The Democrats in the U.S. still don't get it

TomF

Reading some of the more frenzied postings here about the U.S. presidential election and George W. Bush'e re-election had really begun to weary me and I was delighted this afternoon to read a brilliant essay about the election by Victor Davis Hanson (he signs all three names, apparently). Here's just a little of it:

"Despite losing the majority of state legislatures and governorships, the U.S. Congress, the presidency, and soon the Supreme Court, our anointed elite still doesn't quite get it. Middle America can be amused by, but still despise, Michael Moore. It can be uneasy with the pessimistic reporting from Iraq, but still be very much willing to finish the war and win at all costs. It may enjoy a trip to Europe, but does not wish to emulate the French, Germans, or Greeks.

The East and West Coasts and the big cities may reflect the sway of the universities, the media, Hollywood, and the arts, but the folks in between somehow ignore what the professors preach to their children, what they read in the major newspapers, and what they are told on TV. The Internet, right-wing radio, and cable news do not so much move Middle America as reflect its preexisting deep skepticism of our aristocracy and its engineered morality imposed from on high."
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200411050826.asp

Sleipnir

Linkee brokee

the_syco

Sleipnir wrote:

Linkee brokee

Linkee working (it must be just you )

shotamoose

TomF wrote:

... engineered morality ... [/url]

What does that mean? How is liberal morality - e.g. "I don't think we should criminalise homosexuals" - more 'engineered' than morality derived from a fundamentalist interpretation of an ancient text - e.g. "I think we should criminalise homosexuals"?

And this time, TomF, please answer the damn question, or I'll just have to assume that you don't actually understand the stuff that you post here.

bonkey

but the folks in between somehow ignore what the professors preach to their children,

I'm appalled that anyone could see this as a good thing....but judging from the tone, the author most certainly rejoices in it, and it cheered TomF up....so maybe its just me.

Ignorance* can be cured (its stupdity thats terminal), but its nothing to rejoice about.

jc

*Before you jump the gun, I mean ignorance in the sense of "lacking knoweldge", playing on the word ignore as used in the article.

steviec

bonkey wrote:

I'm appalled that anyone could see this as a good thing....but judging from the tone, the author most certainly rejoices in it, and it cheered TomF up....so maybe its just me.

Ignorance* can be cured (its stupdity thats terminal), but its nothing to rejoice about.

jc

*Before you jump the gun, I mean ignorance in the sense of "lacking knoweldge", playing on the word ignore as used in the article.

He think he's trying to say there that people think for themselves rather than just doing what they're told and jumping on the bush-bashing bandwagon.

Essey

Tom the article you quoted hits the nail on the head - unfortunatily left-wing/socialists cant get it with all their supposed intelligence. Now the Bush does have the mandate (yes my friends - its his fair and square - he got Iowa this morning) along w/the popular vote - not to mention the Congress in his pocket - someone in the Dem. party better wake up soon or we'll do to Ms. Hilary what we did to FrankenKerry.

OfflerCrocGod

shotamoose wrote:

And this time, TomF, please answer the damn question, or I'll just have to assume that you don't actually understand the stuff that you post here.

TomF is a posting bot. It just extracts flame articles from around the web and posts them here, any conversations it holds are constucted purely by ELIZA's conversation code. "Why are you feeling gloomy about the sky being blue @oler_9800?"

Hobbes

Yea, its rare that TomF actually replies to anything.

The only thing that gets me with the whole thing is the attitude from the Republicans (and TBH some of the democrats). I was listening to a commentary where some guy said "So now that Bush has said he is going to unite the nation do you think he will be more central in his views?" the other guy says "Why the hell should he? We won!".

That is the attitude that is scary. You choose a president that is best for the country, not the best for your agenda.

Zombrex

TomF wrote:

but the folks in between somehow ignore what the professors preach to their children, what they read in the major newspapers, and what they are told on TV.

Quite true. they ignore it because they don't like the truth when it reflects badly on their "god on our side" form of pride in their countries ability to do no wrong.

Not quite sure of your point TomF is, to me this article is basically saying middle america refuses to look at the real world and instead lives in a fantasy, ignoring what is going on around them and choosing to believe the fear mongering of the right wing. Are the Democrates supposed to pander to this ignorence?

chill

TomF wrote:

The East and West Coasts and the big cities may reflect the sway of the universities, the media, Hollywood, and the arts, but the folks in between somehow ignore what the professors preach to their children, what they read in the major newspapers, and what they are told on TV. The Internet, right-wing radio, and cable news do not so much move Middle America as reflect its preexisting deep skepticism of our aristocracy and its engineered morality imposed from on high."

Yes. Essentially the least educated and the poorest section of the population are the sectors that drive the Republican vote, while their policies benefit the richest and most educated :rolleyes: . They despise 'education' if it clashes with their ingrained arrogance, moral superiority and certitude, and the ease with which they are manipulated with Nationalism and a fear of the unknown.

The most powerful nation in the world, a country of 300 million people, cowed and driven by fear on a day to day basis by a rag tag bunch of terrorists who just happened to pull off a 'lucky' strike on 11th September. It is both pathetic and deeply sad that this once great country has sunk to such depths and to watch it being manipulated so easily and successfully by their simpleton leader.
It is a source of pride that we in these islands never allowed ourselves to be driven in this way by thirty years of slaughter and terrorism. We never lost our sense of morality, or our belief in human rights or our way of life.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

You choose a president that is best for the country, not the best for your agenda.

You left the word "should" out of that sentence: as in "You should[ choose...."

I just find it somewhat, I dunno...disconerting that while people "need" to be freed from the Islamic religion imposing its religious beliefs on all people within the borders of its counties, and Islamic women "need" to be freed from the tyranny of the impositions their religion has forced on them, when the same happens in the US with "strong Christian values" dicatating how issues such as the right to gay marriage get resolved.....thats not oppressing anyone. Nope. Thats an example of the finest form of democracy in action....

And given issues I've raised before, I can't even reconcile the two by the argument that one was achieved democratically...

jc

chill

bonkey wrote:

You left the word "should" out of that sentence: as in "You should[ choose...."

I just find it somewhat, I dunno...disconerting that while people "need" to be freed from the Islamic religion imposing its religious beliefs on all people within the borders of its counties, and Islamic women "need" to be freed from the tyranny of the impositions their religion has forced on them, when the same happens in the US with "strong Christian values" dicatating how issues such as the right to gay marriage get resolved.....thats not oppressing anyone. Nope. Thats an example of the finest form of democracy in action....

And given issues I've raised before, I can't even reconcile the two by the argument that one was achieved democratically...

There is a world of difference between a dictatorial imposition of value and draconian laws by a small group of people on a whole nation, and a duly elected government creating laws based on their democratic mandate which are then limited by a long list of individual rights guarenteed bya constitution.

I don't like the Bush Agenda or the Bush Admin either, but as Churchil said I believe.... Democracy is a much flawed system but it's the best one we have and we need to make sure it stays.

bonkey

chill wrote:

There is a world of difference between a dictatorial imposition of value and draconian laws by a small group of people on a whole nation, and a duly elected government creating laws based on their democratic mandate which are then limited by a long list of individual rights guarenteed bya constitution.

Tell that to the people suffering under the laws in question.

I'm sure the gays in 11 states in America really appreciate the difference - that it was a religiously-motivated democratic decision, as opposed to a religiously-motivated undemocratic imposition.

Democracy is a much flawed system but it's the best one we have and we need to make sure it stays.

Yes it is...which is why my problem is the double-standards of objecting to democratic candidates in Iraq, objecting to democratically elected people such as Haider in Austria, and so on, and then turning around and saying that the importance is that we uphold democracy, and that the recent anti-gay-marriage laws in the US are not bad legislation purely and solely because they were achieved democratically.

Either democracy is what we want - flaws and all - or it isn't. This half-assed attitude of "when we democratically decide something that I agree with (or don't disagree with too strongly), its good. When others decide something democratically....it may or may not be good, depending on what was decided" is what I have a problem with.

But its always the case....and this isn't just a criticism of the US. Very few people really believe in democracy. They only believe in democracy until it fails them badly, at which point they are justified in opposing the system.....while still insisting that when they agree with the decision reached by the system, anyone who believes that decision let them down badly is wrong to oppose it.

jc

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

Yea, its rare that TomF actually replies to anything.

The only thing that gets me with the whole thing is the attitude from the Republicans (and TBH some of the democrats). I was listening to a commentary where some guy said "So now that Bush has said he is going to unite the nation do you think he will be more central in his views?" the other guy says "Why the hell should he? We won!".

That is the attitude that is scary. You choose a president that is best for the country, not the best for your agenda.

If you truly believe your agenda is what is best for the country, should you not vote for the party / person most likely to achieve this? Even if it tears your country asunder in the short term? Everyone will agree that the greatest American president, the very first Republican president, was hated more by his fellow Americans (or former countrymen when considering the Confederacy) than any before or since, including President Bush.

Comparing Lincoln to Bush is a horrible insult to Lincoln's memory, but used just for the sake of argument. In principle I don't think any politicians should strive to be bi-partisan just for the sake of it - but in President Bush's specific case, it is certainly a tragedy that he and associates are so certain their vision for America is the correct one. Some moderation would be wonderful!

Interesting point there bonkey about people's attitudes to democracy. I have to admit I frequently reject democracy when I see how easily we can be manipulated, but then go back to thinking (as chill noted has been said) it is the best system we have.

chill

bonkey wrote:

But its always the case....and this isn't just a criticism of the US. Very few people really believe in democracy. They only believe in democracy until it fails them badly, at which point they are justified in opposing the system.....while still insisting that when they agree with the decision reached by the system, anyone who believes that decision let them down badly is wrong to oppose it.

I don't agree. I believe the vast majority of people here, in the US and elsewhere believe deeply in democracy.
You confuse people's belief in democracy with their satisfaction with the result. We can be fuming and deeply unhapy about the result of an election, yet still believe in the democratic process.
Compare the anti gay legislation in the US with Ireland in the last thirty years. It is salutary and an instant answer to hypocritical knocking of the democratic process in the US.
I don't agree with 99% of anything in Bush's head, but bringing democracy to Iraq is a worthwhile and completely valuable thing to do.
Although many contributors here are indifferent to the mass murdering insurgents, I personally support the actions of the allies in bringing democracy to the unfortunate people of Iraq who suffered decades of abuse and tyranny under Saddam, and hopefull in a few months there wil be democratically elected leaders in Iraq. This will be thanks to the soldiers of the Allies and not to those who would have left Saddam in change and who cheer the killers who slaughter thousands of Iraqi civilians intentionally with suicide bombs, car bombs and by lining them up beside their graves like the Nazis did.
The line between right, however flawed in the minutae, and evil has never been clearer in the history of humanity.

bonkey

chill wrote:

I don't agree. I believe the vast majority of people here, in the US and elsewhere believe deeply in democracy.

AS I've said...they believe deeply in it, as long as its enforcing their belief systems.

You confuse people's belief in democracy with their satisfaction with the result.

No, I don't. I've already explained why I don't, but I guess I'm going to have to again.

When people are dissatisified enough with a democartically-obtained decusion, they believe it is their right, duty (and whatever else you want) to refuse to accept said decision. Note - not to be disappointed with it, and to work within the democratic framework to undo it....but to actually take steps to fight the decision undemocratically. And yet, when someone does that to a decision they support, that person is unquestionably wrong.

That is not supporting democracy. It is paying it lip-service when it is convenient.

We can be fuming and deeply unhapy about the result of an election, yet still believe in the democratic process.

Yes indeed we can. You'll notice that this isn't the situation I was criticsing if you re-read what I wrote, or read what I re-wrote.

Compare the anti gay legislation in the US with Ireland in the last thirty years.

Certainly. In the last thirty years, any time that I am aware of where Ireland has addressed gay issues in terms of legislation, it has consistently been to reduce or remove any legal distinction between gay and non-gay.

In the US, in the last 30 days the opposite has taken place.

It is salutary and an instant answer to hypocritical knocking of the democratic process in the US.

When I said very few people believe in the democartic process, you seem to have read this as "very few Americans". I'm not sure why.....you even quoted the line where I said it wasn't explicitly a criticism of the US.

I just think the US election and the regressional policies concerning gays which were championed and seen as a great triumph of democracy are an excellent case in point. But if you want to supply counter-points of how other nations have enacted equally oppressive legislation democratically, or where individuals in other nations have refused to acknowledge what they see as bad alws....please do so. You should feel free to help prove my point while you mistakenly try and defend the US from the attack I'm not levelling at it.

I don't agree with 99% of anything in Bush's head, but bringing democracy to Iraq is a worthwhile and completely valuable thing to do.

And what has this got to do with the price of cabbage, let alone anything being discussed here?

I personally support the actions of the allies in bringing democracy to the unfortunate people of Iraq who suffered decades of abuse and tyranny under Saddam, and hopefull in a few months there wil be democratically elected leaders in Iraq.

...democratically elected by a subset of the population, from a pre-approved list of candidates which removes the options that the US finds distasteful. So again...its a case of "democracy, as long as you can't make the wrong decision." And while the US have said that they would honour the elected government's wishes, even should it choose to revert to a more Islamic governance structure.....I find myself somewhat skeptical. After all, the US have said many things about their operation in Iraq which have not quite panned out when push came to shove.

This will be thanks to the soldiers of the Allies and not to those who would have left Saddam in change and who cheer the killers who slaughter thousands of Iraqi civilians intentionally with suicide bombs, car bombs and by lining them up beside their graves like the Nazis did.

...dum de dum de....

...Oh, I'm sorry...were you going to get back on topic and say something relevant sometime soon, or is this proselytising and huzzahing for the troops somehow on-topic?

The line between right, however flawed in the minutae, and evil has never been clearer in the history of humanity.

<sarcasm>
Sure it hasn't.
</sarcasm>

And again I ask....whats the relevance to what we were discussing?

jc

arcadegame2004

Actually the Democrats managed to reduce the Republican majority in State legislatures to about 30. Don't forget that. They also have the same number of Governorships as before the election, with 2 losses being balanced by 2 gains (North Carolina and New Hampshire). It should also be remembered with regard to the Senate, that most of the competitive races were in states where the incumbant democrat Senators were standing down, and that incumbants tend to be at an advantage with regard to retaining seats for their party.

The Democrats should have chosen a different candidate for President. I have always felt that John Kerry was too wooden. No Dem has won the White House without winning one of the Southern/former Confederate states. The last 3 Democrat Presidents were all Southerners (Johnson, Carter, Clinton). So the Democrats must be careful to choose a Southerner next time, and preferably one with a good sense of humour and likeable personality, rather than aristocratic aloofness.

ionapaul

I think the Democrats are in a very tough situation - even if they collect most of the unaffiliated votes in any given election, there simply are (at present) more voters who are likely to vote Republican than any other choice.
The key to future elections may be the blue-collar workers of the mid west. Given that the former Confederate states are now firmly in the Red column, and the Coasts are Blue, this group decided the recent election and efforts here are much more important to the Democrats than similar efforts in Florida or elsewhere.
That said, the most effective course would be to fund the challenge of a Ross Perot-type candidate on the right, maybe a Libertarian of some kind. There are a sizable number of Bush voters who are deeply worried with the bulging deficeit, ever increasing government payroll numbers and expanding government powers to monitor people's private lives. However, they had no-one to vote for, as they saw Kerry as being even worse, and a weak liberal to boot!

chill

The first thing the Democrats have to do, imho, is to not lose faith in their mainstream centrist beliefs by moving to the left in order to oppose the extreme right wing faction in the Republican party.
Sometimes the tide of the times is against you and you just have keep slogging away, hoping to get a break. The Democrats have to hope that the common decency and common sense of the American people will win out over the fundamentalism of the religious right and the FEAR FACTOR that has been deliberately whipped up by Bush for his own electoral purpose.
If this FEAR FACTOR had been taken out of this race, the Dems would have won.
Sadly the US political system is in the strangelhold of big money and big corporate interests. This produces a Corporate clonist style of politician.The Democrats appear to have no leaders with any kind of charisma and the insanely undemocratic term limitation law has robbed them of Clinton. The Reps don't need charisma, they have Corporate America and the Religious fanatics.
They had better come up with someone with more personality than Kerry next time, and in the meantime they need to get more of the elite right wing media on their side the way the Republicans have done over the last twenty years. They need to become less cuddly and more aggressive with their message.

Sleepy

Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian[/QUOTE}
Guess it's true what they say about winners writing history as they see it so...