Who Are the Republicans (Revised)

[joemurphy]

Who Are the Republicans? (Revised)

I did a draft of this a few days ago and wasn't satisfied with it. I've redone it to clarify some points. I'd be interested in comment from you if you think I'm wrong or if a more precise break down of the hard-core Republican coalition is in order.

Anyway, here’s what I think.

1. The Rich. Money is a major key to power in the U.S. and the Rich are powerful because they have it. The Rich basically own this country. The top 4 or 5% of our population own around 45% of it. The top 10% own even more. These people are usually well educated. They have a generational ticket into the country’s best schools. They don’t have to worry about health care, retirement, credit card debt, whether they’ll have a job tomorrow, or where their next meal is going to come from. They see the Democrats as a threat because the Democrats like to tax them, redistribute their money, and minimize their capacity for increasing their wealth. They therefore vote Republican because they see it as being in their economic best interests to do so. Republican governments invariably make them richer. The Rich oppose governmental regulation because they see it as expensive, as cutting into their profits, and as putting a brake on their freedom of action. Government –any government--is to them, needlessly bureaucratic, inefficient, and wasteful. Government is not run according to “business principles.” Business, in the view of the Rich, are inherently efficient, productive, and therefore worthy of praise. The Rich see themselves as “business managers” and best suited, by breeding, education, and sense of entitlement, to run the country. The Rich love corporations because corporations insulate their managers from liability, render those managers unaccountable to the clueless shareholders, and are run along hierarchic lines. They think government should basically work the same way. The Rich hate unions for the same reasons that they hate governmental regulation. Unions interfere with management decision-making and cut into profits. Free trade is attractive because it’s based on laissez-faire principles and permits business managers to essentially do whatever they want with their enterprises (unless, of course, things go south -- then the Rich want, and usually get trade protection, Federal assistance, tax breaks, or bailouts). The Rich hate paying taxes because taxes cut into their wealth and because the money generated from the taxes is used for wasteful public, rather than efficient private, purposes. The wealthiest of the Rich usually never did much to get their money in the first place. Generally, they inherited it, and continuing to keep it in the family is important to them. Although the Rich worship Horatio Alger stories about self-made men and “captains of industry”, they have no qualms about passing their wealth on to their progeny, who typically have done nothing whatsoever to earn it. Unfortunately, the Rich are numerically few. They have money, but they also need votes to continue to win elections, put their kind of people in power, and thus maintain their cozy niche at the top of the economic pyramid. Getting the necessary votes requires distasteful compromises. Hence the Rich have wed themselves, for pragmatic reasons, to the following set of Republican bedfellows:

2. The Fundies. These are the people that see America’s biggest problems as its pluralism and its social permissiveness. The secularism, relativism, pluralism, tolerance, and general irreverence of the Democratic Party repels them. The Fundies are true-believers and a ready source of committed activists. Abortion genuinely troubles most of them. They see homosexuality as perversion -- a decadent life choice rather than an innate sexual orientation. Pornography and sexual permissiveness disgust them. For Fundies, faith is more important than thought. This is why many Democrats find it impossible to argue with them. Fundie logic always comes down to Biblical principals and if you can’t accept those as a basic starting point you can never get anywhere by debating them. Fundies are uncomfortable with social change because social change challenges inherently correct traditional values that they live by. Fundies find the answers to most of their problems in one passage or another of the Christian Bible – usually in the Old Testament. A multicultural society with disparate opinions and values worries them because such a society is necessarily secular, pluralistic and not exclusively Christian. Many Fundies strongly back the state of Israel because they see its existence as foreordained in the Bible. But, paradoxically, they don’t care much for Jews in their own country because the Jews aren’t Christian. Muslims, Buddhists, and practitioners of other non-Christian religions get similar treatment. Catholics, while Christian, aren’t very popular with Fundies either. Catholics are beholden to the Pope and their true loyalties are therefore questionable. Fundies are generally absolutists. They long for certainty in a world that is uncertain, constantly changing, and that isn't simply black or white. As a consequence, they see that world as threatening. Science troubles Fundies because it has the nasty habit of contradicting the literal words of the Book of Genesis. Popular culture worries them too. As a consequence, Fundies find reassurance in their homes, churches, and families – preferring the company of their co-religionists to that of misguided or sinful outsiders. Fundies hate feminists. Feminism threatens the male-dominated hierarchic family structure embodied in the Bible that they borrow as a model for their own familial existence. The man makes the decisions in the prototypical Fundie household and the little wife, under this model, is supposed to follow along because “father knows best.” Fundies are the people that home-school their kids, are sickened by the thought of gay marriage, and see nothing wrong with institutionalizing Christian prayer in the public schools. Because they believe in salvation only through Christ, believers in other theologies, atheists, and agnostics are all seen by Fundies as erring sinners. This exclusivity causes them to often be self-righteously intolerant of the beliefs of others unlike themselves. Some Fundies are Millenarians – believing that the end of the world is near. Others are Creationists or followers of variations of the Intelligent Design theory. Still others are of the pro-life ilk that gave us the Terri Schiavo carnival. The Rich, who really run the Republican party, keep the Fundies voting Republican by throwing them an occasional bone -- a pro-life Supreme Court appointee, an anti flag-burning amendment, or an amendment allowing prayer in the public schools – usually just to energize the Fundie base and thereby garner Fundie votes. But, in truth, the Rich (who generally aren’t fundamentalists themselves and are really just as secular as the average Democrat) aren’t really that comfortable around the Fundies either. The Rich don’t share Fundie beliefs, and personally don’t really care for a lot of their values. Nancy Reagan’s recent conversion to the value of stem-cell research is an example of this. The Pentecostal John Ashcroft (who felt the need to hang a cloth over the naked breasts of a statue of Justice), was generally considered as something of a joke by most non-Fundie Republicans. Hence, the Republican sops to the Fundie wing of the party are often empty rhetoric. Bush can publicly call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay-marriage, for example, because he is privately secure in the knowledge that such has no real chance of passage. Until the present administration, mollifying the Fundies has never been a major concern for the Rich (who, after all, really are the ones that set the Republican Party’s agenda) because the Rich know that, outside of the Republican party, the Fundies really have nowhere else to go. The Fundies are important to the Rich, however, because there are a lot of them out there, they vote, and they’re a powerful bloc if you can keep them aroused and motivated. Just ask Karl Rove.

3. The Libertarians. The Libertarians are a strange group that simultaneously idealizes laissez-faire capitalism and radically permissive private and social lifestyle behaviors. The economic side of the Libertarian equation, however, is more important to them than the permissive behavioral side. As a result, Libertarians are usually reliably Republican voters. Libertarians are usually well-educated people. While seldom extremely wealthy, there are enough of them around that they can fund some very loud think-tanks such as the Cato Institute. Libertarians view any governmental regulation as a bad thing. It is government that keeps these rugged individualists from climbing to the top of the economic ladder. Aside from having an army for defensive purposes, radical Libertarians don’t see any use for government at all and, if empowered, would move to eliminate it entirely. The Rich are idolized by Libertarians. As they see it, the Rich are the winners in the game of life -- having acquired their wealth through “good ideas,” hard work, and honest effort. Lots of Libertarians are small businessmen or wage slaves that see themselves as would-be businessmen. Many think that they too could be rich if only the government would “get off of their backs”. Libertarians worship “property” and “free enterprise”. They see property ownership and laissez faire capitalism as dual solutions to virtually all human problems. Some Libertarians would even privatize our highway system -- turning it into a vast conglomerate of toll roads – if they could only get their way. Corporations are fine with Libertarians. Libertarians hate taxes because taxation prevents them from becoming wealthy and because the money raised from taxes is used to fund the governmental programs the Libertarian doesn’t like. Many Libertarians see themselves as intellectuals, basing their philosophy in the writings of Ayn Rand. When pressed, Libertarians are usually extremely vague about the kind of a world that their philosophy –if implemented--would lead to. The fact that there has historically never been a truly Libertarian society anywhere in the world (the closest thing we’ve ever had to it in America was the era of the “Robber Barons”) is one of the most telling criticisms of the doctrine. Most Libertarians simplistically forget that there are historical reasons why we have the Fed, the FDIC, Social Security, and the FDA. Socially speaking, orthodox Libertarians are pro-choice. They also, quite logically, don’t mind people carrying guns around with them. Unlike the Fundies, gay marriage doesn’t bother them. They would even legalize the use of heroin and tolerate prostitution. After all, your body is also property and you ought to be able to do what you want with your property. But despite their radically individualistic and secular social beliefs, when it comes right down to voting, Libertarians almost invariably align themselves with the Republican Party – perhaps because they view the GOP as the traditional party of entrepreneurs or because they see the Democratic party as too regulatory. In so doing the Libertarians invariably ally themselves not only with their idols – the Rich, but also with their enemies, the Fundies – a group that is the antithesis of everything Libertarians believe in from a social standpoint. Aside from perhaps some occasional business support (which the Libertarians professedly don’t want) or an occasional minor tax break, the Rich reward Libertarian devotion with exactly nothing. Go figure.

4. The Anti-Liberals. This is the biggest group of Republican voters in my opinion. They are usually white, mostly, but not always male, and their basic common denominator is an inability to empathize with anyone other than themselves. They may or may not be well-educated. Their overriding characteristic is that they are extremely self-absorbed. They are usually not very interested in politics and too apathetic to be big-time Republican activists. Rather, they tend to vote Republican simply because it’s something they’ve always done and see no reason to change. Because they've never been hungry, homeless, discriminated against, or gay-bashed, they find it hard to relate to those that have. They view themselves as hard-working, but regard the poor as lazy. They don’t care much for Blacks, Hispanics, or gays because they have never associated with these people, don’t relate to their aspirations, and really don’t care to make any effort to understand their problems. Anti-Liberals are the kind of people that see affirmative action as reverse discrimination. They don’t like taxes and see government as merely a state-created system for doling money out to persons other than themselves. They are mistrustful of intellectuals because such people are seen as impractical, laughably politically correct, and lacking in common sense. Anti-Liberals are the kind of people that called Adlai Stevenson an "egghead" and felt more comfortable voting for a regular guy like Eisenhower. The fact that Kerry spoke French wasn’t seen as something admirable by the Anti-Liberals. Rather it was seen as something vaguely un-American, highbrow, and effete. Foreign things aren’t exactly popular with xenophobes. Anti-Liberals like Bush because they see him as being a “regular guy”-- the sort of person you’d be comfortable having a beer with. Anti-Liberals don't read much, don’t pay a lot of attention to hard news, and aren’t much for “big ideas”. All that is seen as pretension or affectation to them. Instead, they happily swim in a low-brow milieu of canned popular culture – taking their pleasure in bowling alleys, NASCAR races, and country music and getting their information from Fox News. Anti-Liberals don’t care about current events because they don’t see politics as affecting their lives very much. Most aren't particularly rich, but think that maybe someday they can be. They see the Rich as having earned their wealth and that they therefore should be allowed to keep it. Anti-Liberals hate taxes because they don’t think they get any benefit from them. They are attracted to flat taxes because they see them as egalitarian and simple. This group likes guns, especially hand guns that they all too readily mistakenly use on perceived intruders or, in angry moments, on their wives. While there are hunters among them, few are engaged enough, or have enough of a developed sense of the commonweal, to be big environmentalists. They generally see the Democrats as naive, lacking in common sense, and as being stupidly tender-hearted.They love Rush Limbaugh because he talks like them, thinks like them, and confirms their rather narrow view of the world. Although normally lethargic, Anti-Liberals can be extremely patriotic. Their patriotism is usually of the mindless “my country right or wrong” variety which is manifested more often in symbols than enlistments. Lots fly the flag in their yards, put tiny copies of the Stars and Stripes on their coat lapels, and affix yellow ribbons to the backs of their SUVs. These are the people that still think Saddam had something to do with 911 and believe that Iraq’s WMDs were all secretly shipped away to Syria. “Liberal” is, of course, a dirty word to the Anti-Liberal, although few could explain what “liberalism” is or why it is such a bad thing. Most view “liberals” as kooks – radicals that police their language, disdain their lifestyle, or espouse far left causes. The Rich keep the Anti-Liberals voting Republican by giving them occasionally paltry tax breaks, bombarding them with simplistic television news spin, characterizing Democrats as zany nutcases, and by employing wedge issues like “reverse discrimination” or bogeymen like Saddam to keep the Anti-Liberals passions fearful and aroused. More than this is seldom necessary because the most Anti-Liberals usually vote Republican no matter what happens. They always have and they simply aren’t socially engaged or committed enough to do otherwise.

5. The Heirarchs. I call this group Heirachs because another word for them, “Supremacists”, has been co-opted by the likes of the Militiamen and the Neo-Nazi Skinheads (who dislike Republicans just as much as they dislike Democrats). By Heirarchs, I mean those people that see themselves as superior to the unwashed and uneducated masses that they see as populating the Democratic party. The Republican party, being whiter and more Anglo-Saxon, is more to the Heirarch’s liking. Heirarchs are the sort of people that think Blacks are mentally inferior to whites – either inherently or because of their poor education. They likewise view Hispanics as fit only for menial labor for essentially the same reasons. Most Heirarchs do nothing to actively harm Blacks, Hispanics, or gays, but they don’t like being around them and don’t do anything to help them. They see themselves as being deservedly at the top of an economic, educational, racial, or genetic pecking-order. Helping the lower-downs in this pecking order might upset the natural order or things. Many Heirarchs are economic or social Darwinists, who believe that the poor are that way because there is something inherently inferior about them. Some Heirarchs are smarmy pundits – the self-styled aristocrats that typically occupy the Republican chair in what passes for news on evening cable TV – the sort that snigger when reference is made to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Other Heirarchs are more mundane -- the sort of people that see the neighborhood as falling apart if a black family moves in. The least educated of the Heirarchs shade off into what we usually think of as “Rednecks” -- the Bubbas that like to fly Confederate flags to irritate Blacks. Many of these kinds of Heirarchs tend to live in rural areas or in gated suburban communities – where minorities are thankfully few – as opposed to living in urban areas, where one must actually see, work with, and associate with Blacks and Hispanics first hand. Heirarchs, particularly those of the rural Redneck variety, also love their guns. Some Heirarchs, of course, are outright bigots – the dangerous sort of people that burn crosses, beat up gays, or deface Jewish cemeteries. There are fewer and fewer of these people around, thankfully, but when they vote, they certainly don’t vote Democratic. The Republican party isn’t particularly happy about Heirachs in their party. They sometimes become embarrassments. But the Rich still need their votes. That’s why you hear a lot of weasel words from Republicans about “school vouchers”, “reverse discrimination” and “enforced busing”, and the evils of “bilingual education”. Such code words have an appeal to a certain segment of the Republican constituency. Republicans know this and freely capitalize on it.

This mixed bag, in my opinion, constitutes the hard-core Republican voting bloc. These are the 30%-40% of the country that can be reliably counted upon to vote for George W. Bush (or any other Republican candidate) come hell or high water, in good times or in bad.

[tabasco]

1. Interesting post Joe.

Thanks. I think you've done a good analysis.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

2. Good analysis. There are subgroups looking to the Democrats

Not the Efungelical zealots or the anti-liberals or the Heirarchist..these are the hard-core Republicans.

But, even among the super-wealthy, there are Democratic supporters. In the long-established upper-middle class families, you will find many Democratic supporters. These families realize that taxes are necessary for the greater good of our society. The "new money" crowd is more likely to vote Republican because they are much less secure in their position/wealth.

Some libertarians (not the compound-building survivalist types) who primarily identify with the right to privacy, see greater hope in the Democratic party than the intrusive meddling shown by the current Republican party.

My point is that not all of the groups are off limits to Democrats.

[joemurphy]

10. Right. I think you're right there.

I know some affluent people -- not the super rich, but people with $100,000+ incomes -- that vote Democratic. These people are usually professionals. A lot of them are lawyers, medical professionals, and some small businessmen.

Why the super-rich tend to be Republican puzzles me somewhat. Not all are, of course. George Soros comes to mind as an example.
But an awful lot of them -- particularly the old money types -- seem to be.

What I don't understand is the need to acquire more wealth when you already have so much. How many Rolls Royces is it necessary to own?

I would think after having amassed so much, one would begin to think about improving the lot of others. But it doesn't seem to work that way. Arianna Huffington, reportedly, turned liberal when she discovered she couldn't elicit charitable contributions from wealthy friends for AIDS victims.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

14. I see the opposite

Old money, well educated, well traveled voting for Democrats while new money (aka pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps) being more hardcore Republican because they are less secure in wealth/status.

Taxation is viewed as necessary for the overall good of society but wasteful, pork spending turns these voters off. With the current administration and Republican Congress spending like drunken sailors these days, believe me, they are more than a little POed and looking to the Democrats.

[YOY]

23. because George Soros IS the Horatio Alger story come to life

...and is not borne down by insular cultural discrepancies involving more leftist ideas.

That and he's a fairly charitable man.

[ProudDad]

67. My ancestors on my mother's side

were "old rich" republicans. (My mother still is).

They were mainly socially "liberal". They were real "Fiscal Conservatives" who believed in an efficient government at the least cost.

However they felt a sense of noblese-oblige, the duty of the aristocracy to help those who were the least fortunate among us (but it was NEVER enough help!).

My grandmothers, grandfathers and great-greats would be appalled at this current cabal of BORROW AND SPEND neo-con fascists.

[joemurphy]

20. I think you're right about these two groups.

Interestingly, in trying to do this, I was struck by some of the contradictions in the Republican bloc. In many ways it's as wierd and cobbled together as the Democratic base.

Maybe you're right about the old money/new money dichotomy. I also think that Libertarians - particularly those that are more concerned with individual and societal freedom than with owning property or operating a business are potential Democratic voters.

I note that you call yourself a Moderate Republican. What brings you to DU? Also, what motivates you to be a Republican voter?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just interested to know.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

22. Here you go

Came from your typical upper-middle class household with a Republican-registered but independently voting father and a Roosevelt-Democrat but independently voting mother. Both parents supported the general principles of their respective parties but NEVER went for the straight party ticket line: They voted for individuals not the party.

As a student, I watched the Iran hostage crisis drag on for over a year and, although I respect Carter as a former President, I could not understand his impotence during that situation. I also thought that busing was ridiculous and poor policy. I was drawn to the Reagan image and thought the idea of smaller gov't (promises) was what I wanted...hence, I registered Republican. I have learned a lot more since visiting DU, but that was my logic back then.

As the Republican party began to pander more and more to the efungelical zealots, I found I had less in common with them. I almost voted for Perot, but I voted Clinton (HATED Dan Quayle more than BushI), voted Gore and voted Kerry. I find this new breed of theocratic neocon repulsive, regressive and arrogant while incompetent. I detest their foreign policy and their domestic policy initiatives.

I recently sent my 'change party affiliation' letter in to my county to change to Democrat. I've always been an Independent voter and never thought party affiliation mattered much, but I became increasingly ashamed to be associated with the theocratic neocon party and figured they no longer care about or respect moderation; hence, they don't want moderates. I know MANY liberal/moderate (aka Rockefeller Republicans) who have now left the Republican party (some went Dem, some Independent and some Libertarian)

Sorry this turned out to be so long but maybe it has some useful insight.:toast:

[joemurphy]

26. Thanks! Interesting story. Appreciate the detail n/t

[eallen]

3. Any libertarian who supports the current GOP is confused.

The two hallmarks of libertarianism are civil liberties and smaller government. The current GOP opposes civil liberties and has made government larger, more intrusive, and more expensive. The libertarian-conservative partnership made more sense before the religious right took over the GOP. Today, any libertarian still in the party fold is terribly confused. Or not very libertarian.

[Iris]

17. The gov't may be larger, more intrusive and more expensive now, but that's

probably part of some grand scheme to "starve the beast." So, essentially, people who don't like government might be a little uncomfortable, but then they'll have a brief hiatus before they realize now they are subject to the whims of big business.

[AmandaRuth]

4. The one thing i would add

is under the anti--liberal group. The ironic thing is that anti-liberals love to live the liberal lifestyle and enjoy liberal attitudes and ideas while claiming they hate liberals, such as union wages and job protection, laws regulating hours in a work week and guaranteeing overtime pay, divorce, cohabitation, birth control, and abortion.

[joemurphy]

6. Good point! There's certainly an element of hypocrisy there

When you think about the 20th Century, it was really a struggle that culminated in the triumph of most "liberal" causes -- an end to child labor, a 40-hour work week, Social Security pension and disability insurance, government regulation of food and drugs, creation of national parks, occupational safety laws, worker's compensation, Medicaire and Medicaid.

And, of course, civil rights.

All of these had the effect of raising living standards and enhancing the American middle class.

I wonder if part of the Democratic Party's problem is its past successes. Most of its causes in the past have be won and enacted into law. The effort now seems to be mostly defending them.

Of course there's the issue of national health insurance that's still out there and unwon. And it's a biggie. But there don't seem to be any real overarching causes to occupy Democrats anymore.

What do you think?

[AmandaRuth]

12. I wouldn't look to any national media to give you any sort of

"Dem message". It all has to come from the ground up. I can tell you in my local dem group we have major concerns and causes we believe in and work towards, national health care being one of them. Along with fairness and truthfulness in the media, verified voting, campaign reform, tax fairness, energy independence, a bunch of stuff.

I don't particularly support the DLC, don't send the money to the dems on a national level, but do support time and money wise my local party and local issues. Our local group has grown from a few members meeting monthly, to 50 or so that show up regularly in a library. I have a mailing list of another 500. I live a rural red area of a blue state, and we work for awareness one person at a time.

We have been doing the summer community festivals, and at first it was very scary for me to work at a booth in an area that hasn't elected a dem in some time, but fortunately we have had more good experiences than bad - I think one of the successes of the big right wing noise machine is to make us cautious to be seen, be present, make noise as democrats. I can tell you there are more of us than you think, even in the most red areas, and are just waiting for a mechanism to become politically active and heard, without the droning of the righties. The absolutely most validating thing is the young people that come up to our booths and say I want to know more about the dems, or even I AM a dem. I do think we are on the verge of something big in the mid term elections.

I don't know if I am making any sense?

[joemurphy]

16. You are to me. A lot of sense.

What does your Democratic group do exactly. I've often wished I had that sort of an outlet -- a place where I can just go and talk intelligently with other people. I live in Indiana - a pretty red state -- but in Indianapolis, which is Democratic. I like politics and try to work the polls on most election days. I also have done
small stuff-leafleting etc. I also write a lot of letters to Congressmen, Senators, etc.

But I'd like sometimes just to be able to talk to other people about where the country is heading and what can be done about what the Republicans are now doing to it. It's hard to believe where we are now in the 5 short years since Clinton left. Unbelieveable, eh?

I like DU a lot. But it's difficult to discuss anything in depth here. I get a lot out of communicating with other people and wish there was a way to have a more sustained level of give-and-take here.

[AmandaRuth]

19. Well we meet, and discuss issues -

We have candidates for various offices come in, and try for endorsements. We work to raise awareness of various issues. We have a lot a letter writers in our group. We try to raise money for local candidates. Some of the older more experienced will mentor the less experienced (like myself). We recently put up a web-page here - http://31stdistrictdemocrats.org/

I would try to find out if you have a local group in your area, or legislative district. Try a google search or go thru the national party.

Also another thing is to look into Precinct Committee Officers. An explanation of a PCO is here - http://31stdistrictdemocrats.org/officers.html PCO's can be appointed or elected, at least in my state.

I tell you, I used to get so stressed thinking about the direction of our county. I don't know if becoming locally active is helping or not, but I sure am sleeping better.

Best of luck to you.

[joemurphy]

21. Thanks AmandaRuth!

I liked the website. As Tip O'Neill once said, "all politics is local." I appreciate your advice. I think I'll try to find out what we have going here locally.

[wli]

5. any survey data?

It'd be nice to see how the numbers break down.

I wonder if it would be possible to infer these categories from surveys.

[joemurphy]

7. No, there's really nothing scientific about what I've done.

I guess I really should try to see what numbers say. Concededly, most of what I've put down is based on impressions I have or what I seem to remember from reading. A lot of it is just my perceptions of the way things are.

[wli]

9. I'll see if I can think of survey methods.

No guarantees I'll come up with anything.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[wli]

11. I'm curious, because I don't meet many Repubs or Bush supporters

I'm not really sure how to put this (inherently), but I'll see if I can come up with a decent way to put it.

Do you really see things like the PATRIOT Act, CAFTA, Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib, 8 trillion dollar deficits, etc. as positive things?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[wli]

18. I'm not trying to play a game here; your response is fine.

Thanks for clarifying your views.

There isn't going to be a debate here. I'm okay with taking your answer as final: it's what you believe. I asked for your opinion and you gave a good amount of detail.

Thanks again.

[Steely_Dan]

30. But This is What We See...

I have found your posts some of the most reasoned I have seen from your "side." I agree that it is intellectually lazy to generalize and place people in boxes with labels. I believe that both sides suffer from this problem.

I am posting an email I received from a person "on the right." It has been posted here previously as a separate thread. I would be interested in your comments concerning her email. I post it because, rightly or wrongly, we (DU) tend to see the Right in this way. While we know that not all of those on the Right feel as this woman does, it does tend to further our belief that "many" on the Right believe in what she is expressing.

Your comments are sincerely welcomed.

On Edit...If you wish to read a line by line response you can go to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1985788&mesg_id=1985788

Her email to me...Please keep in mind that I have not altered it in any way.

-------------------------

The only health care is for the welfare recipient.. A working person because of the extreme taxes being taken from his check due to the huge amount being pull to take care of the Dem. voter blocks.... The government's is too big and Bush has cut it a lot all ready 80,000 Government jobs have gone by the way side.. and more to come.. Our state for instances has instead of cutting government employees has increased them and has run our budget way into the red... Thank's to GrandHOME.. She's not add anymore new taxes but is penalizing everything she can >>every permit every violation and all the new ones she's trying to get thought it's like living in a communist country... Everything has been doubled.. Our states economy is in the toilet and she's doing nothing to grow it.. But giving more moneys to the welfare people..

Health CARE.. You mean the Clinton plan??? What a huge laugh and what a huge gouge in every tax payers pocket.. Do you know how much she made off that deal she tried to through at this country >>> MILLIONS>> yes rape the tax payers again.. As to the Wealthy Who the Hell are they.. according to the DEM.. It' anyone making over 50.000 Dollars~~~!! That is not Wealthy!!It's just get by income~~! So don't tell me as to the wealthy.. I think of wealthy as someone who's a millionaire!!! Not to common working man.. If you don't know it.. it's these people that pay the majority of the taxes.. as the wealthy millionaires have their money hidden away in foreign accounts.. or pay people to hide their moneys..

As for Bush I don't agree with everything he dose but when it comes to the important stuff like the morals of our country and MY God's Blessing our country... He's got my vote 110 percent... as to the drugs.. I don't agree with him on that.. but I agree with him on 90 percent of what he's doing and I didn't approve of Clinton on anything!!!! He and his wife are PIGS!!! She as the governors wife of Arkansas went to the congress and tried to get sex changes free to those that wanted them... Now How many people do you know who would really need that???? When there is people that can't afford regular health care.. You see it's the special interest folks they want to please.. Look at how the Clinton's Screwed the Unions... Look how they lied about everything.. Look how they treated the attack on our country the last time the towers were hit.. Look at all the money Al Gorge took from the represenitives from China??? .. Why is it you never comment on that trader to this country as you voted for Kerry a trader to our country.. and killer of the unborn.. For us to receive God blessing these can't be practices of a just people.. God can not bless a God less people that are trying to remove him from everything that is Good... When they took him out of our schools look at what has happened... YOU NAME ONE THING GOOD THAT HAS COME FROM THE DEM. PARTY SINCE KENNDY ?? JIMMY CARTER RIGHT NOW IN EU TRASHING OUR COUNTRY.. WHAT A PIG HE IS TOO.. I THINK JUST BEHIND CLINTON FOR BEING ONE OF THE WORST PRESIDENTS WE'VE EVER HAD!!! HIS WORKS MEAN NOTHING~~~! AS GOD SAID YOU CAN'T GET TO HEAVEN THOUGH WORKS.. KENNEDY WAS THE LAST DEM PRESIDENT THAT WAS WORTH ANYTHING AND HE WAS A WHOREMONGER.... BUT AT LEAST HIS WAS HONERABLE AND HIS SERVICE TO HIS COUNTRY AND HE NEVER TRASHED HIS COUNTRY LIKE THESE OTHER PIGS ARE DOING.. TOO MANY HAVE DIED FOR IT TO LET ANY LEADER OR X LEADER TRASH IT.. IT'S THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.. WE ARE THE ONLY ONES TO SEND OUR SONS TO DIE FOR OTHERS FREEDOM.. BRITISH THE ONLY ONES THAT TRULY STAND WITH US IN TIME OF WAR.. SOON THERE WILL BE NO ONE TO STAND AGAINST THE EVIL OF THIS WORLD AND GOD HELP THOSE WHO ARE LEFT.. AS ALL THE GOOD WILL BE GONE AND THAT'S ALL THE MAKES OUR COUNTRY GREAT.. ARE THOSE THAT ARE GOOD AND GODLY.. OUR BLOOD BEING SHED FOR OTHER'S AND THE FEW THAT HONOR GOD AND HIS SON ARE THE ONLY REASONS THIS COUNTRY IS STILL FREE.. IF IT WERE UP TO THE DEM THERE WOULD ONLY BE TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY.. THE RICH... MILLIONARES.. AND THE POOR WHICH IS THE NOW WORKING CLASS AND THEN THERE WILL BE THE WELFARE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WORK AT ALL.. GUESS WHAT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE MILLIONARES ARE GONE.. THEN MAYBE THOSE LAZY WELFARE RECEIPENTS WILL BE AT YOUR DOOR DEMANDING YOU FEED THEM.. AND IF YOU DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM THEY WILL JUST TAKE IT.. AS YOU KNOW THE LAST TAX BREAK WE HAD THEY ACCUALLY THOUGHT THEY SHOULD GET MONEY BACK AS EVERY ONE ELSE DID THAT WORKED.. ISN'T THAT GREAT.. DON'T PAY ANY TAXES AND THINK THEY SHOULD GET A CHECK.. WELL, THEY GET A TAX CHECK EVERY WALFARE CHECK THEY GET!! GOD SAID.. IF YOU DON'T WORK YOU SHOULD NOT EAT~~~! THIS DOSE NOT MEAN THE DISABLEED IT MEANS THE DRUNKS DOPE HEADS.. AND ALL THOSE WOMEN THAT HAVE ALL THESE KIDS THAT THE FATHERS DON'T SUPPORT.. OR BY MANY DIFFERENT MEN.. I DON'T LIKE MY TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR ABORTIONS THAT'S MONEY I CAN USE MYSELF.. THANKS TO THE DEM. AND PLAND PARENTHOOD PROGRAMS.. WHICH ARE NOTHING BUT PROMOTE SEX AT EARLY AGE AND ABORTIONS TO HARVEST BODY PARTS FOR A MAULTIMILLIONDALLAR GOOLISH ABORTION MACHINE...
4000 baby's lose their lives everyday. "We" have to stop abortion! "Bible" "You can tell a pagan society by the killing of their children". 44,000,000 children have died in USA!! THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN TAX PAYERS! For those that don't care, it effects YOU. WE CAN'T HOLD A CANDLE TO HITLAR AND IT'S LEGAL MURDER...

YOU DUMB SHIT!!! I DON'T WANT FREE HEALTH CARE!!~!! I WANT MY OWN MONEY TO BUY IT!!! IT'S NOT WORKING IN CANADA...DAH!!! WHERE THE HECK ARE YOU ANYWAY!!!! THEY ARE COMING HERE TO GET SURGERY AND THE TEC. IS SO LOW THAT THEY DON'T KNOW ALL THE NEW THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE.. THERE'S YOUR FREE HEALTH CARE... TAKES MONTHS TO GET IN TO HOSPITAL FOR OPERATIONS.. YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS AS TO WORKING FOR WHAT YOU HAVE.. I FEEL GUILTY TAKING SOMETHING THAT DOSEN' T BELONG TO ME IF I HAVEN'T WORKED FOR IT~ MANY DEM HAVE THEIR HANDS OUT FOR EVERYTHNING.. WE DON'T EVEN TAKE MONEYS FOR FARM PROGRAMS THAT ARE AVAI.. I DON'T FEEL IT'S RIGHT... EVERYONE HAS HARD TIMES JUST GIVE US A FAIR MARKET FOR OUR PRODUCTS AND WE DO FINE BUT YOU START FLOODING THE MARKETS WITH PRODUCTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE SUBSIDIZING THEIR FARMER AND WE AREN'T.. WE CAN OUT PRODUCE ANY OF THEM BUT WE HAVE AN UNEQUAL PLAYING FIELD.. IF THEY WOULD PUT TARRIFS ON ALL INCOMEING FARM PRODUCT EQUAL TO OUR OWN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR FARM HELP.. IF THEY'D DO THE SAME WITH INCOMING FACTORY PRODUCT WE' D HAVE OUR JOBS BACK IN THIS COUNTRYS MANUFACTURING.. AS IT IS PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO GO TO COLLEGE HAVE NO REAL PAYING JOBS.. I HATED NAFTA... ROSS P. WAS RIGHT ON THAT.. THE HUGE SUCKING SOUND CAN STILL BE HEARD... BUT WITH ALL THE COMPLAINTS WE ARE STILL THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD .. WE HAVE TO WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY THE BIGGEST STICK WE CAN MAKE.. AND CRUSH THOSE THAT ATTACK US.. YOU DON'T SEE US ATTACKING ANYONE AS OTHERS HAVE ATTACKED THE FREEDOMS OF THE FREE... GOD BLESS G.W BUSH AND OUR COUNTY.. CANADA IS A SOCIALEST COUNTRY BEING RUN BY THE COMUNIST PARTY.. NO GUNS, GAY MARRIAGE AND NEXT WILL BE PEDIFILLIA... THEY ARE ALL READY TALKING ABOUT IT.. RAPE YOU KIDS AND THAT'S FINE.. THEN WE'LL HAVE TO BUILD A HIGH FENCE TO KEEP THEM FROM RAPING OUR DOGS, CAT, PIG AND WHAT EVER THEY WANT TO SCREW.. IF GOD DISTROYED SODUM AND GAMOR FOR THEIR SINS WHY ISN'T HE GOING TO DO THAT AGAIN??? SINS IS SIN AND GOD CAN NOT TOLLARATE IT... NOW WITH CLINTON'S ORAL SEX IS NOT SEX.?? MAN.. IF I COULDN'T THINK ANY BETTER THAN THAT ON MY OWN.. I'D CLUNK MY SELF.. WHY IS IT THAT THE DEM THINK YOU HAVEN'T GOT A BRAIN IS IT BECAUSE MOST IN THE DEM PARTH ARE BRAIN WASHED.. I BASE MY THOUGHTS AS TO WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT THING NOT AT TO WHAT THE WORLD SAYS AS YOU CAN'T LIVE AND THINK LIKE THE WORLD IF YOU LOVE GOD.. YOU HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING... AS TO FREE HEALTH CARE.. I THINK THAT THE SENIORS OR DISABLED SHOULD BE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE IT.. THE BEST IN THE WORLD.. GOD SAID TO TAKE CARE OF THE WEAK AND THE OLD.. CHILDREN AS WELL.. ALL I KNOW IS I HAVE TO ANSWER TO A HIGHER POWER.. GOD LOVES US ALL BUT WE ALL DON'T LOVE GOD.. ANYONE TAKING HIS NAME IN VAIN WILL END UP IN THE LAKE OF FIRE.. MANY DON'T BLEIVE IN HELL BUT THAT DOSEN' T MEAN THERE ISN'T ONE AND THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING!!! GOD IS LOVE BUT YOU HAVE TO READ IT ALL TO UNDERSTAND IT AND THEN YOU LEARN SOMETHING EVERYDAY AS HIS WORD IS A LIVING ONE ALWAYS REVEALING SOMETHING NEW..PS... AND THEN THERE IS THE TAX PAYER PAYING FOR THE TREATMENT OF AIDS.!!! WHY DO THE GIVE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP... THIS MONEY WHEN THERE ARE A LOT MORE CANCER PACTIENTS THEY WON'T GIVE ANYTHING??? WE PAY FOR THERE FILTHY SEXUAL HABITS AND MAKE THEM OUT TO BE CUTE ON SITCOMS ON TV... BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS AS A WAY OF HAVING SEX. ANNEL SEX...BEING TAUGHT IN SEX EDUCATION CLASSES... NOT ABSTANANCES WHICH SHOULD BE! PAID FOR BUY YOUR TAX DOLLARS... JUST KEEP PAYING!!!! TAKE A STAND AGAINST SOMETHING YOU DON'T AGREE WITH. IF YOU DON'T TAKE A STAND THEN YOU ARE AGREEING......

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Steely_Dan]

32. Well Put But...

I would disagree with you on the degree of the insult. All things considered, I believe that telling someone that the question may be too difficult to answer is not necessarily an insult. It truly might have been too difficult. I believe that I have been well-reasoned and overly kind at times and not as insulting as you might hear it.

You see (as I stated in my email to her) we are not only responsible for what we say we must take some responsibility in what we hear. That is to say that we have our own filters and ways of hearing things.

I think that you'll have to agree that I have been trying to reason with her with my best efforts.

My question for you:

Please give me an example of this link of lunacy that exists on the Left. I have reason to believe that it exists, but I would appreciate your input here.

Thanks.

-Paige

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Steely_Dan]

34. Excellent Reponse

Thanks...

I wish that I had a greater oppotunity to discuss these kinds of issues with people of differing opinions who reason as well as you do. Perhaps we could both learn something.

-Paige

[joemurphy]

13. Thanks for the reply. I read your post with a great deal of

interest. I don't think, of course, that all Republicans are bigots or that people with religious values are subject to scorn. There is also a lot to be said for people that care about the moral fibre of the community and have moral or religious reservations about a direction that society is taking.

I'm a lawyer, age 55, and am independently employed. I appreciate what it means to run a business, meet payrolls, and deal with a lot of bureaucracy -- which can get tedious.

I hope you don't think I'm scornful of you or believe you to be a dimwit because you have values. I have them too. I'm sure we probably agree on a lot of things.

Anyway, I do hope you come back and elaborate some more on what makes you tick. I'm genuinely curious. And again, my apologies if I may have offended you.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[joemurphy]

37. I didn't mean to insult you either.

Actually, I appreciate you coming here (a Democratic blogging place) and having the guts to express your views. I also welcome the opportunity, not so much to debate you or win you over to "our side", as to see how a Republican views the current political situation. I don't think anything I say would convince you to change your opinions, any more than anything you say could persuade me to vote Republican. But I do want to hear what you say and I want to understand you. I really do.

Please understand that in my putting up categories, as I did, I don't mean that all Republicans fit into one box or another. There are exceptions to everything. I agree that Republicans come in various stripes and shades and different things motivate different ones to vote Republican.

I think you also are right about one thing. Democrats do come off as sounding condescending sometimes and it's something we have to guard against if we want to persuade potential voters to go our way. Sorry about my crack about Nascar, bowling alleys, and Fox News. There's nothing intrinsically bad about the first two. The latter however is more propaganda IMO than news. Fox is a real sore point
with Democrats.

You make a good point about the bowling alley. I wish Kerry had had the sense to be seen bowling instead windsurfing prior to the last
election.

It's only my opinion, of course, but I do think there is a cultural divide in the Red State/Blue State dichotomy that is our country now. It runs deeper than just voting. It's how we look at life. How we talk. What our likes and desires are. For example, Bush didn't put a lot of campaign advertising money into NASCAR races for nothing. Country music is another example. Look what happened to
the Dixie Chicks when one of them attacked Bush -- steamrollers going over their records, criticisms from other CW musicians, and boycotts in the South of their records. The majority of people into NASCAR and CW music seem to be Republicans. I don't mean to insult you for listening to CW or enjoying a NASCAR race. I only meant that Republican voters seem to like these pastimes more than Democrats.

My calling them "low brow" though probably was insulting and for that I apologize. Don't tell anyone, but I've been known to watch a NASCAR race myself. Also, although I'm not a bowler, my dad was a professional for a while. When he was 21 he was the 1936 ABC All-Events champ and had 9 300 games to his credit during his lifetime.
Sadly, there wasn't much money in professional bowling when he was involved in it.

I agree that civility is important. Let's keep talking. I really do appreciate your critique of what I put up. Keep coming back here. Lots of us like feedback.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[joemurphy]

42. Let my clarify something

First, I did vote for a Republican presidential candidate - just once, the first time I ever voted. I voted for Nixon over McGovern.
In retrospect, I would never have done it. Watergate ensued and I switched to the Democrats.

I voted for Nixon that one time because I thought simply pulling out of Vietnam without any real plan was betraying the Vietnamese that had supported us and basically leaving them to their fate. I felt we'd given them assurances we wouldn't do that. I was afraid that there would be a horrible bloodbath after we left. As far as I know, that didn't happen -- although the North Vietnamese "reeducation camps" were nothing pretty either.

So, I'm capable of voting for a Republican. I just don't think I could do it now because I don't see them favoring many positions I espouse.

OK. As for issues, what is so troubling for you about gay marriage?
My basic attitude is, who cares? Let them get married. What is the big deal?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[joemurphy]

47. OK, what is wrong with our income tax system now

and why do you think a national sales tax would be better?

Also, I don't think Republicans are advocating for a national sales tax now. I thought they were for "tax simplification" but never understood that to mean a national sales tax. Are they espousing this now?

BTW I started with gay marriage because I thought you said earlier that you didn't support it. Actually, your answer seems to be that it really doesn't bother you that much. It sounds like we're basically on the same page -- let them get married.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[joemurphy]

52. My wife and I are celebrating our wedding anniversary and

I have to leave right now. But patience! I'll try to get back to you on this.


And you're right. I'm not a corporate or a tax lawyer. Bankruptcy and immigration work mostly.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[joemurphy]

66. I'm back - OK Taxes

I'm no tax expert. I'll admit that. But I favor progressive income taxation. The wealthy benefit the most from the institutions in this country and I don't see any real unfairness in their being called upon to pay for them. As to what precisely the bracketing should be, that depends a lot on what the country's needs are. I think the country is in need when the budget is out of balance and the national debt is soaring because we're borrowing money to meet our needs. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy in time of war is something that defies logic in my opinion. It is horrendously wrong IMO to one the one hand call on America to fight a war and on the other not ask the people to fund it. Instead we're financing it on borrowed money.

Should the income tax be raised. Yes. Where? In the higher brackets definitely. But not for the middle class or at the expense of the needy. Personally I find them strapped enough already.

Where should the cut off be between those who pay and those who don't? That depends. It depends first and foremost on ability to pay. It also depends on the number of dependents a given taxpayer has to support. I can't give you a hard and fast answer to something as variable as that.

I'm a lawyer, all right. And I've got employees. I know what it means to figure their taxes. I regard paying them as part of my overhead. I regard it as another cost of doing business -- like my lights, heat, and air-conditioning. I wish they were lower sometimes, but I realize too that there are government programs out there that benefit me that I want funded. So I pay these taxes. As to my income taxes, it galls me that Bush passed an across the board cut that was deeply regressive. The rich reap a windfall and I get next to nothing.

How do I feel about property taxes? I don't like them. They provide a disincentive to owning property or improving it. I think income taxation is much fairer and makes more sense then property taxation.

Corporate taxation doesn't really bother me that much. There is some concern about double taxation here -- taxation at the corporate level and then again at the dividend level. I have a stock portfolio, like a lot of people, and that affects me. In my business, I have a Subchapter S corporation, however, and that consideration doesn't really come into play in the Sub S context.

I don't think I'd favor a national sales tax. We have a State sales tax in Indiana. I don't like it much because it too is regressive. Everyone pays a flat percentage and for that reason it's relatively easy to administer, but it impacts lower-income people a lot more adversely than higher income people. If a poor man and a rich man buy the same bottle of milk and pay the same tax, whose wallet -- and living standard -- is impacted more?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

69. Simplify the tax system

that's ok but only a national sales tax would be SOOOOOOO REGRESSIVE it would be a whole shit-load worse for most people, especially the lower income earners, than the current system is.

Cut out corporate welfare. Lose the cap on FICA deductions (and lower the percentage). Cut the hell out of the war budget. Place a "temporary" highest income tax on the well off to pay down the debt that's crushing us. etc.

Stop financing the govt. on the backs of the bottom 80% of wage earners for the primary benefit of the top 10%!!!

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

68. I would vote for Pete McClosky

before I'd vote for Mary Landreau. I'd never vote for a Zale Miller or Diane Feinstein.

I think most of us here are perceptive enough to not make an ABSOLUTE pledge to only vote the party.

I'm curious as to why you'd vote for w in '04. He was a proven lier, flip-flopper and draft dodging chicken-hawk by then...what gives?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

39. I'm sorry. Other see you as well reasoned, but this gay guy

...neither gave you permission, or submitted my life or what it has gone through for your approval. As such, it is presumptuous and arrogant of you to volunteer that disapproval, no matter what you believe. I have never been asked by your ilk, what makes me gay, or what makes me tick, but I do get more than plenty of lectures about how I destroyed Rome (as if that brutal empire was really worth saving) and that I'm only deluding myself. Most of these(your) types have spent very little time studying homosexuality, but wish to be heard as learned scholars on the subject. You expect us to tolerate your intolerance? You might have a belief system, but I am not a belief. I exist, and am just as much an American as you, and deserving of everything that you, as an American have, which includes marriage rights.

Perhaps you find this OP insulting because you fit exactly into both #2 and #4 categories. Sometimes the truth hurts.

I have 40 years of life that tells me this isn't a choice, or up for anyone's approval. You have a preacher's words, and a Bible which you hide behind to justify your "beliefs". I have staked my entire salvation on the inner truth I find in my concsience, about who I am and what I've become. You have a belief of the "other" is less worthy. Can you make the same bet that you are more right than me?

Until you stop telling me what I am, what I've done, or where I'm going when I die, then you will never see me give you anything other than anger and indifference to you. Your "beliefs" do not trump my life.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Hello_Kitty]

54. Direct quote from you:

I believe that homosexuality is wrong and I do not support gay marriage

What about that statement isn't a clear indication of what you believe?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Hello_Kitty]

57. Oh I dunno...

Boggles the mind how you think you can win a majority of anything with such limited viewpoints.

The Righties seem have done pretty well by distilling everything into simplistic slogans and fostering a rigid "us vs. them" mentality.

[Touchdown]

59. Let me help here.

I am not an "opinion". I am a human, and an American citizen.
I do not have a "belief". I have life experience.
I stand up to bullies. You can say "Stop making me hit you...I'm the real victim here" all you want, but in the end, you are prejudiced. Calling it a "belief" is blasphemy.

"Boggles the mind how you think you can win a majority of anything with such limited viewpoints."

Your side has been doing it since 1992.

[ProudDad]

71. I don't care if you "think gay marriage is wrong".

I do care if that point of view results in active discrimination against people who happen to have been born gay.

How about this for a compromise?

Gay people will promise NOT to complain about heterosexual marriage privileges (and they are NUMEROUS under the law) if these rights and privileges are extended to homosexual couples.

NOW CAN WE DROP THE SUBJECT.

Ooops, I forgot, karl rove and his ilk won't let us drop the subject...

[Touchdown]

58. What you believe is irrelevant to my being gay.

There may be some here who are willing to compromise their morals to include you, and look the other way when you couch your bigotry in religious excuses, but I would rather lose every election until I die, before I excuse someone who cherry picks the good book, and hides behind Christianity to make him feel comfortable about being prejudiced.

I am not intolerant to those who are willing to learn. All you have to do is ask. All I ask of you is to put aside about "beliefs" on homosexuality for a few minutes, and actually listen for once in your life. That is not against the Bible. You can't expect me to have any tolerance for your intolerance. Calling up the pot=kettle canard does not make it true. I never said I was tolerant. Besides, you really don't want tolerance on this issue. You want absolution. Not to mention any, and I mean ANY excuse not to vote in your best interest and join us.


" This is the response of which I speak. "

Predictable, and unfortunate. You had a few here fooled, but I know exactly what you are.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

81. This is laughable.

First off, you know nothing about me. Tolerance is not one of my values. You throw that around as if it's some Democratic sacred cow. Your ignorance on who liberals are and what we stand for is shining through on this issue.

There may be others where tolerance is a value of theirs, but not me. Now, you have shown little interest in what any of us stand for in this thread, preferring to make our values up yourself, but I'll volunteer it anyway.

My values are equality, freedom to pursue happiness, do harm to no one else, and most especially social justice. I could give a rip what you think of homosexuality. You most likely haven't enough information to even form a worthy opinion on the matter anyhow. Tolerance for me is to excuse bigotry, to claim that religious zealots have the right to take over the government and render the Constitution irrelevant. No, I'm far from tolerant. I;m extremely intolerant of religious bigotry, as you should now see. I never said I was tolerant, or that it was a value of mine. That would be hypocritical on my part. Those are your words you are attempting to apply to me.

"I believe that homosexuality is wrong. That is my belief, I can not change the fact that I believe that, no more then you can change the fact you are gay. I can listen, I can read, I can do all sorts of things but in the end, I will still believe that homosexuality is wrong. "

You are trying to create a physiological equivalency where one does not exist. My existence does not concern you, or the rest of society. Your beliefs that I am some kind of un-natural aberration (which is what you are saying when you say you believe who I am is "wrong") affect me and my existence. Beliefs are not hardwired into your psyche for life, they can change. Saying that it's just you, is an excuse to behave and believe as you always have, which is psychological terms is called enabling. Sexual orientation cannot be changed. The behavior can be modified, but in the end, the feelings and the drive will always be there. Apples and oranges. Your beliefs are not equal to my life, and thus your beliefs cannot trump my freedom to pursue happiness and still live up to the ideal that makes the Constitution a venerable document.

"But you see... this is not enough for you. I can be as tolerant as I can toward your issue, I can tell others they are wrong when they say gay marriage is a abomination, I can defend your cause within my own peer group... that isn't enough. I have to kick my girlfriend out of the house when I get home... yea, that's unmarried, cohabitation, GIRLFRIEND.. and go get a gay lover, march in the street, and put friggin rainbow stickers all over my car. "

Now, here's the laughable part. You accuse me of making shit up about your POV, of making too many presumptions on your religious beliefs. Yet, here you are, creating an entire straw man out of my opinions, values, and points of view. See my values above...nobody wants you to have a gay lover, unless you do yourself. What I want is for you to stop thinking you actually have a say in how I should lead my life, or that I am somehow beholden to your opinions on the subject of my life and how I should pursue it. I personally don't care if you fuck goats. Who you are does not affect me. What you believe about me does.

The fact of the matter is that, on your first post here, you showed us all what is really important to you. You did not bring up corporate control of our country, the morality of war profiteering, affirmative action, corporate malfeasance, death penalties, torture, terrorism, global warming, energy dependence, parent less children, elderly health care, or any other of the numerous specific issues that we grapple with these days. You specifically brought up your belief in religion, and more specifically narrowed down your opposition to homosexuality, using your religious beliefs to justify it. How exactly am I supposed to take your post, if this is not the most important sticking point of your value system? Since it was important enough for you to make this your single prime example of why you can't reconcile with Democrats, then I can only assume that you stand against me, vote against me, an wish to relegate me to second class status. If none of this is true, then why the impulse to specify your opposition to homosexuality at the expense of all others in the first place?

[ProudDad]

70. Excuse us

but you called the fact of his existence immoral.

Pot, meet pot...

[Hello_Kitty]

55. Thank you

I have no idea why people in this thread are kissing this guy's butt. He can sound "reasonable" all he wants but he's not going to change.

[Bucky]

24. Do you have any demographic data to back this up?

Your observations seem sound, but mostly because they confirm my prejudices. I think this sort of diagnosis, while a good mental exercise for you, is meaningless if it's not corroborated by some kind of scientific data.

[joemurphy]

25. Yeah, I think someone pointed that out in an earlier thread

I was basically trying to sort it out in my own mind and wanted input from others. I'm no statistician. I don't claim anything I say to be scientific or other than my own opinion.

One thing I find interesting is the importance of the evangelicals in the last couple of elections. I guess my question is, where were they before. Carter, you'll remember, was "born again" too, but I
don't really remember fundamentalists rallying to him like they have to Bush. Perhaps I'm wrong on this though.

[dajoki]

27. i agree with you...

but i always had my own simpler terms: 1. the pissers=the rich, piss on you and don't care(republican); 2. the wannabes=the fundies & anti liberals, think if they go along with pissers they too one day will become pissers(mostly repubs, few dems); 3. the pissed offs=libertarians & heirarchs, hate government and people who don't think like them(vastly repub) 4. the pissees=the poor, disabled, downtrodden and no longer useful to pissers(vastly dem or don't care). i started to feel this way during raygun and it only got worse.

[KiraT]

28. Regarding Item 1:

I'd have agreed with you on Item 1 before this morning, when a friend sent me this link....it was a real eye opener. I think that the "rich" category pretty much can apply to both parties now.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/york/york200508030928.asp

[theHandpuppet]

35. Good analysis

Thanks for composing such a cogent and interesting post.

I will say that there is one demographic which should be added to your list: WHITE MALES. These stats from Ohio might prove interesting to you:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/O...

[joemurphy]

36. Thanks. I tried your link but it came up on a cnn site that

said "Page Not Found". Do you have another?

[theHandpuppet]

38. Sorry -- fixed link!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[agincourt]

61. Why quite easy actually,

Ole' boy network where everybody covers for ones who are just like them. Not constantly infighting like democrats.

[joemurphy]

43. Hey, thanks! Very interesting link.

It seems to bear out some of the things I say and not others. I want to look at it some more and try to figure out what it means.

Thanks again, very helpful!

[theHandpuppet]

44. I believe those demos are available on the site for each state

The Ohio one I provided was just one example. Good luck on your research.

[joemurphy]

65. Yup! Its a fabulous cite with lots of information

They also have it all broken down nationally as well. It's hard to ask for more than this.

[AX10]

45. #4 "The Anti-Liberals". I grew up around them and still live near them.

The white-middle class male is the number 1 reason Democrats struggle in the voting booth for all the reasons you said. One thing, numbers 4 and 5 overlap. From what I experience growing up in CT, is that many middle class whites(men mostly) have a disdain for minorities. The middle class male is too a part of the heirarchical sector of the GOP.

[joemurphy]

49. I dunno about that.

I think that a lot of white middle class males are Anti-Liberals maybe in part because rightly or wrongly they don't see the Democrats as doing much for them.

I think some feel threatened by "affirmative action" and "feminism" too. A lot see themselves as discriminated against.

That said, I certainly don't see the Republicans doing much for the middle class white males either. Part of their attraction to the
Republicans might be a sort of macho thing -- with the Republicans seen as favoring a strong military, being anti-feminist, and
anti-gay. Another part of it is the white males see themselves as victims -- taxed by Democrats to support all those Democratic minority constituents. Anyway, much as I like her, I don't think running Hillary in 2008 is going to fly with white middle class males at all.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

60. Listening is a two way street, Pal.

...of which I've seen very little of it from you.

You gripe about us making sweeping generalizations about Republicans, and say that it doesn't necessarily mean that we agree 100% with Republican leaders... etc. but you are doing the exact thing with us. Unless you allowed to be a homophobe, and never questioned on it, and that no atheist will challenge you on your faith, and that no jokes are EVER made again about NASCAR and bowling, then you reject the ENTIRE Democratic party as being in lock step with one another, and that's your excuse to continue to vote for a pack of war criminals and liars, who give tax breaks to the top 1% at the expense of the country's financial wellbeing. You called me black a few posts ago, well here's your pot.

You dropped into our lair, not the other way around. Why don't YOU try and understand us for a change?

The facts of why we're having a hard time lately is all over these pages here. search for Media conglomeration, corporate personhood, propaganda, Diebold, GOP dirty tricks and corruption. You said you lurked here from time to time. You know what many of us believe on this site, so I have no problem bring this out into the open for you. We can hone our message, and admittedly our party does have serious communication problems, but most of us will not bend to your sensibilities just for your vote, especially when we can get your neighbor's vote without doing that. It's a Democratic problem if so many people actually believe that a swaggering, trust funded, overgrown, dry-drunk, giggling sociopathic frat boy can be thought of as a "regular guy" and a party that is pro-death penalty, pro-preemtive war, pro-torture, anti-children's health care, and pro-pollution is actually "pro-life", and we can, and should improve our message.

[theHandpuppet]

62. You really think those tax dollars go to support minority constituents?

The fact is those tax dollars go to support megacorporations and their tax shelters and overseas accounts -- just middle class white males supporting the richer elite white males with their tax dollars.

The jobs of white middle class males -- and those of all of us, regardless of race or gender -- aren't being stolen by federal programs for "minority constitutents" -- they're being outsourced so that a minority of rich white males can become even richer.

Further, the Republican Party, contrary to being the party supporting a strong military, uses our military like cannon fodder, as if they were a private army by which to support corporate interests -- Halliburton, Carlyle, KBR etc. Then when they've used them up simply ship them home sans limbs and cut their benefits. Have to protect those profit margins, you know.

With regard to such males being anti-woman and anti-gay, some males need to grow up and get over their bigotry. Sometimes they are their own worst enemy.

[joemurphy]

63. No, I don't. I was trying to explain why I think white middle

class males vote Republican.

It's crazy to me too. I think that The New Deal and other liberal programs actually MADE what we think of as the white middle class -- the 40 hour week, minimum wage, social security, unemployment compensation, OSHA, Medicare, Medicaid, workers compensation, to name a few. Add trade unionism to that with the NLRB and the right to organize.

The white middle class now is just that -- middle class. But I think it has a "what have you done for me lately" sort of
attitude to the Democrats. The average white male sees himself as a victim for the reasons I suggested. I don't buy that at all personally, but you hear it a lot -- grousing about sex discrimination laws, favoritism shown to blacks and women, taxes taken from the middle class by those "libruls" and given to goldbricking blacks and law-breaking Latinos.

Its mostly Anti-Liberalism to me. I think there may be some (Heirarchical) racism here, sure. But there's also the "white as victim" meme, "tax and spend librul" meme, and a sexism meme at work here as well. I don't see the white middle class male as racist so much as lacking in empathy for those poorer than themselves. Of course, with many of those poor being black and Latino, that lack of empathy is almost tantamount to racism. I think all those memes are what the Republican white middle class male voter hangs on the Democrats as he walks into a voting booth and pulls a Republican lever.

[ProudDad]

73. I think it's fear

What used to be the "white middle class" is seeing their jobs shipped overseas and their real income dropping.

Then they are bombarded with the repuke line: "terrorists under every bed, the Dem's want to tax and spend, the gays are going to turn your kids into gays, the immigrants are going to (clean your toilets and install your sheetrock?), the blacks are going to rob and kill you."

I'm not surprised that so many blue collar, middle-class white guys vote for repukes.

That's why the Dem's have to craft a platform, policy and populist message that will give them hope. The Dem's have to assert (not promise but honestly assert) that they will do this, and that, and that to make sure that people get a living wage at their work, equal opportunities for education, universal health care and basic civil rights.

We progressive people must craft a vision of the future that has room for all to live peacefully and healthily in a world of new opportunities built on a humane, mindful society rather than a consumerist fantasy. I would rather bring these people into a better world than dismiss them as idiots.

[joemurphy]

75. I agree about the need to do something for the middle class.

And restoring job security some way would sure help.

We've gone through a period of downsizing, outsourcing of jobs, elimination of well-paying manufacturing jobs, a decline in union membership, erosion of the wage scale, hiring of cheap immigrant labor, and cutbacks in wages and pension benefits.

As Democrats we have to address these problems. I've always thought that government funded education - something Clinton espoused, but didn't really seem to follow up on, is real important. We need to have the smartest workforce in the world.

Brakes also have to be put on business freedom to move money overseas. When a business is chartered and builds a factory here and a community ties itself to that business with incentive packages for the business in the form of tax rebates, building of infrastructure (roadways, bigger air terminals, educational institutions, etc.) it is simply now too easy for that same business to make a closed managerial decision to shut down and move its operations to India or China. We have to think of new ways for government to limit this kind of behavior. Mandatory seats on corporate boards for local government and/or workers? Fining companies that breach compacts with communities? Tariffs imposed on the products of companies that ship off overseas and leave U.S. workers unemployed.

We may also have to change our workforce into one that specializes in complex work that China and India can't do.

I don't know the answers to these sorts of questions. But we have a real problem that needs to be addressed.

I do know one thing. Middle class workers aren't going to find answers by voting Republican.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Gyre]

64. Well, I like it.

I see various combinations of these categories in each of the people I know at work. It really is a polyglot group philosophically and hard to get a handle on because of that. Thanks! :thumbsup:

Gyre

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

74. Your numbers are off

Granted the dubious repuke vote counts in '04,

48% of the voters were a hugely diverse group of people who voted for the Democrat.

52% of the voters were a somewhat diverse group of (confused, scared) people who voted for the cipher.

The 48% are your neighbors, your co-workers, your librarian (much more likely that you have a Dem librarian), barber....they're not that different from you...

[Swamp Rat]

76. Let's put a face on it.

:D

[Touchdown]

83. Shame he got alerted...and it wasn't me.

I was rather enjoying the debate. :D

[joemurphy]

84. Me too. :-)

[ProudDad]

85. Me too