On choosing a party: Define 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'. Paging m berst.

[chaska]

I am in complete concurrence with Mike Berst (m berst) that many folk are in the wrong party, and that we are in need of a realignment.

I am currently engaged in discussion at another forum on a similar topic, and I am struggling with this issue: Based on what criteria would one choose a party, having no previous conception of the party system as we know it?

I have gone back to the definitions of Liberal and Conservative that I was taught in school - basically, that Liberals are egalitarians and believe that community interests come before individual interests, and that Conservatives believe that the rights of the individual come before the community. These definitions are based on resource issues (money). In other words, Liberals seek to distribute moneys with some degree of equity, while Conservatives believe that "what's mine is mine - I got mine you get yours, and while you're at it, leave me the heck alone".

The problem is that many, perhaps the majority, are choosing their party based on social issues (abortion, gender and race issues, etc.). So my problem is, why are these reasons any less valid than monetary considerations? We have working class folks voting for tax cuts for the rich as part of the Republican party; but perhaps they realize that and choose to stick it to the gay community anyway. How do we get them back if we (as in 'I') can't decide that they are necessarily wrong to vote against their own financial interests?

Can someone explain to me why a voter's financial interests trump their social interests? We must begin to figure out the answer to this question if we are to regain the working class voters.

[m berst]

1. good questions

Can't ignore a post with my name in it. :)

This seems like a good discussion to have, doesn't it? Let's see if we can get some comments on your post.

[bryant69]

2. I don't have a full answer but part of it is this

We aren't allowed to talk about class in America. Class is enormously important, but because of the red scare and some other issues, we never ever ever talk about it in America. So instead we come up with a lot of other issues that distract us from the real problems facing us.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[chaska]

4. There are some very intelligent people who say that class issues...

are exactly what we should be talking about. Seemed to work pretty well for John Edwards.

Lord knows, it's about the only thing we haven't tried. I say we go for it.

Class issues ARE exactly how we get back our working class vote. The fact that we haven't been talking about class issues is why the Republicans have been able to talk about their devisive non-issues. You can bet your ass that if we threated to guilotine the bastards unless they raised the minimum wage they'd shut up real quick about gays and race and abortion. And our ranks would swell, right quick.

[chaska]

5. I think I may have stumbled onto sonething in the above post.

I'm going to start another thread on it.

On edit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1415151

[chaska]

3. It seems to me (trying to keep my thread alive)...

that the reason that the Republicans are succeeding in taking our working class base is that they are controlling the discourse. They choose the subject to be debated and we brilliant Dems, who specialize in refutation, play right along. And while we think we've shot the pug thesis full of holes these issues nevertheless resonate with working people. And what with the pervasiveness of the conservative, or rather, REGRESSIVE POV constantly being reinforced on talk radio, et al, we can't win.

WE MUST STOP REACTING, AND START ACTING. We must control what gets talked about. Unfortunately, we are so un-used to this that we will have a really hard time learning this skill, if it's even possible to control the issues debated. We are out of power in a big way. There are disadvantages there, no doubt about it.

My original question remains unanswered though. Anybody care to take a stab at it? I'm struggling.

[chaska]

6. :hi:

embarrassing vanity kick

[Heartland]

7. Take a look at reality

We have not lost the working class they just can't hear us. And when they do hear us the quality of information they have to make decisions is limited. So the message has to be clear and simple.

The conservatives must be labeled as Cons in all conversations. Republicon. Republicans that are called moderate must be labeled Liberal Republicans. The Republican party can be split by the ax that smote us in this election--The neo-christian right wingers. The neo cons and neo-Christians are dysfunctional. They are power hungry the neo-cons want world power and full control.

The neo-Christians want personal power and control of the culture--they believe if that rigid values and strict laws will give them a special place in society of power and prestige. They are fear based. They believe they can judge others and not be judged themselves. Not all Christians think this way in fact most of us are chilled by the bastardization of Christianity by money hungry con men. (Falwell, Roberts, etc.)

The beauty of dysfunctional people is that hey have no brakes. They will carry the illusion they live in to the extreme.

Our job is to get the extreme on the front burner. Give them enough rope to hang them selves.

We have to continue to make the case that the neo-Christians are a pack of wild dogs that will eat other if the going gets tough.

Do not call them Evangelicals--Call them Neo-Christians--this robs them of tradition. Define the neo-Christians a modern trend or cult. The mega church, the rock and roll for Christ's sake and the Un-American imposition of Religious directives in politics.

Neo-Christians do not honor intellectual honesty, American political institutions, the constitution OR other faiths.

A jumping off point--perhaps