A call for "national redistricting"...
...well, that's just a euphamism for "divorce." This horse may have previously been beaten to death. If so, my apologies. I came across this on DU, where it had infact been previously beaten to death. (upshot: mine is a shared thought, not an original one)
Responses provided by the distinguished gentleman from Alabama(D).
<blockquote>I was born and raised... in Birmingham in the bad ol' days of the 40s and 50s. Left the state in my 20s and returned in my 50s.
Q1. 1. How vulnerable have the crimes and failures of the Bush years made the GOP in the South?
A1. What crimes and failures? Many don't know or don't see them that way. There's still the notion of 'supporting our president', no matter what.
Q2: Which of those scandals and fiascoes has, or could have, the most resonance with southern voters?
A2. Probably most resonance would have to do with things military. If Bush can be made to be seen as damaging our troops, THAT would resonate.
Q3. How much anti-war sentiment is there in the South?
A3. I see some anti-war sentiment, but only because it seems to be going badly. More anti- 'this' war than war ingeneral.
Q4. How important is it that a Southerner be on the ticket?
A4. My gut feeling is that one southerner on the ticket might get some votes here. Especially if it's a popular one who can't be trashed by the right wingers.
Q5. Why didn't Al Gore get support in the South, even in Tennessee?
A5. I think the MSM did a hatchet job on Gore and I really don't know why. We're eager to believe the worst about politicians, even if it's not true.
Q6. How much is religion a litmus test in the South? Is it enough to be privately religious, or do you have to be outspoken about it? If you're a non-Christian are you a non-starter in the South?
A6. Religion is still very much a litmus test in the state. It pains me to see politicians who I know to be thoughtful, intelligent people trying to out-Jesus each other. If you're not a Christian, keep it to yourself. If you come out of the closet as an atheist, just go ahead and shut down your campaign and drop out. You got no chance.
Q7. How much do Southern voters actually care about issues like gay marriage and abortion?
A7. Gay marriage and abortion are still hot-button issues (duh) and can be 'make or break' issues. Black political organizations, many organized through their churches, and mostly Democrat, are particularly vehement about gays. The other hot-button is the 'war against Christianity', although there don't seem to many of the hardcore (former) Judge Roy Moore variety. The Alabama Christian Coalition was embarrassed by the Abramoff scandals (money they received from him) and has changed their name. I think that has weakened them.
Q8. What progressive issues do or could resonate with Southern voters?
A8. Again, anything to do with the military. If Democrats are seen as the good guys and repugs as the bad guys that will swing some weight.</blockquote>
Boy, at the risk of sounding like an asshole (a risk I take frequently), I could have batted 8-8 (...yes, spoken like a true northerner). And yet, I'm always shocked to find myself deeply depressed time and time again.
In light of this thread in general, and these response in particular, I have these questions for all Americans.
How important is it for all of us to remain in this unhappy marriage? Wouldn't both halves get more accomplished and function both better and more efficiently without the other? We already agree that we disagree. Let's call it "irreconsilable differences" and just leave it at that. Should we not stop with all this wasteful tomfoolery, i.e., if the R's take control, it's our objective as D's to fight them tooth-and-nail over every minutia and vise versa? Impeach Clinton, impeach Bush...is this our only/ultimate recourse? Borders are arbitrary. In terms of population by "red state/blue state", the nation is split 50-50.
Thanks, I'll duck for cover now in case any/everyone wishes to lob a grenade at me.
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
A couple of things:1) You
A couple of things:
1) You really need to provide a link to the source if you're going to quote material from another web site. Copyright laws, don't ya know.
2) You are presenting an "either/or" scenario, which is very Rovian in nature -- "you're either with us, or you're against us," -- right or wrong, black or white, with no gray areas.
Middle Americans (North, South, East, and West) are much more socially Liberal than the Republican neocons would have you believe, and much more fiscally Conservative than the DLC "centrist" New Democrat neocons would like you to believe.
The battle is NOT between Liberals and Conservatives, but between Middle Americans and coporatist shills from both mainstream political Parties: the AEI/PNAC neocons on the Right, and the PPI/DLC neocons on the "centrist" Left. Both of these factions are litttle more than corporate puppets, and are used as conduits for corporate funding to buy legislation favorable to opportunistic profiteers.
Dividing the country along sociopolitical (and geographical) lines is a neoconservative goal. They use the two most powerful human emotions -- greed and fear -- to accomplish these ends, and Middle Americans are beginning to see through the charade. "Tax cuts" that really aren't cuts for the majority of Americans at all, and a "war on terror" which is artificial and not supported by the facts -- these are the tools of corporate fascism.
So, all-in-all, your premise of dividing Americans along social, cultural, and/or political ideologies does not hold water. Our country was founded upon, and the Constitution provides for, social and cultural diversity. Political affiliations are caused by social nurture, and not by American nature, and are therefore readily subject to change as our young nation continues to evolve and mature.
Okay, I was fishing for responses. Thanks. Here are the links.
For now, I'll post the links. I will ponder a response in the meantime.
Questions:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3187183&mesg_id=3187183
Responses:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3187183&mesg_id=3187287
In response to Bill Harding re: "national" redistricting
<blockquote> 2) You are presenting an "either/or" scenario, which is very Rovian in nature -- "you're either with us, or you're against us," -- right or wrong, black or white, with no gray areas.Middle Americans (North, South, East, and West) are much more socially Liberal than the Republican neocons would have you believe, and much more fiscally Conservative than the DLC "centrist" New Democrat neocons would like you to believe.
<snip>
So, all-in-all, your premise of dividing Americans along social, cultural, and/or political ideologies does not hold water. Our country was founded upon, and the Constitution provides for, social and cultural diversity. Political affiliations are caused by social nurture, and not by American nature, and are therefore readily subject to change as our young nation continues to evolve and mature. </blockquote>
No, that’s overstating it. I’m pining over polarized cultural trends. Historically, I we fell for the “pendulum swings” notion. I claim we are seeing irreversible trends. On one side, there’s an electorate which espouses a government that represents the voice of the people. The majority of large cities are blue because the socioeconomic needs of these populations are both complex and diverse. Why have we no mental health parity? Why have we no single-payer health care (Medicare for all)? After 30 years, why are we more dependent on foreign oil today than ever? Why do we not fund NASA like enterprises to become independent of crude? Why do we not fund stem cell research? Each question I can give an explanation for in the following paragraph.
On the other side, power-mongering leaders disproportionately held in place via antiquated institutions, e.g., the electoral college and congressional representation, who oversee a populous that can’t think rationally because they are being intellectually blackmailed by their religious leaders. Getting back to the spirit of my post: What would Tom Delay do if he didn’t have Dems to fight tooth-and-nail? Whatever the answer to that question may be, I don’t want it to affect me. Let the Tom Delays represent those who continue to vote them into office.
<blockquote>The battle is NOT between Liberals and Conservatives, but between Middle Americans and coporatist shills from both mainstream political Parties: the AEI/PNAC neocons on the Right, and the PPI/DLC neocons on the "centrist" Left. Both of these factions are litttle more than corporate puppets, and are used as conduits for corporate funding to buy legislation favorable to opportunistic profiteers. </blockquote>
True. Yet I have more faith that the leaders put in place to represent their constituents will more doggedly pursue the injustices of corporate America. Here, perhaps I’m simply as Pollyanna on this as I believe you are on the cultural “pendulum swing” notion.
<blockquote>Dividing the country along sociopolitical (and geographical) lines is a neoconservative goal. They use the two most powerful human emotions -- greed and fear -- to accomplish these ends, and Middle Americans are beginning to see through the charade. </blockquote>
Fear? The religious right scares the BeJesus out of me, all right. Moreover, I, and others likeminded, wish “Jesusland” well (you may have seen that map separating the north [The United States of Canada] and the south [Jesusland] which made its way around the internet following the ’04 election). Screw unto others as you see fit. I don’t want to be associated with them, let alone represented by them. Additionally, whose’s holding what over whom’s head? Are the Dems really afraid of losing the red staters? Seems blue staters yield the most leverage here.
Fire away. Apparently, I can use the edification. Thanks.
A classic case of "you see
A classic case of "you see the glass half-empty, and I see it half-full." This country has faced many trials and tribulations throughout its short history, and Americans have always come together when necessary. The remedies may not always come fast enough for those seeking "instant gratification," but they do come.
A belief in the Constitution and our fellow citizens is what makes patriots tick. Patriots are Americans first, and political "constituents" second. In a free society, it is absolutely impossible to fool all of the people, all of the time.
Thanks for not blowing me off...or away for that matter.
Half-empty, half-full is an apt sumnation. After all, I have no recourse but to grin-and-bear it as all of my proposals are lofty, pie-in-the-sky. I just wanted someone to hit me upside my head with a 2x4.
Not to sugarcoat this too much, since I remain terribly sceptical about the state of our political system, I better understand why you (and others) have more faith than I. As for me, I'll keep my nose clean and to the grindstone...and hope that I'm way off the mark.
Thanks for the words, Bill!
Please don't misunderstand
Please don't misunderstand me, you make some excellent points about the areas where we need to focus our efforts.
All I am attempting to point out is that it shouldn't be Middle Americans against other Middle Americans, but rather Middle Americans united against corporate neoconservative fascism. This malignant growth on our political system has infiltrated both mainstream Parties and we, as Democrats, need to clean up our own side of the street before we can lay ALL of the blame on traditional Conservative Republicans.
The fundamentalist Religious Right is another story, and they have been around for a long time. Only recently, however, have they been given the opportunity to become a political presence by the Rovian crowd of opportunists. The RR is being used by neocons for political reasons only, and are being pandered to as a bloc for pure political gain by faux-Christians. Again, real Middle American Christians are beginning to realize this.
P.S. By "Middle American," I mean any American who does not subscribe to the extremist faction on either end of the political spectrum.
I misuderstand much about this country
This thread (the links I posted above) got me started, and now I can't stop. If I understand you correctly, the extremist noise machines on each side are vastly outnumbered by "Middle America." I can live with Middle America. It's this part that troubles me...
<blockquote>The fundamentalist Religious Right is another story, and they have been around for a long time. Only recently, however, have they been given the opportunity to become a political presence by the Rovian crowd of opportunists.</blockquote>
Here's my dilemma--it's based on my "us again' them" fixation. Who are the Shiite and who are the Sunni? Are we just "Yankee, elitist, intellectual liberals" and are they just "redneck, Bible thumping simpletons"? Obviously, I need to educate myself about Middle America. I think I have the North v. the South figured out.
This weekend, I picked up Kevin Phillips' tomb, "American Theocracy." According to every analyst, the guy has been spot on about the GOP since his first book in 1969. "American Theocracy" is his 13th book.
I'm not encouraged by the introduction. 40 million (fundamentalists) Evangelicals--and growing--are the party's base. These folk have an "It's that way just because (its in the Scripture)" outlook. Hard to find a meeting of the minds when minds are closed. The problem is, until we get off our dependency on oil, the GOP holds the reigns to our energy crisis.
I will return to this topic periodically as I learn more about modern America.
My definition of Middle
My definition of Middle America is the majority of the population which are neither religious fundamentalists, nor political extremists. They are, by and large, socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative traditional Americans. At one time they were called the Silent Majority.
The corporatist neoconservative strategy has been to appeal to the fundies and the extremists in order to divide Middle Americans, and they have succeeded to a certain extent. Another factor is that many Middle Americans have become cynical about politics as usual, and have all but given up the fight. Those you see on these, and other, political boards are the exception.
As I see it, that leaves we activists with a two-front battle: replacing the neocons on both sides of the aisle (beginning with the DLC faux-Democrats), and working very hard to turn out the vote. Both of these goals will take extremely hard work, and steadfast determination to stay in the fight for the long haul. We gave the neocons over a decade to achieve their goals with absolutely no resistance, and it may take us at least that long to even the playing field.
We must learn to be satisfied with slow, but steady, gains...
Northside, Here are the two Muslim sects in understandable...
terms:
Shi'ite=Koran-thumpers and far-out extremists; absolute intolerance for other sects/religions/beliefs and cultures. Espouse violence to further their cause to the point where it becomes a way of life.
Sunnis=Mainline like our mainline christian churches; includes considerable tolerance for other views considering the religion they belong to.
Wahabi: Sect in Saudi Arabia that deals with a heavy-handed Sharia Law. Very strong believers amongst the tribespeople, the Saudi Royal Family gives it lip service.
Our fundies hold to the inerrancy of the King James Translation of the bible(a very bad translation by the way). They, as a group, are unable to think or act outside the box they are in. It is a southern religion primarily, but due to population shifts since the civil war, there are groups across the country. The core group of believers support all the dingbat televangilists and those pastors/leaders who go for the huge megachurches with the show biz productions.
Fortunately, our fundies are cyclical. They rise and fall like the path of the Cichada. Try to get some background on them from the late 19th century forward and you can see the cycles. If they don't get what they want(domination of the country)with Bush, they will subside gradually and withdraw from politics. Their last best cycle was during the Monkey Trial and Dem. William Jennings Bryan as leader.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
grinch, that was very helpful
Shi'ite, sunni and our fundamentalists--excelent stuff!
Although I'm still in the introduction of "American Theocracy" (it's a very long read), Phillips already drew from the Scopes Trial.
I've also found some hope in the following (Bill and grinch and I'm sure others appear to be spot on here; I'll gladly arrive late to the party): "according to Charles Marsh, an evangelical professor of religion at the University of Virginia, the percentage of white evangelical Christians who back the war in Iraq has dropped from 87 in 2003 to 68 in January 2006." (Christine Rosen, Washington Post) Although more than a year old, still an eerily, uncomfortablely large percentage for my liking. That said, at least it quells my original assumption that the trend is irreversable.
Thanks folks, despite Phillips' warrented pessimism, you all are helping me put this into perspective. I'm going to start taking deep breaths now.
P.S. I've given up on <blockquote>; for whatever reason, it's no longer useful.
Well, you guys are right
Since Scopes, each time the holy rollers get publically humiliated, they crawl back under the rocks from whence they came (my words). The 2000-2006 cycle was the third of its kind in U.S. history. The Rapture smitten, Apocalyptic RR who put the Theocrat-in-Chief into office in 2000, only to be taken for fools and humiliated by the plethora of scandals on behalf of the Bush ad. and their church leaders, scurried back into hiding in November 2006.