I'm in the mood to piss some people off (rambling rant).

[chaska]

(In sympathy with Jan Michael's thread)

I'm from the South. I've worked a lot of blue collar jobs. I'm also a college graduate who was born into a middle class family. My parents come from poverty. I've seen and/or lived most sides of the socio-economic issue.

What I'm about to say has to do with the tug of war between the centrists in our party versus those who used to make up our party - and will again if I have any say about it - the working class.

I don't mean to be dramatic with all this lead in, but...

I would rather share my party with a financilly poor bigot that votes as a financial liberal than a centrist (that can be bribed with tax cuts) but is socially liberal.

Why, you ask?

I have often found that the well-to-do with socially liberal values are often untested in the area of race and gender issues. It's easy to be socially liberal if you don't know any racial or sexual minorities. When forced into a conflict with someone not of their race or gender, some of these people reveal themselves in surprising ways. Damned few of us are perfect in this area. But that's not why I don't want them in my party.

Money is often a tool of violence. Simply put, if you support tax cuts for the wealthy you advocate the sort of Hobbesian, social Darwinist, every man for himself, dog eat dog world that leaves children hungry and millions without health care. Your tax cut means people are homeless, and many others have to struggle just to pay their rent. Your advancement holds others back. Think about all the people with ruined credit because they can't pay this months light bill until next month, or who default on their student loans, because their jobs don't pay them enough to make the payments.

WEALTH IS A CLOSED SYSTEM. It exists, it is not created. That means that if I have more somebody else has less. Republicans talk about redistribution of income like it's some great evil thing that we should never do, when in fact it happens every minute of every day. Government can facilitate redistribution in ways that contribute to a more cohesive society, or it can do what it does now: Funnel money to the top.

The bigot is socially stupid. Granted. But if he votes for financially liberal policies he is doing the right thing for everybody. His social bigotry is a damn site less harmful than the socially liberal centrist who can only see as deeply as the bottom of his pocket. (I realize the hole I've left here - to address it sidetracks my thesis. I don't have the time to address it.)

TO VOTE BASED ON SOCIAL ISSUES IS STUPID. It ties the whole damned country in one big knot. We must vote based on financial issues. We must realign the party to its traditional stance. The Democratic party is the party of the people, the workers, labor. The Republican party is the party of capitol, investors. Pick your poison.

We should make it our goal to transform our party along these lines. Yes, it will take time. But, under this definition of Democrat we win. And, it's the right thing to do.

[xultar]

1. Your stand is interesting and posts a quandry for the Wingnuts...

Wingnuts are PISSED that * is screwing up the dollar and screwing the economy into the ground with a huge defict.

Since Bill Clinton had a balenced budget and brought down the debt it seems to me all those fiscal conservative wingnuts should have voted for Kerry cuz he has to be better than * with the economy and the national debt.

With that said, * and KKKarl Rove had the wingnuts fooled out of their tiny brains and convinced them that Kerry was a Tax and spend liberal. The reality however is that * is a Tax cut and dollar sinking no paying for anything now while puting stuff on our grandchildren's credit mutherfucker. The pundits knew that. Scarboy from MSNBC said on Lou Dobbs that it was a worrysome situation.

[chaska]

13. Hi Xultar, my co-Clark compatriat.

I love your avatar!

[xultar]

26. Merci Buckets baby! n/t

[SmokingJacket]

2. I've NEVER met a bigot who is financially liberal.

Theoretically I agree with you. But for some mysterious reason... people who vote for tax breaks for the wealthy are also strangely unsympathetic to minorities. Just my observation.

Social and financial liberalism tend to go hand in hand.

Maybe you're thinking of some people in particular?

Haven't met them, myself.

[chaska]

8. Yes, it has been awhile. Those people used to be everywhere...

We must change hearts and minds. Working men must come to recognize (again) that they are voting for the wrong party.

[gayrebel83]

11. I really hope that by "working MEN" you meant "working PEOPLE"

n/t

[gayrebel83]

3. Social conservatism is every bit as harmful as fiscal conservatism

And MORE harmful if you are a minority.

"His social bigotry is a damn site less harmful than the socially liberal centrist who can only see as deeply as the bottom of his pocket."

Try telling that to a victim of racism, sexism, or homophobia. :eyes:

[chaska]

5. This is the hole I was referring to.

There are ways to deal with these issues. I don't excuse them, but this is not the issue I'm addressing.

[gayrebel83]

7. Are you white, black, etc.? Male or female? Gay/straight/bi?

please enlighten me

[chaska]

17. Hey GR...

I haven't got all the answers, but my intentions are good and I do think I have some of the answers.

I understand your feelings on this. I don't say these things shouldn't be addressed. I am saying that by allowing ourselves to be drawn into these debates we are losing. Bigots exist. They aren't going away. If we get them to embrace the idea of fairness on the financial side maybe, just maybe we can get them to put up with us doing the right thing on the social front.

The main thing I'm saying though is that we've lost truth. We don't know what anything means anymore. We need to go back to the original text book definitions of liberal and conservative and take it from there.

[Midlodemocrat]

4. I disagree with almost everything you have said

...Social Issues are what separates us from the Republicans. Our concern for the less fortunate is what makes us truly compassionate and not just 'compassionate conservative'. I disagree that a person who is well off financially is more of a threat because the haven't been challenged in racial/gender areas. I am probably what you would consider well-off, and I donated our entire tax cut to charity. It is just as hard to be in situations where you are the ONLY liberal, listening as people describe over and over how much money they have and how we should all be so happy GWB is in power. They don't realize that their portfolios did much better under Clinton.

Additionally, where would funds for the democratic party come from if not for wealthy democrats? I donated the max to Clark, Edwards and Kerry this year in an effort to defeat Bush, as did each of my brothers. The money part is important. Social justice is very important. It is who we are.

[InvisibleBallots]

36. all that money you gave, and Bush still "won"

I disagree with almost everything you said. As for where the Democrats will get their money without wealthy liberals - small donations by lots of people, as opposed to large donations by bigwigs, that's how.

In the end - it's the votes that count - not the cash.

[Midlodemocrat]

53. Yes, the votes count

...but the OP was indicating that the democrats should abandon social justice in favor of fiscal conservatism. Social justice is who the democrats are. And, I don't believe Bush won. There is just too much evidence of voter fraud.

[InvisibleBallots]

54. Economic justice is who the Democrats are

I don't believe the OP was indicating that we should abandon social justice in favor of fiscal conservatism - not at all.

[Midlodemocrat]

55. See, that is a funny thing

about posting, because that is exactly what I thought. I thought the OP was indicating fiscal conservatism in lieu of social justice. Funny how two people can read the exact same words and come away with totally different reactions.

[TexasBushwhacker]

6. Social issues ARE financial issues

because more often than not, what you're voting about is the funding of "social" programs - education, healthcare, decent housing, etc.

However, I agree that I'd prefer that the Democrats get back where they used to be.

[chaska]

10. I don't agree that those are social issues...

Those issues cost money, therefore they are financial issues. Abortion, homosexuality, religion those issues aren't about money. They are designed to tie us in knots. To keep our attention diverted while the Republicans steal all the money.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. i agree with you.....which is why i hate guiliani and schwartnegger

those people will sell all their socially progressive values for a bigger tax cut.

[chaska]

12. Thanks Lioness.

I don't mean to denigrate social issues at all. Please understand that.

[gayrebel83]

14. By subordinating social issues to economic ones,

you ARE denigrating social issues.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. no, hes not...thats not the point really

[chaska]

18. Please see my answer to you above GR.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. i dont either...but class is the biggest discriminator

as in : i believe rich gay black man is MUCH less discriminated against than a poor white male (now ofcourse there are probably 5 rich gay black males...but thats not the point)

[gayrebel83]

19. It depends on the setting...

In some settings the rich gay black man will have the upper hand, but in others, the poor straight white male will have the advantage. Elevating one factor (such as class) over others (such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is a grave error.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. look in a perfect world none of these things would exist

but i am willing to give up gay marriage for socialized health care.

thats all i am saying.

[gayrebel83]

21. Are you straight or gay?

n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. neither i am bi...and before you get all holier than thou on me

i was with my gf for 3 years and did want to marry her...i am with a man now and if it comes to it...we will have a commitment ceremony and not a legal marriage because of the whole discrimination issue. not being able to get married has not really changed my life much...but watching/knowing about people without healthcare die has.

[gorbal]

23. I'd give up straight marriage

Anything to afford to see a doctor.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. see! thats my point!

i would love to see some of my gay friends married...i really would...but not if i know it was at the cost of poor people not getting health insurance!

[gayrebel83]

29. That's fine (and I'm inclined to agree), but...

...subordinating one issue to another is not the answer. If anything, it's playing right into the hands of the conservatives because it ensures that while they lose in one area (in this case, economics), they will win in other areas (civil, gay, and women's rights).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. i am sorry but were you paying attention this election?

we have lost our hold because we are becoming the party of the social liberal adn the fiscally conservative

[gayrebel83]

33. It's more like...

...the party of the social moderate and the fiscally conservative.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. true!

[gayrebel83]

37. Wow! We agree on something

To you and chaska, please consider me a friend and ally who merely disagrees on how to go about opposing the right. :-)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. if you want to know where i also disagree is whether marriage

should even be the focus of the gay movement...i think its also hijacked by gay yuppies...

whatever happened to protecting against workplace discrimination against sexual orientation?

[chaska]

41. I think we are in danger of losing the concept of fairness as a...

desirable end. Nobody fights for fairness anymore. The financially poor fools now voting with the pugs actively speak against fairness.

I'm a real dem in every sense, socially as well as fiscally. But I wonder if we aren't hurting the very desirablity of fairness by choosing to lose these battles on social issues with the republicans.

I just don't see how we can ever win on these issues until we reestablish the desirability of fairness. I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that we must regain power by going after the working man based on pocketbook issues. Once he figures out that he's getting screwed by the pugs, then maybe he'll realized that that sort of treatment ain't right for anybody.

But as it stands now, most people simply aren't able to rise above this sort of division. People apparently need enemies. People find it far too easy to hate others not like themselves. We are being manipulated by the right. They know exactly the right buttons to push. If we continue to take their bait we lose.

Take the battle to them - our issues, the ones we can win on (money issues). Don't take their bait. Always play offense.

[chaska]

24. Many of you have pointed to the hole I left...

Believe me, I have struggled with this. Why is it more important that we vote based on our financial/class standing in the society over social issue?

I don't have a great answer to the question. I hope you all can help me flesh things out. I know that in political science classes this is the definition they teach, that liberal vs conservative is based on money/resourse issues. And, I do believe that moeny is the central issue in this country - always has been, always will be. We are always free to vote for whatever reason. Mainly, like GW, I'm going with my gut here. But, do think it works better if we go back to FDR era definitions.

[gayrebel83]

27. FDR era?

You mean the time when white male financial liberals were more than happy to leave black and other non-white people hanging out to dry in exchange for getting their bills past?

[InvisibleBallots]

28. chaska, I understand exactly how you feel!

Frankly, these wealthy, "socially liberal, fiscally conservatives" sound more like Rockefeller Republicans than Democrats to me.

I'd rather share the party with other working class Americans who may disagree with me on social issues, than to share it with yuppies who agree with me on social issues, but want to privatize Social Security and deregulate corporations.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. thats exactly how i feel

the yuppies have only greed as their excuse atleast the socially bigoted have some convictions (i dont agree with them, nor do i condone bigotry) but there is nothing quite as callous as greed

[InvisibleBallots]

42. true - plus I think bigotry can be cured

through education and experience. Greed, however, cannot.

[chaska]

31. Do it! Ban abortion! Break S.S.! Deny Gay Rights! Ignore Racism!

This is JanMichael's thread title. His point is that Democrats are in danger of becoming Republicans.

I would like to point out that all of those but Social Security are social issues and that we are losing on all of them. I'm not saying that we should abandon those issues, I'm saying that we should be going after the same voters but with different bait. The bigot has to pay his bill just like the rest of us. And you can bet your ass that the size of his paycheck is more important to him than any of these social issues. We can't allow ourselves to be drawn into these debates. WE MUST SET THE TERMS AND SUBJECT OF THE DEBATE. Let's talk about our issues. As far as our side is concerned the above issues are settled, why do we need to talk about them ... unless we have to defend them. And if we are playing defense, we are losing.

[InvisibleBallots]

35. the majority of Americans are anti-abortion - and pro-choice

Just as an example - The majority of Americans, and Democrats I believe, are "against abortion" - they think of it as a sometimes necessary evil. The do not want to make it illegal, or deny any women the right to terminate a pregnancy, but they do not want to support abortion or promote it. Clinton was the perfect example - abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare".

Now compare this attitude to the attitude of a small minority who believe that abortion is always okay, that abortion should never be criticized or regulated in any way. That's far, far away from the position of most Americans.

[gorbal]

39. What really got to me

What really got to me during the last election was how the fact that their were less abortions under Clinton than under Bush was brought up so rarely that I never saw it.

[InvisibleBallots]

44. really, really good point gorbal

We should have hammered them on this - Bush's policies make abortions more common, while Clinton's policies reduced them. I swear, I think half the Democratic "leaders" want to lose.

[KoKo]

40. I agree with most of what you say....n/t

[chaska]

43. Thanks Koko, I agree with MOST of what I sad too. :^)

I haven't got it all figured out by a long shot. I'm troubled by the fact that my thesis seems to lead to giving up on defending minorities. And if you knew me you'd see that I am very much a fighter for the underdog regardless of race, gender, orientation, whatever. I'm not sure I'm prepared to agree with myself if that's where my thesis leads, but this much seems clear: We currently fight on these issues, and we are getting our asses kicked.

Am I wrong to think that maybe it would be smarter to fight other battles that we can win? That doesn't mean we have to give up our principles on these social issues. But we should not allow ourselves to be dragged into a debate that we know we can't win. We should fight battles that we can win, and only those. If we don't soon win somewhere, we will soon win nowhere.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. I agree

While I support the party's current positions on behavioral issues, the Republicanites love to and easily can get people hysterical enough to forget their own interests. It's reminiscent of what happened in Korea in the nineteenth century, when people's energies were consumed with the question of whether Korean men should adopt Western dress. The debate raged for years, with people going ballistic on both sides. Meanwhile, Russia and Japan were slowly taking over their government.

The behavioral issues should stay as they are, but they should not be the ones most loudly trumpeted unless a candidate is dealing directly with one of the groups affected.

If you say you're for gay rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, and decriminalization of drugs but then go parrotting the RW memes of "being more friendly to business," "getting rid of burdensome regulations," "making people responsible for their own retirement," "giving parents school vouchers," "privatizing government functions for greater efficiency," "eliminating quotas," "free trade," and "you can handle your money better than the government can," guess what?

You're not a Democrat.

You're a yuppie Libertarian, who follows the upper class standard of "do anything you want as long as it doesn't cause a scandal" and is okay with eliminating taxes on corporations, letting them pollute the environment and treat workers like shit, getting rid of Social Security, destroying the public schools, supporting the prison industrial complex and having McDonald's franchises in the national parks, letting employers discriminate as they please, shipping jobs overseas, and cutting taxes on the wealthy.

I've maintained for a long time that one reason people today are so intransigent on the personal behavior issues is that they're scared about their economic future, especially if they see nothing ahead of them but forty years of low wage jobs and no retirement security or even any security before retirement.

Note that the greatest advances in civil rights in this country were made during a period of economic prosperity. I was alive during those days, and I recall feeling optimistic, because it seemed as if absolutely everything was getting better all the time and America could do anything.

With more economic security, a lot of people would find themselves too happy to hate anyone or worry about someone else's sex life.

[InvisibleBallots]

51. from your lips to every Democrats ears, Lydia

"If you say you're for gay rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, and decriminalization of drugs but then go parrotting the RW memes of "being more friendly to business," "getting rid of burdensome regulations," "making people responsible for their own retirement," "giving parents school vouchers," "privatizing government functions for greater efficiency," "eliminating quotas," "free trade," and "you can handle your money better than the government can," guess what?

You're not a Democrat.

You're a yuppie Libertarian, who follows the upper class standard of "do anything you want as long as it doesn't cause a scandal" and is okay with eliminating taxes on corporations, letting them pollute the environment and treat workers like shit, getting rid of Social Security, destroying the public schools, supporting the prison industrial complex and having McDonald's franchises in the national parks, letting employers discriminate as they please, shipping jobs overseas, and cutting taxes on the wealthy."

:) :) :) :) BEST POST EVER! :) :) :) :)

[American Tragedy]

46. That social bigot is pretty damned harmful

when he advocates that law enforcement should invade our own bodies and homes, and arbitrarily deny opportunities to Americans who have invested just as much in this country as everyone else.

I suspect that I may be one of the well-to-do social liberals of whom you speak. I do support the New Deal and Great Society, a progressive tax code, regulations on the medical-industrial complex, etc. but I am a civil libertarian first and foremost. I fiercely believe in individual freedom. It's not a question of my stances so much as my priorities.

I find your comment that it's easy to be socially liberal when you don't know any ethnic or sexual minorities to be somewhat counterintuitive. Wouldn't the opposite be true?

[chaska]

48. I've had second thoughts about what I said in this area...

I don't condemn anyone that supports working class issues, and there are those with money that do. I guess I'm not exempt from needing enemies myself. But in a quiet moment calmer instincts prevail.

About the havoc wreaked by the social bigots, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that they're pretty harmless until you give 'em a megaphone. And engaging them on their issues in the public arena is giving them a megaphone.

The GOP has gotten really good at controlling what issues are discussed. Until we change this we are scuh-rude.

I find your comment that it's easy to be socially liberal when you don't know any ethnic or sexual minorities to be somewhat counterintuitive. Wouldn't the opposite be true?

Yes, but it's a complicated question. When put into contact with someone different from you and conflict occurs, as it will, it is easy to hate. It takes some smarts and understanding to not paint everybody of this group with your broad brush of nastiness.

A person who has not had this negative experience with this "different" person is untested. I've seen a lot of people who hate entire groups of people based on purely personal experiences, on individual incidences. A LOT of people fall into this pattern. The untested person is just as likely to fall into this behavior.

[InvisibleBallots]

50. actually, I have to agree with this

"I find your comment that it's easy to be socially liberal when you don't know any ethnic or sexual minorities to be somewhat counterintuitive. Wouldn't the opposite be true?"

Not at all. It's easy to talk about how much you support people of other ethnic groups when you don't know or see any of them. I know about half a million white liberals who like to pat each other on the back about how non-racist they are - these same people hardly see any non-whites, unless they are serving them food or cleaning their house.

When you actually live among people of other ethnic groups, and have the same lifestyle and living standard as they do, real racial and ethnic tensions crop up on a regular basis. Wealthy white liberals living in their gated white communities can talk all day about how much they love their Latina housekeeper, but it's just not the same thing now is it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. The prime example is the Boston school desegregation case

of the 1970s.

Liberals were tut-tutting about those horrible working class people in South Boston who objected to having black students bused into their neighborhood, but you didn't see black students being bused into the wealthy parts of the Boston metropolitan area, now did you?

(Note that I'm not saying that the South Boston protestors were right to object to the black students, only that they were correct in their perception that they were being asked to do something that the rich and powerful were not willing to do.)

[kentuck]

47. I think there is a lot of value in what you say....

It is a 'pick your poison' situation...

[chaska]

49. Lydia your post is beautiful. Loved it....

While I support the party's current positions on behavioral issues, the Republicanites love to and easily can get people hysterical enough to forget their own interests.

I think this may be the big lesson we need to learn at this point in history.

If you say you're for gay rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, and decriminalization of drugs but then go parrotting the RW memes of "being more friendly to business," "getting rid of burdensome regulations," "making people responsible for their own retirement," "giving parents school vouchers," "privatizing government functions for greater efficiency," "eliminating quotas," "free trade," and "you can handle your money better than the government can," guess what?

You're not a Democrat.

You're a yuppie Libertarian, who follows the upper class standard of "do anything you want as long as it doesn't cause a scandal" and is okay with eliminating taxes on corporations, letting them pollute the environment and treat workers like shit, getting rid of Social Security, destroying the public schools, supporting the prison industrial complex and having McDonald's franchises in the national parks, letting employers discriminate as they please, shipping jobs overseas, and cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Statement of the year. Stupendous! You have a great memory BTW. I can never remember all those specific issues.

Note that the greatest advances in civil rights in this country were made during a period of economic prosperity. I was alive during those days, and I recall feeling optimistic, because it seemed as if absolutely everything was getting better all the time and America could do anything.

With more economic security, a lot of people would find themselves too happy to hate anyone or worry about someone else's sex life.

Buh-rill-i-ant!!! Sing it, sister!

[Kahuna]

56. "Those who used to make up our party????" What are you talking about?

I keep asking about the "liberal utopia" DUers keep referring too. In fifty years, and thirty two years as a Democrat, I've never seen it. When oh when will somebody explain when this liberal utopia existed?