Democratic Agenda

[Werewolf]

I live in Oklahoma. What that means is most of my friends are Democrats (we've got a 60/40 split here). And as one would expect - politicaly - they are to the left of me...

But - not that far left - not that far at all. Most don't really agree with the party agenda, it's stance on the war, immigration etc. It's no surprise that a democratic presidential candidate hasn't carried OK since Noah was a seaman.

It is my impression that most are dems because that's what their daddies were and their granddaddies were and if the Democratic party was good enough for those fine folk then it's good enough for them too.

I can't be certain but I would imagine that most Dems in fly over country are pretty much like Dems in Oklahoma.

Which has gotten me wondering how the far left of the Democratic party got control of it and is allowed to set the agenda? Is the far left really the majority view or do those folk just have the biggest mouthes and the most money?

And why conservative Democrats (yes they're out there) stick with a party that espouses policies that they really do not agree with?

It's a wonderment but there's got to be an answer and maybe within that answer lies a way to attract more of them to a more conservative political party.

Comments?

[Paddy]

I think that soon we may no longer have the luxury of all this petty left/right/Dempublican nonsense.  We're going down the crapper as a nation and may find ourselves floating in the stew together.  That said, 'conservatism' as a political system of governance hasn't succeeded anymore than has 'libertarianism'.

[French G.]

I'm going to guess union jobs, farms subsidies, and populist pandering with a side of family tradition.

[Standing Wolf]

Is the far left really the majority view or do those folk just have the biggest mouthes and the most money?

Big mouths, lots of money, and most important of all, access to lots of "free" government money to buy votes with.

[wooderson]

But - not that far left - not that far at all. Most don't really agree with the party agenda, it's stance on the war, immigration etc. It's no surprise that a democratic presidential candidate hasn't carried OK since Noah was a seaman.

I have a very difficult time believing there's a lot of pro-Iraq, pro-Minuteman sentiment held by Democrats anywhere in the country, given that neither of those factions has a favorable rating nationally.

Which has gotten me wondering how the far left of the Democratic party got control of it and is allowed to set the agenda? Is the far left really the majority view or do those folk just have the biggest mouthes and the most money?

The 'far left' of the Democratic Party has less 'control' today than they ever had prior to 1976 (you've heard of Adlai Stevenson, right? George McGovern? Bobby Kennedy?). The party of the New Deal, Great Society, trade unionism,  etc. bears little resemblance to the DLC-governed body of today.

But if you really mean 'how did it lose the support of southern whites,' the answer is very simple: civil rights.

And why conservative Democrats (yes they're out there) stick with a party that espouses policies that they really do not agree with?

Why do "liberal Republicans" stick with a party beholden to conservative Christians?

Because politics aren't as simple - or as naturally right-wing - as you might generally believe.

[Fly320s]

or do those folk just have the biggest mouthes and the most money?

That's my bet.

Most folks don't really give a damn about party affiliation, hot topics, stump speeches, or politics in general.  I think that is why voter turn-out is usually low.

All the peeps want is a "free"  handout and to be told that "all is well."

Reality, for most people, would be a real bitch.

[johnster999]

Werewolf,

I tend to agree with your take on the local "right-of-center" democrat population. I grew up in OK and I find the phenomenon to be virtually identical here in Arkansas. It seems to be an emotional and familial attachment, more so than an ideological one. Almost as if they would be slapping their parents or grandparents (living or dead) in the face if they dared vote or register differently.

As one local Democrat, a gun-owning, hard-working and reletively conservative fellow in most viewpoints recently said to me: "Welp, I'd expect I'll be votin' for whoever the Democratic party nominates."

It's also my observation than in one way the Democratic party is actually two parties. The old school party that still remains a strong presence in the political sphere in the south and most of the midwest, and the newer more leftist party that dominates at the federal level and in the very blue states.

Outside of delegates, party officials and other true believers, the grassroots folks don't really interface much. Thus, I don't really think the old school Democrats really ever have to interface with their harder left counterparts enough to find them sufficiently off putting to consider a voting or registration change.

I do think however that in Barack Obama, the national party may have finally found a guy who will alienate even some of these folks. If there is one thing for sure, these old schoolers love their country as much as anyone and I've heard at least one react with disgust to "godd@mn America" and "first time I've been proud of my country" and so forth. Time will tell.

[grampster]

The far left got a hold on the dems because most folks who are democrats cut from daddy's or granddaddy's mold usually just want to be left alone.  They are, actually, the salt of the earth.  The only real government thingy they care anything about is Social Security.  SS is Chevrolet and Apple Pie.
So the wealthy, socialist statists grabbed control because no one stood in their way.  They were aided and abetted by the leftist media while the middle of the road dems of daddy and granddaddy were too busy working and raising their families to pay much attention.  They came awake once and voted for Ronald Reagan.  Too bad they don't have anyone to wake up to now.

As for the so called Religious Right.  That's a myth promulgated by the leftist media and their statist extreme leftist who need a scapegoat.
The "Religious Right" are actually normal salt of the earth Republicans who just want to be left alone who also would like Social Security to continue to work.  Most of them are people who have a grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong, just like their quiet democrat neighbors and friends.  Conservatives generally have succeeded financially through hard work and most of our small businesses are run by these sorts of folks.  Leftists have no such grounding and they are mostly situational ethicists and believe people with principals are to be mocked.  Ergo: The myth of the Religious Right came into being.  They extreme right wing is no more religious than the extreme left wing having any ethics.

[HankB]

That said, 'conservatism' as a political system of governance hasn't succeeded anymore than has 'libertarianism'.

And when has it actually been tried, lately??? The closest we've come was the GOP "Contract with America" which was a tentative baby step in that direction, but the GOP abandoned it as fast as they could.

[Perd Hapley]

As for the so called Religious Right.  That's a myth promulgated by the leftist media and their statist extreme leftist who need a scapegoat.
The "Religious Right" are actually normal salt of the earth Republicans who just want to be left alone who also would like Social Security to continue to work.  Most of them are people who have a grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong, just like their quiet democrat neighbors and friends.  Conservatives generally have succeeded financially through hard work and most of our small businesses are run by these sorts of folks.  Leftists have no such grounding and they are mostly situational ethicists and believe people with principals are to be mocked.  Ergo: The myth of the Religious Right came into being.  They extreme right wing is no more religious than the extreme left wing having any ethics.   

That's more or less true.  Might disagree on some details.  While there are some people that fit the stereotype, most of the voters that make up the "Religious Right" are neither especially religious or especially political.  They just have traditional views about marriage, sex, etc., and have old-fashioned views on politics. 

[wooderson]

As for the so called Religious Right.  That's a myth promulgated by the leftist media and their statist extreme leftist who need a scapegoat.

The Christian Coalition... doesn't really exist.


eh?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The Christian Coalition exists, but they don't make up an significant part of the Party.  They also don't make up the far right extreme. 

Huckabee was the golden boy candidate of the "religious right".  He came in last of the three main contenders for the Republican nomination.  What does that tell you about the relative power of the religious right within the Republican Party?

[grampster]

The Christian Coalition exists, but they don't make up an significant part of the Party.  They also don't make up the far right extreme. 

Huckabee was the golden boy candidate of the "religious right".  He came in last of the three main contenders for the Republican nomination.  What does that tell you about the relative power of the religious right within the Republican Party?

There you go Wooderson.  Read it and weep.  The religious right is a propaganda tool promulgated by the left and bought into by the media.  They bought into it because they desperately want to believe in something, but they just can't quite buy into ethics and that there is actually a difference between right and wrong.  Situationalists are empty vessels filled with false hope, desperately seeking change; leaping from one false hope to another.

[Dntsycnt]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in central Indiana the religious right is certainly not a myth.  I don't pay much attention to the media, but I certainly pay attention to the people around me.

[wooderson]

The Christian Coalition exists, but they don't make up an significant part of the Party.

Huckabee was the golden boy candidate of the "religious right".

Except that outside of the deep south, Huckabee didn't even win a plurality of evangelical voters. Nor did he have the backing of the elders of the religious right.

He tried to run as the candidate of the religious right and failed miserably. There's a difference.

He came in last of the three main contenders for the Republican nomination.  What does that tell you about the relative power of the religious right within the Republican Party?

Insofar as they nominated Ronald Reagan and Dubya, and took a strong shot at an incumbent Vice President in between - their "relative power" is quite strong.

(The Christian Coalition is so irrelevant Ralph Reed was chair of the Bush '04 crew for a quarter of the country?)

[wooderson]

There you go Wooderson.  Read it and weep.  The religious right is a propaganda tool promulgated by the left and bought into by the media.  They bought into it because they desperately want to believe in something, but they just can't quite buy into ethics and that there is actually a difference between right and wrong.  Situationalists are empty vessels filled with false hope, desperately seeking change; leaping from one false hope to another.

I have no idea what you're arguing here.

Unless you're agreeing that the 'Religious Right' consists of a large number of activists and voters - you're just taking issue with them being termed the Religious Right rather than just 'right.' Or something. I honestly don't know.

[grampster]

Wooderson:
I'm not arguing anything.  I'm merely pointing out that terms get coined.  But there may not be any value in the term except for expediency or to deflect scrutiny.   The religious right is no more of a powerful movement on the right than the SDS  represented a large segment of the Democratic party.
 
Small committed groups can sway opinion.  Propaganda is a powerful tool.  And it is easy to bandy terms around when discussing issues.  Opinion is one thing, truth is another.

I think Americans, regardless of political affiliation are interested in fair play.  Using terms to ascribe beliefs to huge segments of the population oversimplifies the complexity of a free society.  Perhaps there is one large group though.  I'd call them the apathetic.  But even there is complexity because one might be apathetic for a multitude of reasons.

Don't be too concerned if you don't understand my comments.  My wife has been married to me for 42 years and she claim I talk in riddles all the time.   I understand what I mean, and that's good enough for both of us. 

[wooderson]

I'm not arguing anything.  I'm merely pointing out that terms get coined.

That's what an argument is...

The religious right is no more of a powerful movement on the right than the SDS  represented a large segment of the Democratic party.

The SDS itself wasn't a "large segment" because it was never a segment at all - the SDS rather pointedly did not support the party of LBJ during Vietnam. This is a rather marked difference from the role played by Religious Right partisans in the GOP, so trying to draw an equivalence be

Now, what we might call the 'soft New Left' of the late '60s - the part which had left behind the increasingly radical and ineffective SDS and similar groups - was, in fact, a highly influential segment of the Democratic Party. And would have likely elected a President were it not for his untimely assassination.

Small committed groups can sway opinion.

And large committed groups can sway opinion even more effectively.

Which is what the Religious Right is - a large, committed group of evangelical Protestants working with and within the Republican Party. It's really quite difficult to take seriously anyone who denies the role of Christian conservatism in the last thirty years of GOP history.

It would be like claiming unions don't support Democratic candidates or that African American leadership overwhelmingly works with the Democrats.

Propaganda is a powerful tool.  And it is easy to bandy terms around when discussing issues.  Opinion is one thing, truth is another.

Are these Zen koans or something?

[Jamisjockey]

As for the so called Religious Right.  That's a myth promulgated by the leftist media and their statist extreme leftist who need a scapegoat.
The "Religious Right" are actually normal salt of the earth Republicans who just want to be left alone who also would like Social Security to continue to work.  Most of them are people who have a grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong, just like their quiet democrat neighbors and friends.  Conservatives generally have succeeded financially through hard work and most of our small businesses are run by these sorts of folks.  Leftists have no such grounding and they are mostly situational ethicists and believe people with principals are to be mocked.  Ergo: The myth of the Religious Right came into being.  They extreme right wing is no more religious than the extreme left wing having any ethics.   

That's more or less true.  Might disagree on some details.  While there are some people that fit the stereotype, most of the voters that make up the "Religious Right" are neither especially religious or especially political.  They just have traditional views about marriage, sex, etc., and have old-fashioned views on politics. 

BS.
Bush got reelected only because Karl Rove turned his second election into a referendum on Gay Marriage.  Record republican turnout, Christians against homos.

[MechAg94]

I have heard the gay marriage stuff was a media decree.  At the time, I think people wanted to continue the war on Terror and didn't think Kerry would. 

There was also the issue that Bush's tax cuts got passed and the economy wasn't so bad.  That always helps a great deal. 

[MechAg94]

I always figured the "Religious Right" were the people for whom abortion is a really big issue.  I think they are a significant group among party activists, but I don't think they are quite as big when it comes to election time.

[christopher]

I don't believe that the answer is converting democrats into republicans. Regardless which party you belong to they have failed you. To continue to vote for a corrupt system & corrupted politicians is to ignore our duty as citizens of the greatest republic ever born in the history of man.
The founding fathers were very clear & specific about this because they understood the dangers as well as the benefits of a democracy. Our votes have been hijacked by privilege & special interest. And so our duty is no longer being fulfilled at the ballot box.
Ever 4 years we have two options:
1. Line up like sheep & vote for mismanagement, pork, corruption-the lesser of two evils or
2. Sit at home & complain that our vote doesn't count
What I propose is a third option. To stand up like men & say enough is enough. This November vote them all out!

[Werewolf]

What I propose is a third option. To stand up like men & say enough is enough. This November vote them all out!

Uhhhhhh...

I've never seen None of the Above on any ballot I've ever used in the past 38 years so how do you propose that we ...vote them all out!

There actually is a third option but it isn't one that will be implemented any time soon - probably never in fact - by the people of the USA.

[Perd Hapley]

Bush got reelected only because Karl Rove turned his second election into a referendum on Gay Marriage.  Record republican turnout, Christians against homos.

Opposition to homosexual marriage is widespread among non-religious Americans.  That is why states were rejecting homosexual marriage by majorities on the order of seventy percent.  You think all, or even half, of those people are motivated by religion? 

[Manedwolf]

Bush got reelected only because Karl Rove turned his second election into a referendum on Gay Marriage.  Record republican turnout, Christians against homos.

Opposition to homosexual marriage is widespread among non-religious Americans.  That is why states were rejecting homosexual marriage by majorities on the order of seventy percent.  You think all, or even half, of those people are motivated by religion? 

I'm opposed to it, and definitely not for any religious reasons. Purely sociological structure-of-stable-cultures reasons for me. That, and I see the unfairness of forcing people like small business owners to insure these new "partners".