he sees a guy coming toward him in a UAW jacket and blue jeans with a baseball cap on and thinks "that's Michael Moore." So he yells out "hey Michael!" and they get into a conversation comparing stories growing up in Flint, and John tells him about how a couple of Flint boys came to be farmers. John says "there's my brother over there sleeping in the truck."

Moore had another jacket under his arm. He walks over to the open truck window, leans in, puts the wrapped up jacket in front of Jim's face and starts saying in a sing song voice "Jim.. wake up.." Jim wakes up, Moore unwraps the parka, and there is his Oscar. Jim recognizes Moore, jumps out of the truck, and the three of them are out in the middle of the sidewalk holding the Oscar over their heads, jumping up and down and hollering. Quite a sight to imagine. Three hefty middle age guys carrying on like kids whooping and hollering.

Moore is not "right" or "left" to many everyday people. He is the little guy thumbing his nose at the slick perfumed elite and getting away with it. The DLC just completely misses this.

[BurtWorm]

81. Great story! And excellent point.

Although you will find a lot of outright hatred of Moore among Internet wingers who will claim, like the dolts at the DLC that Moore is a hater himself, he really never behaves hatefully. He likes to shame the self-satisfied and puncture the pompous, but he always shows tremendous respect to the working class targets of some of his satire--especially on the issue of guns. I'll never forget an episode of TV Nation in which Moore and members of the Michigan militia went roller coastering!

[IrateCitizen]

82. The DLC doesn't miss it -- they ARE the "slick perfumed elite"

I've come to the conclusion that the primary goal of the DLC is to ensure that we don't come anywhere close to actually having a center-left party in this country. They want to maintain the two options for voters as being between a corporatist, socially conservative party and a corporatist, socially liberal one. No matter what happens, you still end up with a corporatist party in control, and the workers get screwed.

BTW, very cool story.

[m berst]

83. correct

I should have said "DLC apologists miss this" but I didn't want to start a flame war.

There is a thread that is very popular today about Kerry and spandex, and I think it ties in here. Should he have done a photo op wind surfing? Some say no, it alienated people because it reinforced his elitist image and turned voters off, others say that Bush's brush clearing photo ops are phony - although why George Bush has become the standard by which we measure Democrats is a mystery to me. Then we have people passionately defending spandex and defending wind surfing.

The irony is that it isn't the spandex or the wind surfing that turned voters off, and to think that it is betrays an arrogance that many Democrats are blind to. It is the fact that it was a photo op, and the implied cluelessness (neology alert) of the Democrats that had voters rolling their eyes. I don't think anyone cares about spandex, but they do care about a party that always seems to be pandering to those presumably stupid and shallow swing voters out there to trick them into voting Democratic.

Here is the problem as I see it -

When it comes to principles and matters of substance, many Democrats argue for what is rather than what should be - practicality, electability, compromise. People wonder what the Democrats stand for.

When it comes to matters of tactics and strategy, many Democrats argue for what should be rather than what is - "what's wrong with wind surfing anyway? Anyone offended by that is stupid!" People are offended by the stupidity of the tactics and the elitist arrogance, not the wind surfing or the spandex. They are offended that Democrats think they would be offended.

Posing for photo ops is a tactic. We can laugh all we want to about Bush's cowboy photo ops, but the RNC is doing what does work rather than what should work in the tactical realm.

When Democrats say, as many DU posters are today, that people shouldn't be offended by spandex, they are completely missing the point. Voters wouldn't reject Kerry because he wore spandex, but they might reject him for the incompetence represented by the thinking that it was a good idea for a photo op. And then when Democrats argue in favor of wind surfing and spandex in response, the picture of a party without principles and full of arogant, elitist, hypocrites is complete.

[m berst]

85. Exhibit "A"

New thread delving into vital issues of importance to all Democrats -

"You must be evil or stupid to vote republican..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2798355

So, what do you think? Should he be allowed to call Republican voters stupid or evil if he feels like it? Hey, if they don't like it, tough, right? That's their problem! And, hey, free speech! So the DU "thought police" should just get off of our case!

:eyes:

[sangh0]

89. As if the answer to that question

has any effect on what we've done, what we will do, or what we should do.

You're absolutely right. It's the difference between the prescriptive version of liberals (ie what a liberal should believe) and the descriptive version of liberal (ie what liberals actually do believe).

Talking about whether or not it was "wrong" to wear spandex completely misses the point. The question isn't "is it right or wrong?". It's "Does it work?"

[MessiahRp]

84. Tolerance is shit.

To me being tolerant of someone means putting up with them existing in the same world as you but you can't stand them and hate what they do. You're just being quiet to be polite.

Tolerance is the closest right wingers get to what we SHOULD be preaching...

ACCEPTANCE.

Acceptance and Respect are what we should tell kids about people that are different than you.

Tolerating someone is not by any means nice or caring. It's just putting up with them. It doesn't teach liberal values at all.

Rp

[m berst]

100. a step in the right direction though?

Is overcoming intolerance a step toward respect and acceptance?

[NeoLotus]

103. I have one rule

I repay kindness with kindness and evil with justice. Justice is about maintaining moral balance. By moral, I mean those things like respect, dignity, honesty, fairness, and all those things the treat human beings like human beings. Simple decency, kindness, and understanding is all I want from people in return for giving it to them.

As for tolerance, people are a mighty quirky lot and need a great deal of latitude, even in a homogeneous community. We're moody and persnickety at times. It's what makes us human. Realizing our common humanity should make our hearts softer and not harder toward others.

Golden Rule. It works both ways.

[zeek]

102. I hate to tell you thier constituency isn't shrinnking

They continue to pick up seats all over. Republicans are even making inroads to local elections in the rural south (which was still solidly democrat 10 years ago). According to CNN they increased thier vote amongs Latinos, the fastest growing ethnic segment of the U.S.

Many on the left are intolerent regarding people who they don't agree with and are quicker to judge people based on their ideas, and not thier strength of character. Prejudice is also not a wholly rigth wing trait. We saw numerous bigoted posts here about southerners early last month. We also saw bogoted posts about Christains and people who question evolution.

This all is really not the reason we are losing though. We are losing because we abonded traditionally working class democratic issues, specifically fair trade, gun owner rights, and the death penalty. Instead have tried to campaigne as republican clones with a liberal social agnda.

[BurtWorm]

104. Are you suggesting Democrats should favor the death penalty?

.

[zeek]

111. No we need to get rid of it and ...

could bring back a lot of "cradle to grave" catholic voters if we included an end to the death penalty as part of the platform.

The DNA testing of the las few years has proven that we have executed numerous (perhaps thousands) of innocent people over the last few years. That will resonate with middle america.

[BurtWorm]

105. How tolerant should the left be of Christian Dominionists?

Considering they want to--actually are determined to--turn the US into a theocracy?

[m berst]

106. zero tolerance for that philosophy

Zero tolerance for the actions and lies of its leaders. They are small in number, though, and by talking to their supporters we can isolate them. As it is now, they are wolves in sheep's clothing, hiding behind their flock. If we attack the flock, they win. If we talk to the flock, they are stranded and exposed.

This is an easy one, I think, because 80% of the American people would still stand by the Constitution were someone presenting the issues to them properly. Republican voting Catholics don't want to live in an Evangelical theocracy, for example. Right there, the Dominionists lose their "mandate" for their plans. Most Evangelical Christians don't know the game plan of the Dominionists. Most Democrats don't, actually, and not even everyone here does. How will the average Republican voter ever know if we throw them all in the same category of "fundies" and ostracize and avoid them?

[BurtWorm]

108. What do you say to someone who says God should be in the schools?

Or to someone who says America is a chosen nation and the mission of George Bush is a godly one? Or to someone who says this is a Christian nation fundamentally? How do you counter those arguments? Or do you? Do you just write off some people as lost (or "saved," as the case may be) souls?

[sangh0]

109. I use the "I understand and share your concerns, but" line

IMO, I think there's a need to distinguish between the theocrats and thos who have concerns that lead them into supporting some of the theocrats positions. There are people who support the idea of prayer in schools, schools vouchers for private schooling (including religious schools), etc but do NOT think that bush* is the second coming. Those who think bush* is Jesus are lost to us, and the best response is to say "I disagree" and walk away. But if it's someone who isn't a bush*-bot, then I would respond along these lines:

"I'm also concerned about the deterioration of morals in the US, but I don't think the solution is to have some government bureaucrat decide for people what religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not. You might think it's a good idea then there's someone like bush* calling the shots, but do you think it would be a good idea if those decisions were being made by a President that was Catholic/Atheist/Buddhist/Muslim/etc?" (pick one that the person you're speaking to isn't)

[m berst]

110. that is a great answer

I would take a similar approach, and sangh0 makes an important point here about the need for discernment. You are never going to get them all, and some are lost to us for the foreseeable future. Time spent arguing with them is time wasted.