Democrats in Denial

[Selwynn]

Denial
By Selwynn

The phrase “moral values” has become a buzzword following the Presidential elections. The television media wasted no time election night in declaring that moral values were what elected Bush to a second term. Christian-ist conservative groups also wasted no time in declaring the election a decisive victory for “morality” and spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh eagerly declared that “Democrats hate God.”

Last week I attacked this notion of the “moral values” which supposedly “elected” the president. I argued that despite election abnormalities, I believe the results more or less reflect the current breakdown of the country. I believe that it is a nation in which a slight majority of people hold values and beliefs that are fundamentally different from mine. I believe this so much in fact that I am a little frustrated with what I feel is “democratic denial.”

It seems to me that getting Democrats to look at America and accept that we are in the minority – small though it may be – is nearly impossible. It is always something: either the elections are rigged, or people are “confused” into voting the wrong way, or the right people didn’t vote and the wrong people did, etc. There seems to be this deep need to deny the reality that we do not represent the majority opinion in this country.

I guess it is easier for traditional liberals and progressives to accept this fact that it would be for “New” Democrats who base their existence on trying to look as much like the other guys as they possibly can. Guess what DLC; no one is buying your bull. The sooner we stop trying to convince everyone that we represent the majority and start accepting the fact that we don’t, the sooner we can stop trying to pander to right wing politics and instead start representing a real and clear difference in perspective and agenda in Washington.

This is my opinion.

But lately, I’ve read op-ed after op-ed and article after article from Democrats continuing to deny that there is even a serious issue with ideology in this country.

Read the rest, including some statistics from the American Progress Action Fund and my take on them here. As always, feedback is welcome. I would appreciate it however, that if you are going to respond, that you have the common courtesy to read the actual full text before criticism.

[graywarrior]

1. Democrats have their feet firmly planted in the air

[robbedvoter]

53. That's a classic!

[KurtNYC]

2. War is a moral issue

A new poll released yesterday by Zogby International showed that 42 percent of voters saw the war in Iraq as the most pressing moral issue affecting their choice for president - almost twice as many as those citing abortion and same-sex marriage.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1110-01.htm

They kind of gloss over that. They love vague terms.

[Selwynn]

4. They are all moral issues.

Well.. the vast majority of political issues, ARE moral issues. They love to gloss over all of that.

At the same time however, I think its a mistake to use this truth as a kind of denial of the state of the nation.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. Yes, but what were the how many of these 42%

voted for Kerry to "change course" and how many voted for Bush to "stay the course".

That's part of the problem with polls telling us the vote was on "moral values".

I value: the health and well being of my family; providing quality education for the future adults in our society as well as job training for the workforce; a woman's right to choose; a cleaner environment; the right practice religion as I choose without having someone else's beliefs in my face at every turn; a free and open press; a society that provides safety and security for its citizens (e.g. automatic weapons gun control along with well-trained and equipped police force); a society that doesn't punish the sick and elderly for becoming sick and/or elderly; ...and more!

Guess what! I voted for Kerry! I voted for my moral values. But I'm also willing to bet that there are those who voted for Bush that would be checking off several of my moral values as theirs.

[aquart]

3. We are NOT in the minority.

Try an actual logical thought process. If we really WERE a minority, why would anyone have to suppress our limited and therefore ineffectual vote? Let's let that sink in for a while.

So, since your reasoning is entirely based on an easily exploded fallacy, I feel free to ignore it in toto.

[Selwynn]

6. Well, while we're on the subject of "logical fallacy."

It is not a deductive necessary conclusion that voter irregularities therefore mean we are in the majority. Voter irregularities? Probably. To the tune of 3 million plus, the number needed to change the popular vote? Maybe. But not a given. So it is - at best - unclear.

As I said in the full thing, if you bothered to read:

It does not matter – please repeat this with me – it does not matter if you can find a poll that shows the majority of Americans pay lip service to some more moderate ideal. They are not in power. They are not a political force. They choose to be silent. And a popular majority of them chose to vote with this President and his agenda for four more years. The fact that some Democrats seem to be taking so much comfort in the fact that it was so close is appalling to me. The fact that this country could have gone through the utter disaster that it has gone through in the last four years and still have a close race that we ultimately lose is cause for serious, grave concern and discomfort – not a fresh round of “new” democrat apologetics.

If you can take some kind of comfort in the fact that the vote was so close that they might even have been able to steal it then you're dumber than I expected. There should be no comfort - none what soever in an election close enough to steal. After everything we have seen and experienced in the last four years, the fact that there was enough support for Bush to even make it close enough to take is profoundly disturbing and should be taken seriously.

I'm really not so concern about some stupid fight over who gets to put the term "majority" or "minority" in front of their name. I am concerned however, about a pathological attitude of utter denial at the state of things in America.

[freedom_to_read]

5. thank you Selwyn

You articulated exactly what I've been thinking and feeling since the election. The way I see it, most Dems, including a lot of DUers, have responded to the 11-2-04 debacle in two ways:

(1) Put fingers in ears and repeat: The election was fixed. The election was fixed. The election was fixed. The election was fixed.

(2) Place blindfold on eyes and repeat: This was not a mandate; lame duck; we'll take it back in 2008; more people voted against GWB than any sitting president in US history; we have Demographics on our side; etc. etc.

The problem with both of these attitudes is that -- even if they contains elements that are factually true -- they do not point toward any kind of real action that will actually turn this country around.

The first attitude assumes that voter fraud can be uncovered and proven and publicized; and that it will be enough of a scandal to remove Bush. I find these assumptions increasingly unrealistic. If there was widespread, centrally-organized election fraud it will be nearly impossible to prove; and even so the media would never make it enough of an issue to bring about Bush's downfall. A dog does not bite its master. You need only ask yourself: What has Bush already gotten away with that would sink nearly any other political leader? Oh yeah, torture, lying us into a war, treason...

The second attitude assumes that the rightward slouch our country has taken in the last 20 years is just an aberration, that politics is a pendulum that swings to the right and to the left, and if we just hang on long enough it will swing back our way. What this assumption fails to take into account is that the political character of our nation is not some free willed creature, but is driven by political operatives. The rightward movement of the populace is the direct result of the fact that a coalition of corporatist elites and Evangelical Christians have set out to capture and control the major distribution lines of cultural communication. When you control the airwaves, the tv stations, when you can saturate the info-sphere with your message of intolerance toward fellow citizens and docility before the State, you have a great deal of power in shaping public opinion. And they have been enormously successful, partially because of the Left's refusal to fight fire with fire and their inane assumption that somehow people will "eventually come to their senses."

You are so right that we need to see ourselves as an embattled minority. We need accept that we are "the Loyal Opposition" and declare our loyalty to the real America, the one our ancestors (real or spiritual) fought wars to create and preserve. We need to start fighting back like a cornered animal, not waiting for some deus ex machina in the form of a New Watergate or a New New Deal.

[Selwynn]

7. No thank you -- damn fine post, there.

Thanks for that...

[m_welby]

8. It's my opinion too

After the deep depression I was in after the election, I faced the reality you so eloquently stated. I heartily agree the the Dems need to face the fact that they are the loyal opposition as you put it and stop pandering to the right. The Democratic party needs to stand up for progressive ideals even if that is going to upset people who used to vote with us.

you can't win by becoming the enemy.

[rniel]

9. i think somewhere around 40 years ago

the conservatives were in the same boat as us with the loss of Barry Goldwater, realized the majority of americans do not agree with their policies and began a huge operation with the goal of changing people's minds by framing issues carefully. They didn't make a move to the left to win. NO COMPROMISE FOR THEM. That's what the DNC has been doing is just creeping to the right and we should see that doesn't work.

[RBHam]

10. Yeah, denial...

[Selwynn]

11. See Post #6

[RBHam]

12. I know, I know...

Sorry...

I like the poster...

[Selwynn]

13. I do too. I'm not denying fraud, however...

I don't want fraud to obfuscate equally serious issues. Like the fact that it was even close enough to steal. That alone reflects the ongoing creeping shift of our country in a really bad direction...

[Selwynn]

14. Morning kick - like morning wood, but with more purpose! :)

:kick:

[IrateCitizen]

15. Sadly, the rightward slide will continue until the empire exhausts itself

Let's not mince words here, we are an EMPIRE now. A Bush aide was unabashed about this to writer Ron Suskind, as related in Suskind's recent NYT Magazine article, "Without a Doubt".

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

One thing that has become increasingly clear not just with this election, but over the past decade or so, is that Americans have increasingly embraced the idea of an American Empire, rather than recoiled from it in horror as I am certain many of our Founding Fathers would have done. Since the public has embraced this track, albeit in varying degrees (I believe that Kerry would have continued along a path to solidify "empire", just not as belligerently as Bush), we will only see a continual slide toward militarism, belligerent nationalism, and decreasing tolerance for dissent at home for the foreseeable future.

That is because along with the embrace of American empire comes the embrace of American exceptionalism -- the belief that we are entitled to do what we want in the world because we are the most powerful country, and therefore we are always right in our motives and actions, even if the rest of the world is not sufficiently wise to notice. Hell, you even see plenty of people embracing that idea on a left-wing board such as this!

The Democrats, sadly, cannot offer a compelling alternative to this over time because it would mean the renunciation of our current course. While I firmly support the continued building of progressive alternatives to enact reforms and raise quality of life on the local and state levels, I fear that expecting progressive views to triumph on the national stage, if they are to address uncomfortable realities, is not very likely. I think we'll have to wait another 15-20 years until our empire has fizzled out, collapsed under its own weight, before we see a resurgence of progressive ideas on the national stage.

[Selwynn]

16. Very well sad, but pretty damn sad :(

<tear>

[IrateCitizen]

18. Yeah, it is sad -- but it's a harsh reality...

I really don't relish the idea of living out the majority of my adult life (I'm 31 now) in a country that is on a downward slide and utterly unable to admit to as much, let alone address the real problems that arise. Nor do I relish the idea of living out those same years in a world that will most likely experience some pretty severe climate change and all of the wonderful side-effects that come along with it.

But, sadly, I think that is exactly what life will portend for myself, and all others in a similar situation. I only wish more people would open their eyes to these uncomfortable truths. They seem much more predisposed to stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that nothing will go wrong....

[kentuck]

19. Yes, we will change "reality"....

We will throw the vase into the air and watch it break on the floor. The reality has changed. They have no concept of the importance of stability...

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. Democrats must offer reform. We cannot win and neither should we win by proposing the "lighter" version of the current politics...We need major reform.

[Selwynn]

22. I agree - but I think the point IC was making was:

that this reform is not likely to come about in the near future - that both sides seems to be committed to the path of empire in different ways.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Let me clarify, kentuck...

Note -- Selwynn is partially right on his assessment of my statement.

Not only is the Democratic Party incapable, on a national level, of beating back the multitude of negative effects surrounding the pursuit of empire -- the majority of people want no part of seeking a different path. Even the majority of those who consider themselves "liberals".

People don't want to give up cheap gas. They don't want to give up rampant consumerism. They don't want to give up unsustainable growth models. They don't want to give up the feeling that no matter how much things go wrong in their lives, they can still beat their chests and wave their flags and find identity in the triumph of American exceptionalism and virulent nationalism.

In this sense, we really ARE in the minority. Sadly, we won't be able to talk any sense to the vast majority of people until AFTER the crash comes about, and they're left searching for alternatives. At that moment, we'd better have our shit together, if for no other reason than to stop some rather extreme authoritarian elements form siezing control.

[kentuck]

29. The 'crash" sounds inevitable.....

From a historical perspective, it sounds very much like the 1920's...
The "crash" is most likely to be economic in nature, rather than catastrophic, as a world war. However, we should be prepared for either.

You are correct, in my opinion, that people do not want to give up their "rampant consumerism"..... but they are willing to give up their sons in an illegal war?

In the final analysis, we may have permitted the incident of 9/11 to bring down the last remaining world power. I do agree with Selwyn that Democrats are in "denial" but I believe it is because they have not been able to sort out the complexities. They follow their instincts and the national media as to what direction they should blow....

[IrateCitizen]

30. Have you read "Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Phillips?

If so, you should have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about.

Our current situation is not like the 1920's, because the US in that period was still pretty much economically independent and it didn't have a bloated and overstretched military.

However, there is one country from this time period with which we could probably better compare the present-day US, and that would be Great Britain.

[kentuck]

31. I have not read Kevin Phillips book....

but I can see a "bloated and overstretched military' and the end of an empire....

By the way, I think this is one of the best discussions going on the board at this time.

[IrateCitizen]

34. The trajectory of empires according to Phillips

It's been 2 years since I read his book, but I'll see if I can remember it right here.

Phillips believes that all empires of the Western world from the 15th century forward have followed similar trajectories. He says that the US is currently on the tail end. The trajectory is as follows:

1. A growing economy due to an expanding manufacturing base, which helps create a "great civilization" and expanding middle class
2. Eventual "farming out" of this manufacturing base
3. A switch to an economy increasingly dominated by speculative capital as the manufacturing base erodes
4. Growing inequities in wealth as a result of the "finance economy", erosion of the once-vibrant middle class
5. Involvement in a long and protracted military campaign that eventually saps the empire, sending it into decline

By Phillips' reasoning, I'll give you a guess as to which step we're in right now. He theorizes that the Spanish Empire, Dutch Trading Empire, and British Empire have all followed similar trajectories -- and that the US is currently in the midst of one as well.

I highly recommend this book, as it looks at things much beyond this one feature as they apply to the history of American society.

[kentuck]

35. I would guess we are in the last stage...

according to that theory.

How do we save ourselves?

[IrateCitizen]

36. We don't.

Phillips says that there is light at the end of the tunnel -- that all of the former empires he profiled, when their collapse did finally arrive, it wasn't an all-out collapse as much as it was a soft decline. In all instances, the society that came out on the other side was more egalitarian and more tolerant than the empire that had preceded it.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

56. Excellent discussion...and I would like to discuss this w/ others.

I have read most of Kevin Phillips book on Wealth and Democracy, and I proffer the 2003 Iraq war has firmly planted the USA in the "Imperial Overstretch" position. Even if Kerry became President, we can not get off this tragic path fast enough, nor are the American People able to voluntarily give up the things you listed - which ultimately we must. I concur with your statement:

<<<Sadly, we won't be able to talk any sense to the vast majority of people until AFTER the crash comes about, and they're left searching for alternatives. At that moment, we'd better have our shit together, if for no other reason than to stop some rather extreme authoritarian elements from siezing control.>>>

Yes, that will be the test. IMO, a currency crisis is likely to precipitate the societal disruptions and end the Empire, perhaps quite precipitiously, and an energy crisis is slowly unfolding that will test this nation. Under a Kerry administration perhaps there may be some ways to preserve some levels of liberty and civil rights, but under the Bush/Cheney/neocon junta this seems unlikely.

Given that you and I are about the same age, I would like to hold discussions with others who hold similar views regarding hardships that too many are unwilling to consider. So, if you're ever in the Maryland area, let me know. I think it might be cathartic in some way to have these types of discussions over lunch with others who can look somberly, but unflinchly at potential future scenarios.

[Selwynn]

57. This was a really excellent discussion, and I'd like to talk about it more

but I have to read his book first.

And I have "What's the Matter with Kansas" and "Moral Politics" on deck first...

[IrateCitizen]

58. Crises abound!

Yes, we are facing the proverbial "perfect storm" right now -- a financial crisis due to the government basically being bankrupt and facing massive trade deficits; an energy crisis as countries like China and India develop, sending energy demands through the roof; and the unmentioned climate crisis, as foodstocks decline and tropical diseases such as West Nile and malaria spread throughout temperate regions, not to mention the increasing infrastructure damage due to violent storms; and of course there is also the issue of imperial overstretch on a military level, but that more ties into the economic end.

The simple fact is that even if we avoid one of these crises, we cannot avoid all of them. One will prove to be a blow difficult to recover from, just two will be downright catastrophic to the lives we have become accustomed to living. I don't think that the average person out there, let alone any of us who pay attention to these things, can fully appreciate the drastic changes that we face in our lives over the next 25 years.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I also sent you a PM on this as well. It's just a shame that stuff like this drops off the GDF page so quickly....

[sonicx]

17. "we do not represent the majority opinion in this country"

on what?

[Selwynn]

21. Read on and find out! :)

I know...shameless plug... sorry. :)

[knight_of_the_star]

20. We can't keep running to the Right

We have to be a clear, VIABLE alternative, not just some meager shade of the GOP.

[Norquist Nemesis]

27. Agree 100%!!!!!

That doesn't mean we are "extreme" or need to be (though the right side of the political spectrum slaps that label on and every time we cringe).

As I see it, we need to pound our message as the clear alternative. And by "message", this is the only area where we need to use the same tactics as the right...that is, using words, phrases, and subjective terms and REPEATING THEM. Simple marketing 101...REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPACKAGE, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT. For instance, instead of "Death Tax", call it "Inheritor Income Fee" and never, never, EVER use their bullet-terms.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. The DLC has "triangulated" the party into ":centrist" irrelevance.

The Democratic Party has become the party of "moderation" where all principles and ideals are negotiable and subject to the polls and popularity.

The "leadership" offers "accomodation" of the right rather than opposition.

They offer little more than a watered down version of the Republican agenda.

I'll be switching to Green before the next election. My nose is worn out after 39 years of being a Democrat.

[H2O Man]

25. I read your article ....

and although I disagree with some important parts, I want to thank you for two reasons: {1} for promoting thoughtful and civil conversation on DU; and {2} for raising some different points of viewing the position that the democratic party is in.

I think that the population breaks down in a slightly different manner. I think the democrats represent about 1/3rd; the republicans about 1/3rd; and that the other third is either not firmly commited; belongs to a fringe group; does not tend to vote; or belongs to one party but will vote outside of it.

It makes far less difference if we see that part in the same manner. What does matter is that we promote objective thinking, and harness more of the available strength and energy that is potentially available to us.

Again, thank you for your post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. kick for more comments

A good post deserves more than a few.

[chaska]

32. Only 22% of voters said "moral values" were their primary motivator.

This according to Pacifica radio. But that was the highest rating reason. ...FYI

I'm not addressing the original or any post at all, but Dems need to quit pug lite and present an alternative. It's the right thing to do. Many of us are virtually unrepresented. It worked in the 30s and 40s and it can work again. We are right on the issues, but we aren't playing up OUR issues. People actually believe that the Dem party is the "elite" party now. We are not selling ourselves well.

That should be our long term goal, to win on our issues. I'm not hopeful in the short term, however. President McCain, here we come.

[kentuck]

33. Did the 22% split 50/50 ??

And since 46% or so said the "war" was their primary motivator, what percent of those voted for Bush? Did they split 50/50 also? The number is only relevant if the huge majority of either number voted one way or the other....

[IrateCitizen]

37. Afternoon KICK!

:kick:

[superconnected]

38. Sounds like the writer of the article is in denial.

[IrateCitizen]

39. Care to elaborate??? (nt)

[superconnected]

41. sure

Quoted from above article:
"It seems to me that getting Democrats to look at America and accept that we are in the minority – small though it may be – is nearly impossible. It is always something: either the elections are rigged, or people are “confused” into voting the wrong way, or the right people didn’t vote and the wrong people did, etc. There seems to be this deep need to deny the reality that we do not represent the majority opinion in this country.

I guess it is easier for traditional liberals and progressives to accept this fact that it would be for “New” Democrats who base their existence on trying to look as much like the other guys as they possibly can. Guess what DLC; no one is buying your bull. The sooner we stop trying to convince everyone that we represent the majority and start accepting the fact that we don’t, the sooner we can stop trying to pander to right wing politics and instead start representing a real and clear difference in perspective and agenda in Washington."

They're trying to say dems are the minority, and they're trying too hard. They're too pro-republican to be unbiased. Otherwise they would be saying, "hey voter fraud has existed in EVERY election, there is some out there", "Hey, ALL the poll showed the iraq war was the top issure and not moral values right up to the election".

Instead they are grasping at the "moral values", that the average person knows is an artificial-dream-ending for that election. They are trying to convince themselves and others of this and their majority.

I think they're in denial. I also think they KNOW they are not a majority. Why else would they be trying to nail it into the ground still? Oh yeah, because the majority doesn't believe them.

[sangh0]

42. "They're trying to say dems are the minority"

Read it again. It says that LIBERALS are a minority, not Democrats.

[Selwynn]

44. Liberals in the minority, but Democrats are the ones in denial about that.

..just to clarify. Progressives and greens - they perhaps more than anyone are well aware of the actual ideological landscape of the public at present. Democrats, or perhaps I should specifically say Democratic Part Leadership and some establishment cheerleaders - don't get it.

Thanks,
Sel

EDIT - I'd like to add, soas to avoid a stream of miscommunication, a little further clarification. On the subject of minority, which goes closely with the idea that the only reason Bush one was becuase he stole the election from the "majority," I have this to say (from a post above):

As I said in the full essay thing:

It does not matter – please repeat this with me – it does not matter if you can find a poll that shows the majority of Americans pay lip service to some more moderate ideal. They are not in power. They are not a political force. They choose to be silent. And a popular majority of them chose to vote with this President and his agenda for four more years. The fact that some Democrats seem to be taking so much comfort in the fact that it was so close is appalling to me. The fact that this country could have gone through the utter disaster that it has gone through in the last four years and still have a close race that we ultimately lose is cause for serious, grave concern and discomfort – not a fresh round of “new” democrat apologetics.

If you can take some kind of comfort in the fact that the vote was so close that they might even have been able to steal it then you're dumber than I expected. There should be no comfort - none what soever in an election close enough to steal. After everything we have seen and experienced in the last four years, the fact that there was enough support for Bush to even make it close enough to take is profoundly disturbing and should be taken seriously.

I'm really not so concerned about some stupid fight over who gets to put the term "majority" or "minority" in front of their name. I am concerned however, about a pathological attitude of utter denial at the state of things in America. The fact that Bush and Kerry could spend most of the last year of this election cycle in more or less of a statsitical tie in the polls should be a huge blaring warning siren in the hearts of liberals everywhere. It should illustrate how far the country has crepted to the right, and how no one is paying attention.

I agree with IrateCitizen's whole thread about empire. I encourage you to take a look at it too.

[Redleg]

40. If we are a minority we are just barely.

Only the Rethugs would turn a 52% majority into a fucking imperial mandate.

In reality, I believe the core Dem principles really represent more than half of the nation, especially working people and minorities. The problem is that the Rethugs have many people duped into believing they stand for working people. We Dems are not as good at convincing people we are looking out for their best interests.

[Selwynn]

43. I DO agree that it is just barely...

..but for me, this is not something to take comfort or find solace in; in only means that right now is the critical time where we might - maybe - be able to still affect seriously, significant reform and change that will save this country from the downfall that I believe is coming. If we saw ourselves more as "the people" protesting and resisting the "powers that be" rather than the group "in power" denying that there is any serious disagreement with our point of view amoung the people - we would take some important steps towards having a real effect for good.

...ok yeah... that was um.. a pretty bad setence. But I'm tired and not changing it :P

[Redleg]

45. I understand what you are saying. We do need to get fired up

and start fighting like we are behind by 10 points in the last minutes of the 4th quarter. We need to craft a message that will appeal to the majority of Americans. I believe we do that by addressing the issues working people find in their life.

[superconnected]

46. remember

that 52% was being fed fear. Does that mean they chose moral values.. uh no, it means they were afraid of terrorists.

This whole "moral values won the election", argument smells too manufactured, from the vote stealers.

I somehow doubt all those polls, including the exit polls at the election, were that far off on the Iraq war concern and moral values. Those fools should have told us they won on the iraq war. But what do you expect, they're being run by fundamentalists.

It has their friggen signature all over it, they told us "moral values."

[Redleg]

47. Indeed. And the gullible, lazy fucking media eats that shit up.

EOM

[superconnected]

48. what does eom mean?

Sorry, I'm new.

[Selwynn]

50. "end of message" :) :) :)

:toast:

[Redleg]

51. "End of Message"

Welcome to DU.

[Selwynn]

49. Clearly Right Wing Religious groups have an interest in "cooking" the data

...meaning, it would be in their interest to claim that their definition of "moral values" was what "elected" the president.

My concern specifically about the "moral values" argument is more fully explained in the Exiled in America essay on my site. It's not so much that I agree or disagree that so-called moral values really was the most important electing issue. I think there were a lot of important electing issues. What is really important to me is that we see and accept the continuing rise of the religious right in politics.

That is why sites like http://www.theocracywatch.org are so important: because they help average people like you and I pay attention to the history and rise of religious dominionism in American politics. I think when we deny that this movement has any real significance or power we do a huge disservice to the country. It doesn't really matter whether or not "moral values" really was the biggest issue in the election. What matters more is that religious dominionists had enough power and organizing power to get every major television media outlet to declare that "moral values" was the number one electing issues the night of the election before the polls even closed. What matters is that of the Republicans in the Senate, 45 of them vote with the Christian coalition 100% of the time, and another 4 vote with them 80% of the time. What matters is that George Bush and his administration is directly connected to this religious dominionist power base. What matters is that they have a huge and growing sphere of political influence and that it does affect the public.

The most powerful political force in Washington today is not the Democratic Party. It's not even the Republican Part. It is the coalition of religious dominionist (aka "Christian Conservative") lobbying organizations and their money that are the most powerful force in Washington today. And the sooner we accept this, the sooner we can begin to more effectively fight it.

NOTE -- I have to argue with myself, actually. I think it is probably still true that the corporate lobby is the most powerful force in Washington. The religious nutballs with a political voice are things that hit me much more personally, however.

[superconnected]

52. thanks.

I'll check out www.theocracywatchdog.org.

"What matters more is that religious dominionists had enough power and organizing power to get every major television media outlet to declare that "moral values" was the number one electing issues the night of the election before the polls even closed. "

Good point. It's flipping scaring me.

[robbedvoter]

54. "Values" BS comes from exit polls SHOWING W LOSE

[Selwynn]

55. That's not really the point. What is the point (or one of them) is:

"What matters more is that religious dominionists had enough persuasive power and organizing power to get every major television media outlet to declare that "moral values" was the number one electing issues the night of the election before the polls even closed."

Life is not based on reality, but on the perception of reality.