I believe the "moderate conservative Democrats" might be GOOD for gay rights, etc.

[Armstead]

The media and the political establishment are touting the results of Tuesday as a movement by the Democratic Party towards a more conservative "center" and a dismissal of the "leftist wing" of the party. It is also being touted as a defeat for social issues like gay rights, freedom of choice, etc.

And, understandably, many people who are advocates for those social issues are worried that they may be abandoned and that this is a setback.

However, IMO there's also another way to look at what this might result in. It could be good news and actually benefit those social issues.

Over the last 30 years, the notion of "liberal" and "conservative" has been redefined and mischaracterized. So has the definition of Democrat.

This is partially intentional by the GOP and the CONservative movement, and partly the result of our own divisions omn our side that emerged in the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

What happened, IMO, is that a lot of issues that are really "apples and oranges" of social and economic values got lumped into one package. If you were a "liberal" there was a specific laundry list of positions you were supposed to have, and if you were a "conservative" there was another set of issues.

This is a false dichotomy because it forces politics into an artificial straightjacket. You were stereotyped as a McLiberal Democrat or a McConservative Republican, in a one-size-fits-all simplistic choice.

Under these phony definitions, a liberal/Democrat was supposed to be in favor of Big Government regulation, taxes, gun control, alternative lifestyles and be irreligious, anti-military and anti-business. A conservative was supposed to be God-fearing, patriotic, straight and moralistic, in favor of "free markets" over socialism, gun rights, anti-abortion and an advocate of small government and free enterprise.

This false dichotomy worked in favor of the oligarchy, because it pushed the real issues out of politics -- Power, Wealth and the Common Good. It also created False Alliances and forced people into positions that were against their own interests and their true philosophical beliefs.

As a result, people were forced to make rigid choices. If you were a "free market" economic libertarian, you were also put into the same basket as Big Government social conservative busybodies who are opposed to libertarianism regarding individual rights such as Reproductive Freedom and Gay Rights.

It also worked in the opposite direction. Many people who were were anti-abortion but had a liberal economic agenda, might feel that they could not become Democrats because of that issue.

IMO the best thing that could happen to break this phony stranglehold would be for politics to get back to the basics of Wealth and Power and the Common Good. Make THAT the crucial partisan division between Democratic liberal/progressives and Republican conservatives, and allow the social issues stand on their own.

This would allow partisan politics to get back to what it is supposed to do, which is wrestle out these issues as the core differences. That, IMO, would swell the ranks of Democrats and energize progressive/liberal values and actions.People who may disagree on specific social issues could still join forces to fight for progressive values in the spheres of economics and public policy.

It would also (again IMO) benefit the advancement of issues like Reproductive Freedom and Gay Rights. Why? Because it would also allow alliances between those with differing economic views to work towards their own honest views regarding individual rights.

I believe, when taken on their own terms, a majority of people tend to be socially liberal, in terms of individual rights. Most people either actively support these rights or have a moderate "live and let live" view of them. If true libertarians, for example, do not have to align themselves with evangelical busybodies, they would be more likely to suppport (or at least not oppose) gay rights and reproductive freedom -- (which are actualkly libertarian positions).

I realize such a redefinition and advancement would not occur overnight. But IMO an important step is to seperate the false categories that has been created by the Corporate Right Wing over the last 30 years.

[bluerum]

1. You mean all four of them? Would they let Joe Lieberman play? nt

[Armstead]

2. They have let Joe play already

But he's more for Joe than he is for any particular political philosophy.

[Armstead]

3. kick