10 Core Democratic Values that Separate Us from Republicans

[Time for change]

I’m posting this on this forum because this is a political in addition to a general issue. Because Republicans are more cunning than us they are currently seen by many or most Americans as the party of “moral values”. I believe that this is a gross misconception and that if we can learn to frame the issues better – and more accurately – we can successfully combat this lie. I hope this doesn’t sound arrogant, but I believe that our moral values are superior those of our political opposition.

Our primary core value, on which all the others are based, was stated eloquently almost a quarter of a millennium ago by Thomas Jefferson. To paraphrase him, he noted in our Declaration of Independence that all people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (although I would rather not emphasize liberty because Republicans currently put too much emphasis on liberty for the few at the expense of the many).

We hold this value because we care about other people and we believe that life is much more meaningful when our actions express this concern. This means all people, not just our fellow Americans.

Beyond that, here are 9 other Democratic core values. We may and do differ on many of the details, but I believe that we agree on most of the following:


# 2. Environmental protection
We recognize that the Earth’s natural resources are finite, that many of them are non-renewable, that the well being of the world’s population depends on them, and that if care is not taken to preserve them the consequences will be catastrophic for future generations. Therefore, we recognize that it is our responsibility to ensure that these resources are preserved for future generations, even if that means making certain sacrifices.


# 3. Economic justice
We don’t accept the frequently heard Republican argument that the poor deserve their fate because they are lazy, unproductive, or whatever (although that may apply in certain individual instances). Income disparity in the United States today is obscene, exceeds that of almost all other industrialized nations and is now at its highest level since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

The reasons for this are complex and multifaceted, but today in this country they certainly have a lot to do with government policy and less (I believe) to do with individual merit. At the very least, children should not have to suffer because of the financial status of their parents. This is why we believe in such things as a livable minimum wage, social safety nets for the poor, and accessible education and health care for all people.

That is not to say that we don’t recognize that some amount of income disparity based on merit and productivity is desirable. Rewards for those who make meaningful contributions to society are warranted, and also are desirable because they provide incentives which tend to improve everyone’s life. But these disparities should be reasonably based on merit and productivity – NOT on government policy designed simply to make the rich wealthier at the expense of everyone else.


# 4. Military intervention
We tend to be more likely to voice objections to military interventions by our country than do Republicans. That often hurts our electoral prospects, because our political opposition makes us out to be “weak on defense”.

Why do we tend more than Republicans to be against war? We recognize the catastrophic impact that many of our wars have had and continue to have. We recognize and are greatly concerned about the potential for our military interventions to cause massive death, otherwise destroy the lives of other peoples, and cause our own financial ruin as well.

That is not to say that we don’t recognize the need for military intervention when morally indicated. We must protect ourselves against attack by others, and sometimes it is necessary to intervene in the affairs of other countries in order to prevent catastrophes. For example, I personally believe that we should have intervened in Rwanda in 1994, because we could have prevented the deaths of close to a million people, with little cost to ourselves if we had done so (Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright have admitted as much in retrospect).

But decisions to use military force against other countries must be based on due moral consideration of the need for doing so, while balancing this need against the destruction of peoples’ lives and livelihood. These decisions should NEVER be based on the desire to enrich the lives of our political elite, and they should NEVER be rationalized to the American people with phony excuses.


# 5. Government regulation of industry and business
Today’s Republican leaders are quite fond of implying that the slightest government regulation of our industry and business elites represents a terrible infringement on their liberty and risks plunging our country down the slippery slope to Communism.

We believe that appropriate regulation of corporations is necessary and should be a prime responsibility of government. Without such regulation we run the risk of having the environment destroyed, our fortunes lost, and our health seriously impaired.

Corporations are much more powerful than the vast majority of individuals. We need protection against their excesses. Instead, what we have today, with our country controlled by Republicans, is protection of corporations from us, so that their high officials can become wealthier at our expense. That is the purpose of “tort reform”, which limits the liability of corporations for destroying people’s lives. And that is the purpose of the relaxing of environmental and safety standards for corporations that we have seen in recent years. And that is why CEOs such as Ken Lay can get away with stealing people’s fortunes and not have to pay a price for it.

Meaningful campaign finance reform also falls into this category. Republicans claim that this is a great infringement on the liberty of various (wealthy) individuals. We recognize that the failure of meaningful campaign finance reform is a great threat to our democracy, and that it needs to be dealt with accordingly.


# 6. Access to information
We believe that in order for our democracy to survive the public must have good access to information that impacts its welfare. The alternative is to accept that what our “leaders” do in our name is right and moral. That cannot be taken as a given, and that is precisely why our Founding Fathers tried to build into our Constitution safeguards (such as the First Amendment) to protect us against government secrecy.

Today there are two great barriers to our access to the information that we need. One is that we now have perhaps the most secretive Executive Branch that this country has ever known. Why has Dick Cheney blatantly disregarded all legal demands to him to hand over information on his Energy Task Force? Why did we have to be lied to in order for our Administration to gain the necessary political support to go to war in Iraq? We recognize that there is occasionally a national security reason for our leaders to withhold important information from us. But such withholding of information should be based on legitimate national security reasons – and not on the desire of our leaders to avoid embarrassment or to stay in power.

The other great barrier to our access to information today is the near monopoly of our main stream news media. A major purpose of a free and independent press, as envisioned in our constitution, is to provide a safeguard against government excesses. But today’s major news media is in bed with and/or intimidated by our government. And the result is to severely limit the public’s access to crucial information that it needs in order to preserve our democracy.


# 7. Willingness to believe bad things in general and about our government
One of the greatest needs of children is to not believe bad things about their parents. This is referred to by psychologists as “denial”. Most adults never entirely grow out of this need, so that when they grow up they transfer their belief in their parents to their country or their government. This helps to prevent people from feeling bad or getting depressed, and if not taken to excess it might not be harmful.

But we Democrats believe that when taken to excess this is a harmful trait. Failure to see things the way they are because it is painful to do so can provide temporary relief. But it also leads to a disconnection with reality and thereby impairs our ability to work towards improving things. In fact, this phenomenon is precisely what led to the rise of Hitler in the early 1930s. Because of a failure of the German people (many of them) to believe how bad their government was, and their consequent decision to passively accept what their government was doing in their name, the most tragic catastrophe of modern times was perpetrated. We Americans are not immune to what happened in Germany in the 1930s. And if we fail to learn lesson provided by those events, the same thing could happen to us.


# 8. The need to protest – and what is “patriotism”
Republicans are especially prone to refusing to say (or believe) bad things about their country (if under Republican leadership), regardless of the evidence. They call that “patriotism”, and when we fail to voice similar sentiments they use that fact to their political advantage. A good current example is Bernie Goldberg’s new book about “100 people who are screwing up America”. The book is full of examples of people who are “screwing” our country simply by criticizing the decisions of our “leaders” (I didn’t and wouldn’t buy the piece of trash, I just leafed through it). Michael Moore is # 1 in this book, for obvious reasons. Other culprits include Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, and Jimmy Carter (unfortunately, Paul Wellstone escaped the honor of appearing in this book).

We believe that this is not at all what patriotism is about. On the contrary, as William Pitt says in his book, “The worst treason is silence”, when confronted with a government that is doing immoral things in our name. Failing to protest against a government that is doing immoral things is NOT patriotism. Waving the flag is not patriotism. Patriotism IS making an effort to ascertain what our government is doing in our name, and when it acts contrary to our moral values, working to change it.


# 9. Abortion rights
This is the one issue for which it is difficult for me to argue that our moral values are superior to those of our political opposition – but I am including it in this list because it is such a controversial and widely discussed topic, and because it has large implications for electoral success. The issue here involves balancing the rights of a pregnant woman against the rights of her fetus. Most Democrats (myself included) feel that the rights of the pregnant woman are more important, and most Republicans feel more strongly about the rights of the fetus (relative to the rights of the woman, compared with Democrats). Why is that? My personal answer is that I have a hard identifying as much with a living being who has no conscious thoughts (IMO) as I do with a woman. But I don’t wish to criticize people who feel otherwise about this.

We Democrats are concerned about the catastrophic effects of making abortion illegal, not the least of which are the horrors resulting from illegal abortion – which is bound to increase in frequency as legal abortion becomes inaccessible to women. Most Republicans feel that that is not an adequate moral excuse for the destruction of the fetus. Why Democrats and Republicans feel so differently about this is a question I cannot answer.


# 10. Election reform
I saved this one for last because I believe that, other than our most basic core moral value, this is the most important. I believe that because I believe that our current election system is seriously broken and that unless it is fixed we will never again have a Democratic President or Congress or Judiciary (not before WW III anyhow), and if I am right about that then we can pretty much kiss most of our other moral values good bye.

There is a wide difference of opinion among Democrats as to whether or not election fraud in the 2004 Presidential election was so great that it changed the results of the election (I believe that there is a great amount of evidence to suggest that it did). But regardless of where we come down on that issue, I think that we all agree that our votes should not be counted with secret (i.e., “proprietary”) computer software.

On the other hand, it is quite obvious that virtually all of our Republican representatives in Congress DO believe that our votes should be counted with secret software. What moral value would lead them to that belief is beyond my comprehension. But I think that that says it all about the kinds of moral values that they have.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. good list

but I call "Abortion Rights" the right to choose, mainly because the repukes have used it to imply that we are for people having abortions, whether they want them or not.

[Time for change]

12. This is an interesting point

You may (or possibly may not) be right that calling it the "right to choose" is better politically than calling it "abortion rights". Obviously most (perhaps the great majority) "pro-choice" people feel that way because that's what they call it.

However, I am one "pro-choice" person who thinks that "abortion rights" may be a better term. Of course you are right that Republicans have tried to imply that we are in favor of people having abortions. But isn't that an absurd position? When I say abortion rights what that means to me is that a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she wants to.

On the other hand, it seems to me that "right to choose" is a pretty vague term (though it's used so frequently that almost everyone knows what it means), and "abortion rights" is much more straight-forward.

So, I would just like to ask you to consider this: Do you think it's possible that some well meaning Republicans, who are Republicans only because of the abortion issue (and I know several such people in my wife's family), feel that when we use the term "pro-choice" we are being disingenuous by avoiding the issue? In other words, one could use the term "pro-choice" to defend one's right to pollute the environment, to disregard stop signs, or almost anything for that matter. So, it seems to me that maybe we're hurting our cause when we use that term, because maybe some potentially switchable Republicans take that to mean that we think that we have the right to do anything we want, regardless of the consequences to others.

[omega minimo]

18. Like THEY do?

"...Republicans take that to mean that we think that we have the right to do anything we want, regardless of the consequences to others. "

[Time for change]

21. But I'm talking about potentially convertable Republicans n/t

[omega minimo]

24. Understood. Yet if they didn't buy into the "screw the other half"

mentality, would they even BE Republicans?

:shrug:

[Time for change]

27. These people I'm talking about (in my wife's family)

probably don't even know what the Republican Party stands for, other than the fact that their church tells them to vote Republican because of the abortion issue. They are good people. They do volunteer work for charities, so they do buy into many of our values. They are simply clueless.

That's why I think that if we could reach (communicate with) them on the abortion issue, they are potentially convertable. And there must be hundreds of thousands of such people.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. well, I have such a friend

who is repuke just because of abortion. I argue with her on the point of choice because I have two relatives who had a choice to make. One was pregnant by a married man and had to decide whether to abort or have the child. She chose the latter. I have another relative who was brutally raped and became pregnant. She chose abortion.

[Time for change]

22. Yes, this drives me crazy

Why are some people willing to ignore every other issue, to vote for someone like Bush, just because of the abortion issue? It makes no sense to me, except to believe that they don't have a clue as to what's going on. That's why I think that this may be the key issue where we might be able to get some converts if we can only find a common ground of communication.

[Carla in Ca]

15. I agree

although I understand #12's point of view. The 'A' word is a negative whether you approve of it or not. Pro-choice includes it.

[corkhead]

2. to be specific, Education and Healthcare as a right

not a privilege of the wealthy I guess they would fit under #3?

[Time for change]

23. Yes, it most definitely would n/t

[MisterLiberal]

115. forgot the big one

Separation of church and state

[lvx35]

3. I like it!

But Abortion rights really should be included in a broader one, which is the right of the individual, not the government, to make religious decisions. Abortion is such an issue, because its legality and morality is based on when exactly the soul enters the fetus after which its murder, and science offers no answer to this question so it must come from our own religious convictions.

The only other changes I would make would be to make number 10 about "integrity of democracy", another bigger umbrella, and make number 5 the right of the people over corporations so its catchier.

But damn fine values, I am so glad I read that, thank you!

[Time for change]

50. Thank you for the ideas and the support -- and I agree with you # 5

(maybe "accountability of corporations" would be even better) and perhaps # 10 as well.

I also agree with you when you say about abortion that "its legality and morality is based on when exactly the soul enters the fetus after which it's murder, and science offers no answer to this question ..."

But I don't agree as to where you say this leads to, and I think this is an important point. Couldn't a 19th century slave owner have used the same reasoning, by saying that there is no scientific proof as to whether or not his slaves have souls, so therefore it is morally his decision to do what he wants with them?

My point is simply that I believe that we should directly and straight forwardly address the arguments that are made by the "pro-lifers", at least some of whom I believe make those arguments sincerely. And I don't believe that the best way to address those arguments is to say that there is no scientific proof, and therefore it is up to the individual to decide. I believe that that response dismisses rather than addresses their argument because it fails to give it any credence. They could just as well say, "if there is no scientific proof, then how can you justify the possibility that abortion may be murder?"

I believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion for two concurrent reasons, both of which I believe are necessary to justify my position. First, I don't believe that fetuses have souls. And secondly, when I balance the possibility that I might be wrong about that against a woman's right to make a decision which is of crucial importance to her life, it seems to me that the most moral decision would be to choose in favor of the latter. In this way I acknowledge at least the legitimacy of the major argument of the "pro-lifers", without agreeing with their conclusion.

I think that some pro-choice Democrats (such as yourself) are reluctant to give any credence whatsoever to the "pro-life" point of view because you feel that once that is done you run the risk of falling down the slippery slope towards agreement with them. I believe that that is a mistake, if for no other reason than when we take that point of view we seriously diminish the possibility of meaningful communication with the "pro-lifers". Furthermore, I believe that politically we lose on this issue, because the "pro-lifers" are a potent political force. Maybe if we learn to communicate with them better we can mute some of that political force.

[William769]

4. You forgot the most important one.

Civil Rights!

[Time for change]

7. Can you be more specific about that?

I thought that civil rights would be incorported in some of the values that I listed -- but please explain if you think I'm wrong about that.

[William769]

8. Civil Rights Act

(1964), comprehensive U.S. legislation intended to end discrimination based on race, colour, religion, or national origin; it is often called the most important U.S. law on civil rights since ...

Being in America It seems we need to spell things out for the mentally challanged. I would also like to see sex added to that list.

[Time for change]

10. I did say in the beginning that this applies to all people, not just our

fellow Americans. I think that covers all races, nationalities, and sexes.

But, nevertheless you may be right that anti-discrimination deserves to be noted as a separate item.

But on the other hand, the title of this thread is values that separate us from Republicans. I don't believe that discrimination is one of the Republicans' most prominant values these days. They're willing to screw anybody over to gain an advantage, regardless of race, sex, national origin, or religion.

[election_2004]

39. You worded it too blandly

all people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

This doesn't say one iota about how laws should be restructured to protect people, particularly LGBT people.

If Democrats want to distinguish themselves from Republicans, they must take a chance and be willing to stand up for human dignity.

[Time for change]

42. I agree that laws need to protect vulnerable people

The purpose of the thread was to propose values that we can all agree upon, not laws. I propose that our values should include the pursuit of happiness, economic justice, etc. for ALL people. The details of how this is to be accomplished was not intended to be a subject of this thread.

True, it is difficult to draw a line between the two, and a could have and perhaps should have included something to the effect of what you refer to. I don't know. I was just trying to be as general as possible.

[Big Kahuna]

5. Very similar to the Green Party's 10 key vaues...

http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.

Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.

We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Yes, was gonna say that. :^) And Dennis K had 10 key values too,

didn't he?

[libodem]

17. love this general topic

I like # 5...decentraliztion...and also agree with the original poster about the things that set us apart. But this.... decentralization.... is a great 'frame' because I think that's how a lot of us feel about the concept of 'grassroots', for the people, by the people, democracy. That's why the Repub's claim that 'WE' love big government... throws me into a tizzy. They are the big government lovers...not us...but they twist the rhetoric and re-frame the debate that 'WE' want all these TAXES to run 'OUR' big government...and 'THEY' hate big government and are going to 'save' America form the big government loving Demo's. 'THEY' are *Big Government*...for Big Industry and Corporations, and Fat Cat's...the ONE PARTY SYSTEM : THE ORDER...run everything from the top down, corrupt, evil empire bastards...oh, don't get me goin'.....we'll all have to get out the tinfoil and wrap the house.....

[Time for change]

32. I believe that decentralization is a two-edged sword

Some of the values noted in my original post require at least a somewhat active central government. For example, it's unlikely that you're going to get universal health care, a liveable (and universal) minimum wage, universal access to education, or environmental protection without at least a reasonably active central government.

And remember that decentralization was the rallying call of the slave holders of the early to mid-19th century, as well as the southern conservates who fought tooth and nail against our civil rights laws in the 20th century.

[Time for change]

37. Yes, they are many similarities --

except possibly # 5 of the Green Party's key values (see my post # 32)

[StudentOfDarrow]

6. I'm nominating this.

But I agree with above posters that Abortion Rights should be integrated into a broader "Civil Rights."

[Disturbed]

9. The RW goal is to turn the Middle Class into Serfs.

Liberal Accomplishments


Social Security;

Medicare-Medicaid;

PeaceCorps;

unemployment insurance;

welfare (for the poor andcorporate);

civil rights;

student grant and loan programs;

safety laws (OSHA);

environmental laws;

prevailing wagelaws;

right to collective bargaining (which brought about

paid medical insurance, paid vacations, pensions, etc.);

workers' compensation;

Marshall Plan;

flood-disasterinsurance;

School Lunch Program;

women's rights.

Fair Labor Standards Act, which
established a minimum wage, instituted child labor laws,
and set up time-and-a-half pay for over a 40-hour week.

FHA-HUD with its public housing, urban
renewal and 44 million residential homes (before WWII
almost 70 percent of our nation were renters; by the 1970s
this had been reversed).

farm-conservation
subsidies -- USDA programs,

Farmers Home Administration (the
bankers didn't want to make rural loans),

small flood-control lakes (more than 3,000 in Oklahoma alone),
rural water districts, rural electricity (REA).

The GI Bill was passed, which the Republicans at the
time bitterly opposed.

FDIC and FSLIC, insuring their deposits, and
saved Wall Street with the establishment of the Securities
Exchange Commission.

[StudentOfDarrow]

33. Just out of curiosity...

How is this a reply to my post?

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Words without deeds are meaningless

#1 All people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
How many Democrats voted in favor of the "Defense" of Marriage Act? How many voted to retain "under God" in a meaningless vote on the Pledge of Allegiance? How many of them voted in favor of the Patriot Act? How many voted in favor of it a second time? The answer is... most of them.

#2 Environmental protection
Clinton's patchworked structure of mixing areas of clearcut with areas not to be touched ended up doing far more harm than good, just as the environmentalists that Clinton supposedly consulted with had predicted. In the eight years of Clinton's presidency, no move was taken to tighten emissions regulations on "dirty power" generation such as coal and oil; in fact, the emissions standards were loosened as part of Clinton's deregulation of the domestic energy industry. And while the previous Democrat administration did create more national parks and preserves than the previous four combined, it must be noted that none of them have any significant reserves of natural resources. Any area that could be exploited was, instead, sold off for pennies on the dollar to political backers (can anyone say, "Elk Hills"?) And don't forget the fact that regulations imposed by the World Trade Organization (another Democrat millstone) have declared all of the US' environmental restrictions on imports to be "unfair trading practices." And speaking of which...

#3 Economic justice
Two words: NAFTA. WTO. Both of these international treaties were created and enacted by Clinton. Why should industry pay living wages to Americans when it is so much cheaper to ship raw materials to Ecuador or Singapore or India, have things made by workers getting paid 70 cents an hour with no benefits and then shipped back to be sold for a higher price than ever? While NAFTA and the World Trade Organization did not create off-shoring, they have greatly encouraged it by making it profitable for companies to move jobs to foreign countries and employ near, if not actual, slave labor. (US laws prohibiting sweat-shop goods? "Illegal trading practices" according to the WTO.) Need I remind you that just a month or two ago, the AFL-CIO stated that support for the Democrats would no longer be automatic because the Dems had not been bothering to pursue economic justice (except for the mega-corporations?)

#4 Military intervention
Bosnia. Serbia. And how many Democrats in Congress voted against the invasion of Afghanistan? Iraq? How many Democrats in Congress had the courage and strength of will to stand up and say on the floor and on the record, "Iraq has no connection to the 9/11 attacks and the President is lying when he makes that claim"? Now that every one of Bush's claims have been proven to be blatant lies, how many are demanding that we end this imperialist venture, withdraw our troops and work to rebuild the vast political capital that the President has squandered? Or to make the issue even broader: In the last 20 years, how many Democrats in Congress have voted against going to war when a President (Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) has demanded their consent?

#5 Government regulation of industry and business
Clinton loosed regulation on the emissions from power plants and deregulated the domestic energy industry. That, in turn, led directly to the abuses conducted by Enron. Similar loosening of regulations in telecomm and the media led directly to the WorldComm scandal (which greatly profited from grateful heads of that corporation) and allowed five media giants to gain control of some 85% of the United States' television, cable, radio, magazine, newspaper and movie outlets (much to the Republicans' benefit today.) That leads directly to...

#6 Access to information
On the whole, I agree with you that the Democrats are much better than the Republicans in this matter. But the questions must again be asked: How many Democrats voted in favor of the Patriot Act? Then did so again? How many have taken steps to break the Bush Administration's secrecy as opposed to merely grabbing political material such as the Roberts documents? What Democrats are working to benefit the country as opposed to just their own partisans?

#7 Willingness to believe bad things in general and about our government
Willingness to believe bad things, that is the first step. But only the first step. What is being done by Democrat leaders to stop those bad things from happening? What are they doing to reverse the great damage those bad things have already caused?

#8 The need to protest – and what is “patriotism”
I live in Seattle. Specifically, I live on Capitol Hill, the site of the WTO "riots" in 1999, the riots that ultimately were caused by Clinton's insisting that local police "deal with" the protests and displays of patriotism. That, in turn, led to several nights of increased protest, the indiscriminate use of toxic chemicals on protestor and innocent bystanders alike (the police used military grade tear gas), "no protest zones" (yes, they were a Clinton creation) and the banning of gas masks, a violation of the Second Amendment right to protect oneself against government agression. In short, I have first hand experience with the Democrats' official opinion towards "the need to protest" and other displays of patriotism. And don't get me started on the 2000 and 2004 Democratic National Conventions.

#9 Abortion rights
The right to choose between an abortion or bearing a child is one part -- a relatively small part, despite it being such a hot-button issue -- of the much larger area of personal privacy and personal choice. After all, Roe v. Wade was decided on the matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor, on the matter of an adult woman being capable of making decisions that affect her body in an intimate way. While the Democratic Party has, generally, supported abortion rights, I have not seen much effort put in to preserving, much less expanding, the foundations upon which those rights are based.

#10 Election reform
Indeed. Here in Washington, it was the Democrats who initiated the lawsuit that resulted in throwing away our state's blanket Primary (the Republicans signed on after the Dems had announced they were filing suit.) It was and is the Democrats in the state House and Senate who repeatedly shoot down any effort to reform state election processes to guarantee that the vote is public and accurate, and who have mandated that we throw away the polls entirely -- along with more than a hundred years of laws and precedences to guarantee a fair, accurate, meaningful election -- and have all votes by mail. Does anyone here in DU need to be reminded of Bev Harris' and Andy Stephenson's efforts to convince our state House and Senate -- both dominated by the Democratic Party -- about the need for meaningful election reform? Does anyone here need to be reminded of the cold response they got?

[Time for change]

14. Well, this has to be the most thorough response I've ever received to a

post of mine.

Of course it's true that many of our Democratic leaders do not live up to the values that I espoused in this thread. Part of that is probably based on the need to compromise with a Republican majority, part is probably based on the need or desire to get re-elected, part is based on lack of courage, and I'm sure part of it is based simply on the fact that we DUers are more liberal than most of the leaders who represent us (i.e., we believe in these values more than they do).

I guess that when I use the term "we Democrats" I'm thinking more of we DUers and less of our elected representatives.

So, I was kind of testing this to see what kind of agreement we have on the values themselves, rather than whether or not our representatives actually live up to them. If we can agree on a set of values, and if it can be shown that they work politically as well, maybe some of our representatives will make more use of them.

And just one question about your mention of the Bosnian war: Wasn't our purpose in getting involved in that to stop the genocide? And weren't we successful in that? Do you think that our involvement in that war seriously went against the value I specified in this thread?

[Gay Green]

40. And that thorough response is a scathing indictment of the Beltway Democra

Democrats. They, with few exceptions (like Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold and John Conyers) have literally turned the Democratic Party into just another Repugnican Party.

[Don1]

44. Genocide.

"And just one question about your mention of the Bosnian war: Wasn't our purpose in getting involved in that to stop the genocide? And weren't we successful in that? Do you think that our involvement in that war seriously went against the value I specified in this thread?"

This is kind of like saying that the US war for independence was genocide against the British. Or the Iraqi war is genocide...100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Whenever you have two different ethnicities, religions, or other groups in armed conflict with one another it will appear as genocide.

This is not to say that horrible acts did not occur from both sides in which civilians of the opposing side were targeted. They were. Everyone was going crazy there with social paranoia, kind of like us after 9-11 where many US citizens were running around beating up Muslims. Or kind of like us where the MinuteMen have run down to the border to fight Mexicans. It is just that the paranoia was taken to the next level in the former Yugoslavia. Groups of people, often civlians, were led away to be slaughtered because the paranoid thought that one group had to be pre-emptive against the other to defend itself. It is a lot like Bush's pre-emptive war against Iraq, killing 100,000 civlians...just on a local scale with several towns doing the same thing. And it was one group against the other. Muslims were leading away Serbs that they accused of aiding the enemy and Serbs were leading away Muslims.

Perhaps, one can call it genocide. It is just important to know the facts before the label. Do not know the label first, then assume the facts. Both sides killed civilians there and the counts were greatly exaggerated by the US media, as usual. For example, the deaths in Srebenica were in the hundreds and not in the thousands. And it is important to be consistent, too. Thousands, maybe even tens of thousands died in Fallujah, Iraq, through systematic slaughter using napalm on citizens who were forced to stay in city boundaries. If you choose a definition of genocide to include events in former Yugoslavia, then you must also include Fallujah, Iraq.

As to the question of intervention...something had to be done, but what? First, the US did not have the proper information about what was done and who was doing it. Second, it makes sense to intervene, but with what tools are you intervening? The US military? "Air support" which is just another euphemism for bombing targets along with civilian collateral damage? We bombed the Yugoslavian version of the World Trade Center because it was considered a military target...

What about the US employing tools, like black ops, propaganda, and the creation of insurgencies using Al Qaeda? Yes, Al Qaeda. According to NATO reports written by the Dutch soldiers in Yugoslavia, Al Qaeda, including bin Laden, was present in Yugoslavia while we were trying to create Muslim insurgencies there to wrest the government control from the Serbs. Coincidence? I doubt it, since only a couple of years before, we had employed bin Laden to do the same thing in Afghanistan.

And the end result? A capitalist security state in which all business both government and corporate goes through a US approval process. Are the people generally happy, though? Yes. Are people running around killing each other? No. Was it overall a good thing? Yes. Could we have done a lot better? Yes.

Back to your original question: "Do you think that our involvement in that war seriously went against the value I specified in this thread?" My answer is yes.

[Time for change]

46. It seems to me that we have a lot of agreement on this issue

I agree that genocide is a somewhat ambiguous term, and certainly it is defined differently by different people, depending upon their motives. But we both agree that terrible things were happening in Bosnia that needed to be stopped.

We also agree that overall, our intervention was a good thing, primarily because its main effect was that it stopped the killing. That was my main point in suggesting that this intervention was consistent with our values.

So I don't understand your conclusion that our involvement in that war seriously went against the values specified in this thread -- since you agree that overall it was a good thing?

As to the question, could we have done a lot better, I'm afraid that I would have to have a lot more information than I do to answer that accurately. You say that your answer is yes, but it's not clear to me how you feel we could have done a lot better.

[Don1]

64. What we did wrong and how relevant to your values.

What Was Wrong
Too many civilian deaths...Too much hype and media propaganda to get us to intervene...our governmental and corporate control of the country up to this very day...black ops, creating insurgencies, and using Al Qaeda. Refusal for diplomacy through UN and using NATO instead of UN peacekeepers. It's basically the same criticsms as we now have of Iraq but to a lesser in degree.

How Relevant to Your Values
#1
Life -- the civilians in Yugoslavia had a right to life. We need to do more to curtail collateral damage, which is a euphemism for civilian deaths. Often, military commanders could care less about such things and the media fails to report it.
Liberty -- the people of Yugoslavia have a right to do their business without complete US domination.
#4
You said "phony excuses." The case of Yugoslavia was highly exaggerated. It was called such things as the greatest holocaust since WWII in our media. Lies. What is going on in Africa is a much bigger deal right now. Our media doesn't cover it at all.
#6
Access to information -- just about everyone I know has next to no knowledge on this issue. We were all kept in the dark about this one perhaps by both sides of the aisle. We are not trying to fix what is wrong there either, because we simply do not know.

Conclusion
We might want to see intervention, but we only do so if we imagine our government and military to be relatively harmless in comparison to what is being intervened. Our government and military have both been harmful to the citizens of Yugoslavia, but not to the same degree as problems that they had before intervention. However, the harm was and still is there. In the case of Yugoslavia, we could have done a lot better.

[Time for change]

76. These are important points

But it is difficult for me to evaluate them because of the lack of details. For example, Clinton says in his biography that the military approach he used in this war was largely based on advice from his military advisors that that would be the best way to avoid civilian casualties. Admitedly he is not the most unbiased source around, but I have no way to evaluate the accuracy of his statement.

So, if you have any references to support the conclusions of your last post it would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Don1]

94. I spent some time looking up references for you.

I got about halfway through, then gave up. I don't really have the time for it. You can Google this stuff yourself easily and get most of the info. You have to put quite a bit of time in to get ALL of it.

[Time for change]

96. Thank you for trying

The two main books that I've read on the subject that I felt covered our involvement in the Bosnia and Kosovo wars pretty well (I've read others, but these are the ones that stick out in my mind the most) are War in a Time of Peace -- Bush, Clinton, and the Generals, by David Halberstam, and A Problem from Hell -- America and the Age of Genocide, by Samantha Power. Both of these books made the case, in general, that our intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo was consistent with the values I noted in my original post to this thread. If anything, both authors felt that we should have intervened earlier in Bosnia, on a humanitarian basis, in order to better ameliorate the catastrophe that happened there.

[Don1]

106. Grrr....

So I do not give you some references and you go back to assuming that there is no such information. It's all out there. Just read it. Here is some of it. (Where I provide Google links, obviously you will need to filter through them for reliable sites).

Civilian Deaths, Not Just "Collateral Damage"

This was a TV station's building. There are hundreds more like this including the former Yugoslavia's version of our World Trade Center. Think about the hypocrisy...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2B%22collateral+damage%22+%2BYugoslavia
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Yugoslavia+%2BNATO+civilians+site%3Aamnesty.org

Hype
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2BYugoslavia+%2Bexaggerations
Additionally, if you look at the reported deaths, you will find counts from hundreds to tens of thousands...In particular, look up Srebrenica:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2BSrebrenica+%2Bexaggerations

Our Use of Al Qaeda
Here is some of it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22Al+Qaeda%22+%2BYugoslavia
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BEH502A.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2B%22bin+Laden%22+%2BYugoslavia

[Time for change]

107. I did no such thing

I simply noted references that I had used to form my opinion on the matter. That is very different than saying that I assume that no information exists to contradict it.

I will read your references and get back with you. I think this is a very important issue.

[Don1]

108. Don't Just Review My References.

Seek out additional references...Halberstam and I are not the only people who have something to say about the issue either. Try some Chomsky, for example.

It's like I said before...the same criticisms of Iraq exist(ed) in Yugoslavia, but to a lesser degree. Instead of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, they had tens of thousands Yugoslavians. Military targets included non-military infrastructure such as financial buildings and TV stations. That is especially chilling, considering 9/11. How many civilians died in the Yugoslavian version of the WTC? Does anyone know?

The complete domination of Iraq government by US interests is nearly the same as the complete domination of Yugoslavian government by US interests. You can just check out any current government event/decision there to confirm that one...

The part about Osama bin Laden is real bad, too.

[Time for change]

109. Here's what I see as the bottom line

This is from the two books that I noted above, and for which I could not find anything to contradict them:

The war in Kosovo was begun for humanitarian reasons, and for that reason alone it differs greatly from the current war in Iraq. Consistent with that, the Clinton Administration tried very hard to get Milosovic to call off the catastrophe unfolding in Kosovo before committing to war. We entered that war very reluctantly.

Prior to the war, and within the first few weeks of the war, the Serbian persecution (and it does meet the technical definition of genocide, but that's besides the point) of the the Albanians in Kosovo had resulted in approximately 11,000 deaths and the removal of three quarters of the Albanian population of Kosovo from their homes, thereby creating 1.3 million refugees. It is also believed that had the genocide been allowed to continue, hundreds of thousands more Albanians would have died. Therefore, this war prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims, and it allowed 1.3 million refugees to return to their homes a couple of months later, when the war was over.

Against this, approximately 400-600 innocent civilians were killed in the war as a result of our bombing actions. It is true, based on reading the report by Amnesty International, that had the war been prosecuted differently (for example, by bombing from lower altitudes) we probably could have reduced the number of civilian casualties (though concurrently posing greater risks to our air crew). So, I agree that we probably should have done that, and that would have been more consistent with the values described in this thread.

But overall the war was fought for a humanitarian purpose, and balanced against the harm that it caused it did a lot more good, and that's what I mean when I say that in general this war was consistent with our values.

[Don1]

110. Biased Outlook

Here is an example. Saying that Bush went into Iraq for the Iraqi civilians is exactly what a Bush fan would say. Saying that we went into Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons is exactly what a Clinton fan would say. In fact, that is almost always our justification for war. It is almost always claimed to be for the people of that land: Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea...

Here is another example. Saying that Bush tried to work with Hussein who was not cooperating is something a Bush fan would say. Saying that Clinton tried to work with Milosovic who was not cooperating is something that a Clinton fan would say, too. We must be objective here, regardless of how much we liked what Clinton did for our economy (as I did).

Here is another example. Suddenly, we as Democrats talk about corporate media in support of Bush's war with Iraq. But if someone said the same thing about Yugoslavia, what would be our tendency? Again, we must be objective. There are criticisms of US corporate media during the Yugoslavian campaign, if you care to read them?

Our bombings destroyed a lot more than just 400-600 civlians. We bombed infrastructure, which ultimately caused more death. We bombed infrastructure even when we did not need to. We also, by the way, intentionally destabilized the region through Al Qaeda, so that later we could control it. That contradicts our value of life.

As I wrote before, we now control the country, both governmentally and through corporate control. That contradicts our value of liberty. This last fact is more long-term than just the couple of years in which a war took place.

[Time for change]

112. Simply stating that my statements are "biased" is not much of an argument

Clinton sent Richard Holbrooke to Belgrade to plead with Milosovic to call off the genocide before making a final decision to go to war. Can Bush say anything like that about Iraq?

Here I'm quoting from "A Problem from Hell" by Samantha Power, talking about the UN war crimes tribunal: "The UN war crimes tribunal at The Hague confirmed the 4,000 bodies or parts exhumed from more than 500 sites. Officials stressed that not all of those executed or beaten to death in Kosovo had been buried in mass graves. Many were demped into roadsied ditches, wells, ..." "The UN prosecutor at The Hague also found that four out of five Kosovar refegee reports of the number of bodies in the graves were precise. The bodies kept turning up. In 2001 some 427 dead Albanians from Kosovo were exhumed in five mass graves that had been hidden in Serbia proper. An additional three mass grave sites, containing mnore than 1,000 bodies, were found in a Bellgrade suburb and awaited exhumation. Each of the newly discovered sites lies near Yogoslav army or police barracks"

There's plenty more, this is just a small sample. Do you think that the UN war crimes tribunal is biased and is trying to cover up for us? Was there any such supporting evidence for the reasons that Bush gave for invading Iraq?

[Don1]

116. To a lesser degree (once again)...

NATO is to the UN as the Coalition Of The Willing is to NATO. Get it? If I show it to you and you cannot see it, then there is nothing more I can do.

And the bombing was done without cause. It made no sense unless the purpose was to destabilize the country. Same with introducing Al Qaeda. No sense unless the purpose was to destabilize. Again, not consistent with the value of life.

Now, it is a tight security state, much like what we seem to prefer in our past endeavors. The US controls everything about it. So again, that is not consistent with our value of liberty.

I am not saying that Clinton did not have an honest motive in intervention... As I said before, the methods of this war and the end results were not what was promised. Things could have been much better. And things could be a lot better right now.

Why does the US not give up corporate and governmental control of the country? Is the answer control? Then, okay. Say in your 10 core values that control is more important than liberty.

[FrenchieCat]

119. I agree that the methods used "bombing at high altitudes"

was not the best way to achieve the objective of putting down the Milosevic government in Kosovo.

There was a General in charge of the actions at the time who was in favor of more precise bombing utilizing Apache Helicopters, and boots on the ground (that General was retired early due to his insistence that there was a better way). However, due to Clinton's fear of another Somalia incident, and the Republican pressure not risk even one US soldier, the high altitude bombing was selected as the "safest" (read for our soldiers) manner in destroying the command infrastructure of the government that was reeking havoc and practicing various methods of Genocide upon the unwanted portion of its people.

[Don1]

117. Could have been much better...

Here is another example. Lack of critical analysis by the corporate media has always existed.

Check FAIR media advisories during the Clinton years:
"Before treating Clinton as a strategic genius, however, media need to answer the question: If the United States had negotiated in better faith, could a similar agreement have been reached at Rambouillet without the staggering cost in human life?"
http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/settlement.htm

In regard to more destabilization...the Pentagon trained and allied to the Croatian army in 1994-95, which then for some reason committed mass atrocities against the Serbs:
"There are also reports of war crimes committed during the operation, and even one report of shelling of a refugee column on the Glina-Dvor road at the end of August 1995. The Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights recorded 715 grave sites by November 1995. Veritas, a Serbian organization that collects information about the conflict, compiled a list of 1542 Serbian casualties of the operation in 1997.

Almost the entire Serb population of the area fled during and after "Storm". Some Croatian sources cite around 90,000 civilians and up to 50,000 soldiers. Some Serbian sources cite a total of 250,000. The ICTY prosecution estimates 150,000 - 200,000."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm

So when Albanian refugees are mentioned, one must look at these Serbian refugee counts as well which was an effect of either the war(s) or a deliberate destabilization.

[FrenchieCat]

118. I disagree with your premise that an intervention in Kosovo was

not warranted.

First, in reference to the "hyped" numbers that you gave, let me say this.....In Bosnia, there were 200,000 slaughtered just a fews years before, and by the time of our intervention, there were approximately 10,000 Muslim Albanian deaths that occured in Kosovo. The intervention was entered in exactly because no one wanted to see a repeat of Bosnia in Kosovo. The intervention stopped Genocide, so no, there wasn't a pile of 100,000 laying in a heap that compelled us into Kosovo....the pile of 200,000 in Bosnia and the pile of 800,000 in Rwanda, however, did give us a road map.

Do you know how many civilian casualties were reported by Human Rights group that were caused by the NATO Bombing?

Here is Barbara Boxer discussing this very issue during the Condi Rice SOS Hearings....

"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California.
We cannot forget. We cannot forget that. Thank you. "--Barbara Boxer
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h ...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. what about Universal Healthcare?

[Time for change]

20. I mentioned that under # 3 n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. indeed you did...my bad

[omega minimo]

26. Where is this coming from?

"The issue here involves balancing the rights of a pregnant woman against the rights of her fetus. Most Democrats (myself included) feel that the rights of the pregnant woman are more important, and most Republicans feel more strongly about the rights of the fetus (relative to the rights of the woman, compared with Democrats)."

This is an unfortunate and dangerous misconception (pun intended). Mayb the RW portrays the issue this way, but NOT US please. This is one of those red herrings that DUers can spend hours going in circles about, when it really isn't the point.

Women have a Constitutionally upheld right to autonomy over their bodies and privacy regarding their medical health. Beyond that, people can parse all the fine points til they are blue in the face. But it is real simple.

The thing that seems truly demented about the argument as you pose it, is that the woman and the forming life in her body are one. Arguing over which one is more valuable or has more "rights" defies physical reality and common sense. Opinions based on the notion that a clock starts running at conception (assuming the automatic guarantee of a new human being) without taking into consideration the entire process of gestation and birth, are truly clueless.

Women are not incubators. The life growing in her body is a woman's concern, not the publics, not the prudes, not the government, not the CONTROL FREAKS. She has the right to privacy and sovereignty over her body and her health.

If more men thought in terms of their own body being controlled, invaded and treated as a public commodity, they might have more enlightened attitudes about the whole matter.

This doesn't have to be argued by the Left as a "moral" issue. And Dems have to QUIT TRYING TO APPEASE THE SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY INTRUSIVE MORAL BIGOTS. Women have this right and people have to DEAL WITH IT. Those who claim more concern for the "unborn" are hypocrites. Until they exhibit consistent concern for the BORN, they can keep their morality to themselves. They've got work to do.

Why aren't people trying to improve the lot and the lives of ALL women, rather than trying to control them and treat them as SECOND CLASS CITIZENS who deserve no better than to be manipulated and judged by total strangers?

:kick:

[Time for change]

28. I just don't believe that ALL people who are "pro-life"

are intrusive moral bigots and hypocrites. I'm sure that many and perhaps most of them are. But ALL of them? I don't believe so. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

You don't believe that ANY of these people take that position out of concern for the fetus?

You talk about the constitutionality of this issue. The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade made a big point of the quote at the beginning of your post -- i.e., balancing the rights of the fetus vs. those of the mother.

[omega minimo]

29. I like the way you

lovingly said (above in another reply) "they're simply clueless."

I understand the temptation to "communicate" with these people. I don't doubt the sincerity or concern of well-meaning folks. The fact remains that this is a right of women, it is one of the MOST personal possible experiences; it does not warrant public intrusion, and frankly, it is none of anyone's business. PEOPLE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT-- THEY DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. DEMOCRATS NEED TO HAVE THE BACKBONE TO SUPPORT WOMEN AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL DEGREE. To do otherwise is to endanger the Democratic Party's survival.

There are many aspects of life and health that we might intrude our opinions, morals and scrutiny into. Unless it endangers others, this society generally doesn't encourage that behavior. Why is this ONE ISSUE-- answerable with the simple FACT of a woman's autonomy over her privacy, her health and her body-- fair game for the intrusive judgement and political terrorism of so-called "moral" people?

We'll have to look up your reference. I doubt the Court referred to the "rights" of the fetus.

The bumpersticker version would be:
WOMEN ARE NOT INCUBATORS.

[Time for change]

31. This is from Bob Woodward's book, "The Brethren"

He goes into great detail to explain the thinking of Harry Blackmun, who was the author of Roe v. Wade, as well as the swing vote. This was a great surprise because he was considered to be very conservative.

Here is one of many quotes on his thought process: "Abortions were generally safe in the first trimester and, under proper medical conditions, coud be performed safely in the second. It was at about this time, at the end of the second trimester, that the fetus became viable, or capable of living outside the womb. That was at about 24 to 28 weeks ... Therefore, the two medical interests -- protecting both the health of the mother and the potential life of the fetus -- seemed to converge and become overriding at about this six month point."

[omega minimo]

36. Thank you for checking. Clearly, the "rights of the fetus" = a mistatement

"It was at about this time, at the end of the second trimester, that the fetus became viable, or capable of living outside the womb. That was at about 24 to 28 weeks ..."

"Capable of living outside the womb" being relative-- at 6 months, a fetus is underdeveloped and needful of 3 months more development. Too early for a social security card. "The rights of the fetus" is language to be avoided as misleading.

"Therefore, the two medical interests -- protecting both the health of the mother and the potential life of the fetus -- seemed to converge and become overriding at about this six month point."

The justice refers to "two medical interests" that "converge and become overriding," not COMPETING medical interests.

"The health of the mother" and the "POTENTIAL LIFE" of the fetus are still in symbiosis. If people truly respected life, the connection between the two would be respected, not dissected and treated as a war between the two. If women were respected, the RW would never succeed at jackhammering on this issue.

Anti-choice attitudes are based on hypotheticals and detached judgement. If people don't believe in abortion, they shouldn't have one.

HAVING THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT WILL BE THE DECISION THAT IS MADE. Again, nobody's business.

:hi:

[Time for change]

41. This is taken right from Roe v. Wade

" ... violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term."

[omega minimo]

49. Note

"potentiality" and "the WOMAN's approach to term."

Too bad the control freaks are more interested in control than reality.

[Time for change]

48. Here is the link

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

[mikelewis]

87. "Women are not incubators" - Nice line

[The Doctor.]

30. Please understand...

The points you make, the arguments 'Republicans' make against the values of which you speak, are not true Republican arguments.

They have some small basis in true conservatism... but only barely.

The things you accuse 'Republicans' of being against are actually values that are by and large shared by real Republicans... including myself and even my Bush-supporting parents. (Even though they have been brainwashed.)

The adversaries you allude to are the sad conscripts of a twisted thought process... not real Republicans.

It is important that we make certain distinctions, for no matter how much bile and malice we hear from either side, I'm certain everyone here knows how foolish it is to demonize any group of people based on the few screaming idiots that profess to represent them.

[omega minimo]

34. If you are a "real Republican"

can you help explain the complacency of "real Republicans" as their party has been hijacked by the "twisted thought process" "screaming idiots" a la Bush or Gingrich or Reagan?

Why would reasonable "real" Republicans continue identifying with and supporting what that party has become?

The "sad conscripts" have been in charge for a decade or two or three, eh?

"no matter how much bile and malice we hear from either side"

As the Far Right turned the Republicans into the party of bile and malice, they escalated their propaganda war by accusing the Left of equivalent bile and malice. Today people say "both sides do it." Bullshit. The Republicans rule with the Big Lie and that is one of them.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[omega minimo]

51. So it's back to grade school, eh?

"The easy answer is fear. This fear is compounded by an overwhelming sense of (often ingrained) helplessness."

-- Fear, helplessness, dependence on leaders, peer pressure (or "propriety")

"Fact of the matter is; it is far easier to place one’s faith in their ‘chosen team’ to handle affairs than it is to dedicate the time and resources to divine whether the leaders you have invested your ‘faith’ in truly have your interests, or the interests of your country in mind when creating policy."

-- Here's the thing: we each have a responsibility to do just that. I think you're correct about why people don't-- but still. If we don't activate our democratic system by at least paying attention, then we are hypocrites giving lip service to our American pride.

"The fear is of commitment. The helplessness is what hits you when you believe that the problem is far too great for you to deal with."

-- More afraid of commitment than being hypocrites. This is why people say that Americans won't wake up "until it affects them." Don't get me started on whether it affects them or not.

"Does every single Democrat you know DO something on a daily, or even weekly basis to ‘spread the word’ or bring attention to these critical political issues?

-- This can be very simple. It starts with paying attention and taking some responsibility for what leaders do on our behalf. Then, every day we have choices about how we live our lives that affect others and express our beliefs. These can be our way of being "active" and of doing something to "‘spread the word’ or bring attention to these critical political issues." Quiet noise is powerful too. This sort of power contrasts the "helplessness" you spoke of. Especially people of faith and "good works" must be able to relate to this form of personal activism.

"Everyone has a life to attend. The vast majority of us are barely getting by at all. What happens when you realize that a vast evil has encompassed your government and threatens the Democracy you were told you belonged to?"

-- What happens when you run away from your complicity in supporting that government and your hypocritical faith in a "Democracy" you will not defend?

"And the ‘both sides’ argument is no ‘bullshit’ at all my friend… but lately I would certainly agree that the ‘Republicans’ have quite the monopoly on both ‘bullshit’ and ‘hypocrisy’… as well as a few other devious traits."

-- Actually the "both sides" has become a bullshit cop-out cliche that one hears frequently Dittoed by the sorts of folks you are describing-- a convenient way to hide from the actions of "your team" (pretending the playing field is level and both captains are equally corrupt-- except there is only one Cheerleader-in-Chief) and an easy way to avoid having to do anything, or even consider doing anything....

"The ‘Republicans’ have honed this over the past few decades much as you have suggested. Far be it from me to get into a shooting match, but I have seen Democrats try to raise the specter of domestic fears in many of the same ways Republicans use foreign incitements to garner support."

-- You have well-stated the mechanisms of fear and control that have the country in a death grip. What the Republicans also honed was the sense that every one is out for themselves, without concern for others or for the nation as an interconnected whole with mutual interests. This is the great divide b/w right and left. This bigoted brainwashing enables the life of self-satisfied complacency and denial that you outlined.

"There are plenty of Democrats who were so devoted to Clinton that they ignored any of his transgressions. (And I could care less about the bitch and the blue dress… very few Presidents have not indulged)"

-- You lost me at "bitch." Decided to reply to your excellent post anyway. It is so wearying to constantly be reminded on DU that women are "less than" and "other." We need to get on with efforts that might have a chance of salvaging the remnants of our nation from the maw of global piracy and public indifference. If politically minded men don't recognize the value of respecting women with consistency (not being struck by "fear" and "helplessness" at the thought of equanimity and "commitment") they may find themselves dealing with a new party the likes of which the world has never known.

:hi:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[The Doctor.]

62. Wow...

I was rather sincere when I posited the notion that you and I may differ on our level of respect for Ms. Lewinsky. (or lack thereof)
This was simply because you took my derision of her rather personally.

You need to stop taking things that are both not directed at you, nor deliberately 'sexist', so personally. I might advise that you develop the ability to make such distinctions. But that's an anger issue you have to work out.


Now these two statements;

(mine)"If you have a real solution beyond our bringing attention to these issues where our time and resources allow, I'm all eyes and ears."

(your direct response); "-- Live in a manner consistent with your values. Don't believe you are helpless. Don't be a hypocrite. Be the change you want to see in the world."

Are actually consistent with one another if you examine them. True, I take it for granted that we must live in a way that is consistent with our values... I know that not everyone does. Unfortunately that brings us right back to keeping people informed when our time and resources allow, and then hoping that they live 'in a manner consistent with' their values.

As for the point that more 'Republicans' are likely to think they are principled without acting so... you will get no argument from me on that.
But I will say that such people are certainly not true conservatives either.

[omega minimo]

66. Silly

Calling you on referring to someone with a sexist slur does not suggest "...where you perhaps like and appreciate Ms. Lewinsky for what she has done, I do not."

It may be difficult to understand how sexism makes the poster look ignorant and bigoted, but there it is.

When this list of shared values gets to that basic level, Democrats will be making progress. This is part of the concept you claim to comprehend, of actions consistent with values.

:patriot:

[The Doctor.]

67. I have no problem...

Using many other descriptive words for people.

The word I chose was very specific to her disposition and rather deliberate. I chose it as much for it's zoological connotation as for my disdain.

To assume that I am a sexist because of it would be incorrect.

In such a case you must realize that we would have to do away with quite a slew of words and phrases that are also derogatory to men but are used with some abandon here and on other sites.

There is such a thing as 'reverse discrimination' whereby one 'side' believes that because they are the victim, equal mistreatment is therefore justifiable and appropriate.

I apologize for my harsh criticism, but my expression is by no means a commentary on the whole of femininity any more than calling Bush a 'dick' says that all men are somehow insensitive and rude.

While I shall assume that you are likely a very well-mannered individual (with at least one notable exception ;)), I would be surprised to find that you jump to the defense of all men when a stereotypical epithet is fired off in your presence.

Regards.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

69. Silly

:rofl:

I am indubitably desirous of revealing my proclivity to envelop wispy clouds of sanctimonious syllables surrounding dubious dollops of buffalo dung, too.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Time for change]

52. But I still don't understand the basis on which you call yourself both a

true Republican and a progressive at the same time, given the fact that the current Republican leadership is about as far away from progressive as you can get (please see my post # 35).

If you call yourself a true Republican, what distinguishes you from the Republican leadership of our country?

And if you call yourself a progressive, what distinguishes you from a Democrat?

[The Doctor.]

65. My apologies for taking this long to respond...

Your question is very reasonable.

I absolutely agree that the current 'Republican' leadership is certainly not at all progressive. You may also have noticed that many Republicans do not at all agree with this administration.

Real conservatives who actually pay attention to what these people are doing are either confused or outraged. Real Republicans are unhappy with them for their interference with state's rights and intervention on issues that the federal government should stay out of.

I suppose it is in that that I am a Republican. Aside from having been one for decades, I also still do believe in the diversity of our Republic. The fact that there are elements who have identified themselves with the Republican party and are actively attempting to force issues upon the whole of the country that should be confined to their own state or municipality is an affront to Republican values.

I agree with many progressive ideas. I would perhaps describe myself as more of a fiscal conservative, social moderate, and progressive in terms of having a clear vision for a future where the human race can thrive and literally everyone wants for naught.

I would perhaps be much more liberal than moderate if I weren't so cynical of humanity's ability to handle advances in society and technology. We must take the lowest common denominator into account.

So I can say that I'm nothing like this administration in that it is clear to me that their agenda is foolhardy, wasteful, and shortsighted.

I am not a progressive because I am painfully aware that so many progressive ideas, however brilliant, are easily exploited by those who do not have the ethical or intellectual development to realize the greater good. (if you get rid of all guns - the guy with the biggest stick wins.)

I am not a Democrat, not so much because I do not agree with Democratic values, but because we are not a pure Democracy and this nation is richer for it.

While I may be a fiscal conservative, it makes no sense to me that people can forget that their religion has no place in government.
Fer crying out loud - we have FAR more important things to deal with than whether or not Bill and Derek get married.

All in all, I believe that you would find that most Republicans share your values and vice-versa. The divisive atmosphere in this country is more of an illusion than anything... we just have to wake each other up and talk.

Hey... If I can find it I once saw an interesting poll where people with different party affiliations were asked whether they agree with certain positions and policies without being given the political classifications of those policies.

They found that 75% of Republicans supported typical Democratic and progressive policies when they weren't given the ideologies behind them.

I'll see if I can dig that up sometime... I'm sure you'd get a kick out of it.

[Time for change]

70. It sounds like you're saying that you share most or all of the values in

this post.

If that is the case, then I would respectfully suggest that you change your Republican affiliation to that of another party.

Although it is true as you point out that some Republicans sometimes disagree with this Administration, the vast majority of the Republican leadership do not support these values, whether they say they do or not.

I will give one example, from value # 10. On January 6th, there were two hours of televised debate in the House and Senate on the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. Abuses of our electoral process in Ohio were numerous, widespread, flagrant, and very well documented. Many believe that these abuses were so widespread that Bush could not have won the election without them. If that is true (and I can point you to loads of documentaion on this issue if you like), then our democracy is in great trouble.

Several Democrats in both houses of Congress stood up to speak of these problems and suggest that they be investigated. Several Republicans also stood up -- but NOT A SINGLE ONE supported the suggestion that these issues be looked into. On the contrary, all they did was accuse the Democrats of being sore losers and demand that all this nonsense be stopped.

Do you believe that we can have a democracy when our votes are counted by machines that use secret software? Well, virtually every Republican in Congress believes that, judging by their actions.

Why belong to a Party like that?

You say you're a fiscal conservative. In the last quarter of a centery we've had 8 years of a Democratic President and 17 years of Republican Presidents. Do you know what happened to our national debt in the 17 years versus the 8 years?

[The Doctor.]

72. The obvious distinction is between the 'Leadership'...

and Republican constituents.

I dare say that many Republicans would switch parties if they were more aware of what was going on in the 'leadership'.

Which is why I work towards informing them when I can.

The simple reason I have decided not to change parties is that the original Republican party has simply been hijacked. It would feel like abandoning a terminal patient, if you will.

I did like Clinton for his fiscal restraint. And It makes me very disturbed that so many 'conservatives' allow themselves to believe that he 'inherited' the surplus.

The arms race which originally ran up the debt was crazy, but effectively did in the Soviet Union. An ideal circumstance? Absolutely not - the suffering there is deplorable to this day.

The Republican leadership in the Senate will not allow an investigation into the irregularities (outright crimes) of the 2004 election because they would stand to lose their grip on power.

They are traitors to the Constitution and to the United States.

Perhaps one other reason I remain a Republican...

Other Republicans are much more receptive when I speak to them. This has given me many opportunities to inform people who might have otherwise dismissed me out of hand.

[Time for change]

73. That's good

If remaining a Republican enables you to educate other Republicans as to what's going on, then it's just as well that you stay a Republican. :)

We need all the help we can get.

[The Doctor.]

74. And they need it too...

Whether they know it (yet) or not.

Cheers.

:toast:

[The Doctor.]

63. Revised for non-gender specific content...

The simple answer is fear.

Obviously I don’t necessarily mean fear of terrorists who “hate us for our freedoms”, but rather a more intangible fear.
This answer is two-fold of course. The easy answer is fear. This fear is compounded by an overwhelming sense of (often ingrained) helplessness.

Fact of the matter is; it is far easier to place one’s faith in their ‘chosen team’ to handle affairs than it is to dedicate the time and resources to divine whether the leaders you have invested your ‘faith’ in truly have your interests, or the interests of your country in mind when creating policy. The fear is of commitment. The helplessness is what hits you when you believe that the problem is far too great for you to deal with.

Let’s start with commitment.

Does every single Democrat you know DO something on a daily, or even weekly basis to ‘spread the word’ or bring attention to these critical political issues?
If the answer is ‘yes’, then I commend you and your compatriots… but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if you knew many more ‘Democrats’ who never spoke a word out of ‘propriety’. Guess how many people engage in ‘propriety’? Lots.
Why?
Because it’s far more comfortable to be proper… and we ‘fear’ the ‘uncomfortable’.
So one thing you cannot assume, even on any statistical basis, is that SO many more Democrats stand up for a cause than Republicans. (And I’m certainly not suggesting that you have assumed so much.)
But I will concede that I have certainly seen more real activism on the ‘left’ side than on the ‘right’.

So there are obviously many ‘real Republicans’ who choose to engage in ‘propriety’ due to their convenient ‘faith’ in their ‘chosen team’. This is exactly what I meant when I said that such arguments are not “true Republican arguments.”

If they weren’t so afraid of impropriety… the same impropriety that many Democrats avoid; then they would certainly make some noise… much like I have to the detriment of my relationships and, in some cases, even my career.

DUH.

Which brings us directly to the fear…

Everyone has a life to attend. The vast majority of us are barely getting by at all.
What happens when you realize that a vast evil has encompassed your government and threatens the Democracy you were told you belonged to?
Screw that! – You DON’T realize it. If you do, you have to live with the dissonance of such a specter hovering over your life while feeling quite powerless to deal with it. But if it’s the ‘team’ you’ve invested your ‘faith’ in… well, I hope you get the point. It’s FAR easier to have faith in your ‘team’ than feel you have to ‘DO’ anything about it.

Make no mistake my friend… I was plenty lambasted by the ‘left’ when I assaulted Big Dog Clinton’s policies on China and his rather outspoken support of NAFTA.
Two critical points – The offenses of this current administration outstrip the last by orders of magnitude, and now that I call out this administration on it’s incompetence and greed, I’m called, in some cases, a “terrorist-loving, commie-hugging, leftist, America hating ‘Liberal’ by those who do not deserve the privilege of openly debating me.

And yes… the derision from the ‘right’ is far more vehement than anything the ‘left’ has doled out to me to this day. Were McCain President, as he would certainly be if not for the underhandedness of Rove; I would probably be more at odds with DU’ers… but we’d still be a lot better off on the whole. I have no doubt we can all agree on that at least.

And the ‘both sides’ argument is no ‘bullshit’ at all my friend… but lately I would certainly agree that the ‘Republicans’ have quite the monopoly on both ‘bullshit’ and ‘hypocrisy’… as well as a few other devious traits.

Otherwise an empiricist such as myself would never have wended his way here.

Essentially, it is VERY hard to acknowledge that you may have been wrong… so hard in fact that it is better not to look at all. And there are PLENTY of right-wing propagandists to make sure that everyone has a ‘popular’ fallback position rather than engage in earnest debate.
The ‘Republicans’ have honed this over the past few decades much as you have suggested. Far be it from me to get into a shooting match, but I have seen Democrats try to raise the specter of domestic fears in many of the same ways Republicans use foreign incitements to garner support.
I am certain that, given the relatively objective nature of DU’ers, there are plenty here who can cite such instances.

I will not argue gravity.

Nonetheless, my late night rambling point is this;

There are plenty of Democrats who were so devoted to Clinton that they ignored any of his transgressions. (And I could care less about the {nasty little tart} and the blue dress- very few Presidents have not indulged)
It’s just plain easier to keep your nose to the grindstone so you can “put food on your family”.

Well now we have far more sophisticated machinations in place to reap adoration for the Chimperor.

And his approval ratings are through the floor.

That should tell you something.

My apologies, I’m not usually so incoherent… I do hope I got half a point across.
Perhaps after coffee…

[Time for change]

35. This is difficult to respond to

especially since I believe that you're the first admitted Republican whom I've met on the DU.

I'm sure you must realize, since you have over a thousand posts here, that Republicans are demonized frequently in this forum, to put it mildly.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to "demonize any group of people based on the few screaming idiots that profess to represent them", as you put it. But I really do believe that the values that I attributed to "Republicans" in my original post to this thread correctly characterize our President and Vice President, the vast majority of Republican Senators and Congressmen, and all but two of our Republican Supreme Court justices -- in other words, the vast majority of the Republican leadership of this country.

So, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. The first rule of this forum is that only Democrats and other progressives are invited to participate. So I assume that you consider yourself a progressive. If so, and if I'm correct in stating that the values I attributed to Republicans in my post correctly characterize the vast majority of the Republican leadership of this country, then I don't understand on what basis you consider yourself to be both true Republican and a progressive at the same time.

Do you consider the vast majority of the Republican leadership of this country to be a "few screaming idiots that profess to represent you"? Or do you disagree with me that the Republican leadership of this country is characterized by the values that I state in my post?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be offensive -- I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

[eallen]

43. I disagree: we should emphasize LIBERTY, because the GOP threatens it.

We need to emphasize religious liberty, which is possible only when the government remains neutral in matters of religion. We need to emphasize personal liberty, that includes the right of consenting adults to have sex how and with whom they want, and to use birth control that they choose. I think reproductive choice should be high on the list, and tied to LIBERTY.

Democrats make a large mistake when they let the GOP steal the rhetoric of liberty. There is no more fundamental American value. And there is no greater danger to it today, than the GOP.

[Time for change]

47. Perhaps I could have stated that better

Originally I was going to say that I choose to emphasize pursuit of happiness over liberty because liberty is a pre-condition for pursuit of happiness, and therefore pursuit of happiness encompasses liberty. For some reason I decided against stating it that way.

But I guess that you are correct about this in general. Liberty is both very important, and it has been both threatened by the Republican control of our country and at the same time co-opted as an issue.

But at the same time, "liberty" is a two edged sword because of the way that it is used by Republicans to justify their immoral actions. They use that very term to justify the right of corporations to do anything they please, to justify the right of the wealthy not to be taxed, to justify the right of private companies to run our elections with machines that count our votes using secred codes, etc. That it why I have kind of been turned off by the term.

So yes, liberty is an important value, and we need to co-opt it as a value from the Republicans. But at the same time we need to differentiate the kind of liberty that we believe in from the way that they use the term.

[Armstead]

45. Very good summary -- (Nominated for Greatest page)

That's a great summary of what should be the core values of Democrats and reasonable independents, as a counter to the right wing GOP Machine.

IMO there are certain core values that "our side" should be able to agree on, and see any differences as a matter of degree, emphasis and timetable.

For example, some are more concerned about the degree to which Corporate Power has superceded Civic Values than otehr people. However, we should at least be able to agree that corporations have to be made more accountable to the public interest, and their power has to be contained.

There are legitimate arguments to be made about degree of reform of that. But all Democrats (and reasonable independents and conservatives) ought to start acknowledging that things have gone too far in the direction of Corporate Power and we need to restore some balance.

[dajoki]

53. FDR's FOUR FREEDOMS

The speech delivered by President Roosevelt incorporated the following section:

In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way - everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor - anywhere in the world.

[Time for change]

54. Good reminder and ideas

I think these hit items 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of my post.

[dajoki]

55. yes they do...

i just wanted to remind everyone what a great president is.

[Time for change]

85. Indeed he was

So much so that 60 years after his death, in order to get votes Republicans have to profess to embrace his programs, even while simultaneously trying to dismantle them.

[ourbluenation]

58. Change #9 "abortion rights" to "privacy rights"

eom

[Time for change]

60. What is your reasoning? n/t

[ourbluenation]

61. because that's what it's about...privacy.

[OzarkDem]

99. Exactly

Too much time, money and effort is expended unnecessarily on this issue while thousands of women past reproductive age are dying for lack of health care.

We need to "move on" when it comes to this issue.

[Bluerthanblue]

89. or perhaps recognizing the right to personal discretion regarding

reproductive decisions?

Sounds like mouth full, but there ARE those who not only would seek to take away a womans choice to terminate a pregnancy, but to have access to adequate birth control, which would, hopefully lessen the need to make a decision regarding abortion.

And, while i'm here, i personally feel VERY strongly about the need to ensure that every child born into this nation is adequately provided for without STIGMA or DERISION.
If 'pro-life' people hold the life of a potential child of great importance, than they NEED to be willing to do more than 'talk'. That position requires financial and social services that will COST- And, as a former welfare recipient, i can tell you quite sincerely, from my humbling, and humiliating experiences, the notion of 'welfare queens' or women having babies to 'get rich' is a cruel lie, or at best an outrageous exaggeration of the tiniest minority of people.

I admit to having a strong revulsion for those who scream 'pro-life' on the one hand, and then refuse to put their wallet, life, or energy into the life they have 'fought' to 'protect' AFTER he or she is BORN.

I really appreciate your OP- Wonder if, as i read it, you might expand on the 'need' for military defense being related to the actions WE take in our 'desire' to have it all- When people are not desperate, they are FAR less likely to be an 'enemy'. And treating ALL people with the respect we desire for ourselves should be an unnecessary given. Our flaunting of the Geneva Convention, and exempting ourselves from the very rules we hold others to is destroying our credibility, and creating friction with our fellow humans.

[Time for change]

91. Expanding # 9 to "personal reproductive rights" may be a good idea

Perhaps # 9 as I wrote it is too narrowly focused (though I was trying to make this somewhat concise).

I certainly agree with your concern that the welfare of the newborn should be linked to the abortion rights issue. I believe that # 3, "economic justice", covers that in some degree.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is about the military intervention issue. I couldn't agree with you more that our current military actions, and disregard and even contempt for conventional international laws that deal with human rights is destroying our credibility and creating friction with others. And I think that's an understatement. I think it goes well beyond that. It is causing us to become a target of hatred and contempt throughout the world. But I wasn't sure that a discussion of that issue belongs in an article about moral values -- since that discussion deals with the consequences of our (im)moral actions, rather than with the values themselves.

[Bluerthanblue]

92. I understand

that my wording is usually verbose, and the need to 'shorten the message'- I also think your OP is great- just adding my own pet agendas, which i think are interconnected.

I also was glad to see your economic justice covered, along with the notation that it is often not a case of 'just desserts' but rather 'happenstance', but how we can actually achieve that ideal (changing the public perception) is a problem that i don't know the answer to.
Currently financial aid to parents is limited to a lifetime max. of 5yrs. on family aid (in my state) While that is exempted for those under 18, it's a 'convenient' wording that makes the government "appear" to care, but in actuality, NOT responsible for the welfare of some of our most vunerable citizens.
And THAT truth, should be made very evident, and clearly connected to the concept that any attempt to legally control reproductive freedoms by a political entity, cannot ignore the social and financial obligations which result. (i'm a former rtlifer, and while i still hope and work to help folks to choose life, i do NOT believe legislation is the answer, nor would i ever condemn, or judge a person who chose otherwise). It's simply i have witnessed first hand the fervor to 'defend the unborn' while seeing the same group then condemn the 'socialist' concept of public assistance for the 'post birth individual'.

I don't verbalize well, and don't blame you for not understanding what i was trying to say about military intervention. Just this AM i heard that the US is in conflict with the UN on several issues, among them the 'notion' of an "International Court" where WE would be held accountable for our actions in the world, and not BE the center of the universe.
Our unwillingness to sign on to reduce "Nuclear Weapons" if that isn't the height of hypocrisy- or the "Kyoto Treaty". Things like this, and the covert actions we undertake in other countries in order to "get what we want, screw the 'rules' or morality" have caused us FAR more harm than most of us realize.
When we spend billions upon billions developing weaponry, (star wars is still a bush objective) and give piddling sums to ease the suffering in the world- we are sowing and watering the seeds of hostility and war.
I'm not saying our 'giving' is not substantial, but our giving when viewed in relation to our resources and the priority put on KILLING rather than , life giving, and life sustaining endeavors isn't something the world doesn't see through.
NO ONE is fooled by our 'enemy combatants' label. Or our exporting our prisoners to be tortured, while decrying torture- Our defense of Gitmo, and Abu Gaharib, etc. except those in America that refuse to face the ugly truth about ourselves.


All this is my own 'agenda' but things i see as relevant, and as things we MUST address for America to continue to survive 'intact' in this world. We lost our way, sometime back during the industrial revolution, and since then, we have become a rather selfish, ruthless lot. Speaking with wonderful 'words' and doing some very 'wonderful things' but often unwilling to see (as you so excellently pointed out) or admit our short comings. THAT 'honesty'- 'transparency' is the key to being the credible, positive, member of this community called Earth that i know we can be, and beneath it all- really are.

I think your list is great- and i'm glad you put it together.
peace,
blu

[Time for change]

93. I think your "pet agenda" contains many important and worth while issues

And the fact that you speak from personal experience makes what you have to say all the more poignant and meaningful.

[OzarkDem]

102. All personal & privacy rights are important

Not just abortion. Its time we act like grown ups on this issue and see it in terms of a broader agenda.

[Leeny]

90. #9

How about in addition to privacy, liberty in the form of personal choice. It is choice that the pro-lifers want to take away.

The glaring contradiction in the pro-lifers stance - save the fetus, but don't support the child - is because it's all a bunch of bullshit. What they want to do is control women's reproduction. They want to take away my ability to decide that, for whatever reason, I do not choose to carry a fetus to term.

If I cannot make that choice, and the government determines for me that I must give birth regardless of my own choice or circumstance, then I'm nothing but a freakin' breeder.

Breeders bring more cannon fodder for more unjustified wars.

Hmmmm... Read the Handmaid's Tale. Like Orwell's 1984 for women.

I'm tired. Hope I'm making sense.

[slor]

59. This is exactly what I need our leaders to say...

and say it with conviction!

[buddysmellgood]

68. Democrats: the party that cares about people. eom

[renie408]

77. About #7....

Republicans were perfectly happy to think bad things about our government when it was being run by Bill Clinton. So, I am not sure that one is totally accurate. What Republicans lack in this respect is the ability to admit fault or blame. Or maybe they just lack that in general. My personal experience has been that the Republicans I know like to 'think' things. They like to say "I think XXXX." And they like to think these things completely without benefit of supporting facts. They want to be right and they want to think that no matter how many annoying little facts you can show them to prove that they aren't.

I think it comes down to all that faith.

[Time for change]

78. Good point.

I did say something to that effect in #8, but it should be said in #7 as well.

[magnetism]

79. I like your list

very helpful.

[Time for change]

80. Thank you -- glad to know it's helpful

What might you use it for?

[magnetism]

81. education

I am new on the politics scene.

[Time for change]

82. That's great -- and welcome to DU

And please share these with anyone else who might be interested.

[Skidmore]

83. Well done! Now, we need a list of core values that separate us

from the DLC and New Dems.

[Time for change]

84. I think that that would be quite a bit tougher

But an interesting proposition.

Know anybody who wants to give it a try?

[Mass]

100. Not really - ask them to accept these values as their core values.

I am ready to accept anybody who recognizes them.

[Time for change]

103. Yes, that does seem like a better solution than to differentiate us from

the DLC.

We certainly can't win many elections without the votes of a sizable portion of the Democratic Party.

[rhett o rick]

86. Bravo for the list. We need a permanent link to it. However,

i think the list should be titled Democratic values and don't refer to Republicans in the list. Our fight isn't with Republicans but with people who have different values and principles. The sever division between moderate Demo's and moderate Republicans has allowed the right wing to gain control of the Country. The moderate middle class (Demo's and REpub's) have been divided and conquered.

[Time for change]

88. Thank you -- and I believe you may have a good point there

I just don't know.

My thought in pointing out the difference with Republicans was to make a "political" point -- and of course we need all the political points we can get.

Then I was quite surprised when an admitted Republican responded to this thread, objecting to my demonizing of Republicans, and stating that most "real" Republicans do share these values. My response is in post # 35 of this thread.

I pointed out that the vast majority of the Republican leadership of this country does not share these values. So given that, how can one think of themselves as a Republican if they don't share the values of the Republican leadership?

Tough question.

But you may be right. We certainly don't want to be divisive -- but we do need to win some more elections, so it might not be a bad idea to point out the actual values of the Republicans that we run against.

[Gyre]

95. Excellent, just excellent!

Clearly written, non-partisan in presentation. Really good job!

Gyre

[Time for change]

101. Thank you very much.

But I'm just curious as to why you would consider this non-partisan. I thought that it would be considered partisan based on the fact that a large part of the theme of this thread (as indicated in the title) is to point out the difference between our values and the values of our political opponents. So, why do you feel that this is non-partisan?

[flaminbats]

97. IMO #10 defines Election Reform far too narrowly..

However, I feel all the other values has been articulately presented.

Too many people in both parties believe voting is only a sham, that the Electoral College makes the final choice and all votes cast for a Presidential candidate in a state won by the opponent are merely wasted. I don't think Democratic voters in South Dakota, Montana, and Alaska believe the Electoral College made them any better represented than Democrats in large states like Florida. I believe Republican voters in states like Vermont or Delaware feel no better represented than Republicans in large states like California or New York.

Many Democrats agree that votes shouldn't be counted by secret corporate software, but if made public most would view it as an improvement over paper ballots. I also think photo ID must be the government's responsibility, not the voter's! Let polling places take pictures of us and keep them in a statewide data bank of voters. All problems with these electronic voting machines can be solved, but that alone must never define Election Reform.

[Time for change]

105. Yes, perhaps you're right about that

It is certainly true that there are several issues relating to the integrity of our electoral system, including the ones that you mention, the purposeful allocation of insufficient numbers of voting machines in Democratic precincts, the illegal purging of legally registered voters, and several others. I probably should have acknowledged that briefly at least before going into the secret corporate software that counts our votes.

But I do feel that right now, that's the most important election issue that we face. I say that because, as bad as the other problems are, they generally don't decide who wins a presidential election, unless it is a close election. But when our votes are counted in secret then it may not matter how close the election might otherwise be -- those who control the vote counting will always win.

You say that many would view secret corporate software as an improvement over paper ballots. I'm sure that that is true of some people, and that's why they need to be informed of the problems that are likely to (and many of us believe did happen in 2004) result from this.

[OzarkDem]

98. Abortion as the only health care issue is a problem

Dems inability to think in any other terms about health care or women's issues has caused a lot of problems. This is an area we need to move forward on.

Abortion or reproductive rights need to be put in their proper perspective, as one of many important health care and civil rights issues.

Focus on that issue to the exclusion of other important women's and health care issues is actually killing people today - those who lack health care.

[Time for change]

104. I did say in item # 3 that all people should have access to health care

So I certainly agree with you that we should not focus on abortion to the exclusion of other important women's and health care issues.

And perhaps it is true that making it a separate item, rather than tying it in with all other health care issues gave it more emphasis than it should receive.

But there are two reasons that I see for talking about it separately. One is that, unlike other health care issues, it is the only one where government encroaches not just on our opportunity to receive it, but even on our right to it.

And secondly, it is a very important political issue, even aside from the issue of health care in general -- which is probably related to the point I made in the above paragraph.

[Imagevision]

111. Election reform is the most serious! if your don't count nothing matters!

[Sparkly]

113. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

As separate from #3, we also believe in paying the bills, not running up debt (especially for windfalls to corporate wealth, as you say in #3). This is important, because the GOP *claims* fiscal responsibility, and I haven't seen anything close to that from any Republican administration in a loooooong time.

If you want to keep it to 10, I'd put Reproductive Rights (not abortion rights) in with #1, and I'd put general healthcare in there, too.

Also, "military intervention" could be put into a broader category of "Cooperative, rational foreign policy."

[Time for change]

114. Do you think that fiscal responsibility is a value or a policy?

I thought of fiscal responsibility as a means towards accomplishing various other ends.

[Kni7es]

120. Universal Healthcare

Yeah, healthcare. I don't know what the big objection to universal healthcare is. Pay a little more on taxes, and be able to have someone go to the emergancy room without someone first checking to see if they have insurance seems fair to me.

What the hell happened to "Right to life," anyway?

[Time for change]

121. Definitely. I put that in as part of # 3. n/t