Friendly conversation with a Republican...How would you respond?

[nickshepDEM]

Him:

"As far as elections and who wins, your problem (lumping "you" in with the Democratic Party here) is the message you are sending, not how it's being disseminated nor how its response is being tallied. People in this country, when presented with a clear national socialist agenda (higher taxes, weakening of American power, more state control of individuals' choices, etc.), have rejected it. And this is with the power of 95% of the most powerful media engines in the world behind it!

By all means, keep focusing on the nuts and bolts, and ignore the fact that your message is being rejected, and continue to marginalize your party."

[eleonora]

1. The Republicans' savage capitalism will not last.

The system will break, give it another 20 years and we will all feel its nasty effects. The earth/environment/people just can't keep up with its demands. I say we keep on sending the same messages of fairness and human rights. In the end, history will have us the true winners of this era.

[blurp]

7. Yeah, right, Nikita Khrushchev .

We will bury you. ATTRIBUTION: Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971), Soviet premier.

If you really care about people you'll find ways to USE capitalism to help rather than try and fight a mostly proven system of economics.

(I mean capitalism in general. Not necessarily the Republican brand.)

[eleonora]

9. notice I said SAVAGE capitalism

Not capitalism. Look at the big picture. We're NOT headed toward a better world with the current system we have going here, namely, the savage, Bush-Republican one. If you can't see this, you need to move over and go to freepworld.

[blurp]

12. Fair enough.

I confused you with someone that rejects capitalism entirely. Sorry.

There are plenty around here, however, and that's too bad because capitalism can be harnessed for the good.

[eleonora]

17. Yes it can.

The system works, if in the right hands.

[American Tragedy]

20. Strongly agreed.

The struggle of the modern world has been to find a balance between the excesses of capitalism and socialism. Both at their extremes are catastrophic, as the past century has tragically demonstrated.

[Taxloss]

26. Agreed.

I rather like capitalism.

[SharonAnn]

21. "It's a Wonderful Life" shows two kinds of capitalism. One is the

kind practiced by George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) and the other is the kind practiced by Mr. Potter. I called George Bailey's kind of capitalism to be "liberal" capitalism.

I guess Mr. Potter's kind could be considered "savage capitalism". I've always thought of it as conservative capitalism.

[Taxloss]

24. "Proven"? Proven to do what?

Capitalism isn't a system, it's the absence of a system.

[wryter2000]

2. That's not what I'd call friendly.

For one thing, you might mention that it's Republicans who want to tell us what we can do in the bedroom and how we ought to worship, not Democrats. Also, the Patriot Act is highly intrusive. Talk about your state control of individual's choices!

Plus, I wouldn't call the American press 95% of the most powerful media engines. He might be shocked to see what the rest of the world's media are saying about us. The United States is not the whole damned world, no matter how much he thinks it is.

[Mojambo]

3. Americans sure like the "socialist agenda" called Social Security

And it seems to me that the right is doing more to control individual choices than the left.

You're not conversing with a very well informed Republican.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. My response

(honed by almost thirty years of explaining things to juries)

"Well, you know, what you say has the sound of legitimacy and even might convince people who don't listen carefully that you're actually saying something. But, there is a matter you're overlooking, and I trust that's simply because you and your fellow - what are you called now? - Republicans are so focused on winning, even as you're lying and cheating and doing all sorts of things that betray your utter lack of honesty and integrity, that you forget the duty of elected officials is to safeguard the people and the Republic.

"If you'd rather whittle down our form of democracy to a sound byte and buzz words, that's certainly your right. But, we Democrats - yes, we're still called that, although, lately, I've heard people refer to Republicans as deadpigfucking rightwingnuts - prefer to focus on honesty and integrity and telling the American people the truth.

"Now, tell me again how George W. Bush - I've heard people now call him Fuckface - has improved the condition of our country. And then tell me again why our armed forces are in Iraq. Perhaps, then, you can explain to me why the dollar is at a record low against other currencies. After that, I'd like to know what Fuckface is doing about the fact that we're now the largest debtor nation in the world, and China owns our paper.

"Oh, and while we're at it, what happened to that lovely deficit President Clinton - you know, the one who was legally elected - left Fuckface?"

But, that's just my response. You'd probably want to say something completely different.

[laura888]

15. Very nice! LOL

I especially like:

"Well, you know, what you say has the sound of legitimacy and even might convince people who don't listen carefully that you're actually saying something."

Exactly my response to everything coming out of FAUX-TV.

[buddysmellgood]

5. Tell it that one day it will wake up to the lies it is spreading and it

will find itself on the wrong side. It will know because it will be goose stepping.

[da_chimperor]

6. Ask him how he feels about having an extremist in conservative clothing

destroying the country? Ask him how he feels about that outrageously irresponsible spending of the bush administration, the administrations active attempts to deceive the world (the false reporting of the start of the fallujah assault), and ask him how much longer the world will put up with the US acting as it is? Or you could just tell him that you'll talk to him once he's opened up his eyes and stopped believing every single word chimpy says.

[imenja]

8. Socialism, Democratic policies, and the "liberal" media

Well the obvious might be to inform him that he is mistaken on his notion of what constitutes socialism. Tell him he needs to read Marx rather than Rush if he cares to know what socialism or communism is.
Secondly, polls repeatedly show that most Americans support the Democratic position on all of those domestic issues. That they voted for Bush may indicate a problem with the Democrats ability to articulate their values and agenda, but it certainly does not indicate a repudiation of the positions themselves. (Zogby.com provides numbers on this).
Lastly, I'd ask for evidence that 95% of the media supports "liberal" candidates. Don't let him get away with an assumption that they vote Democratic. Rather, press him on specific reports and how they demonstrate so-called liberal bias. They may point to network news and Rather in particular. Even if we concede (which I certainly don't) that such broadcasts are "liberal" how can they compare with 24 hour a day coverage on cable news, especially Fox, and talk radio? The swift boat lies are an obvious example. As is the media's failure to cover Thursday's debates in Congress concerning the seating of the Ohio electors.
A bumper sticker I recently saw encapsulates it well: The Media are only as Liberal as the Conservative Corporations that Own them.

[rockymountaindem]

10. Tell him that our message is clearly not getting across

because he and people like him are still convinced our message is socialist, when in fact it is not. Therefore, it is the communication problem, and he is the perfect piece of evidence. He's dispelling his own claim through is ignorance.

[cornermouse]

11. Don't bother. He's not going to hear a word you say.

[leesa]

13. Bush has weakened American power more than any president in history

We are at our weakest EVER. The Republicans main agenda is weakening individual's choices.

As usual, this guy is clueless.

[izzybeans]

14. I would say ...

With all due respect. This is not the message that is being sent by our party. It's how it is being translated. Democrats aren't out to take away your decision power. We seek to promote efficient governance in a way that is equitable for tax payers. For instance, take the privatized social security issue. Social security is not about diminished decision making power, it's about risk free investments so that your decision making power is not limited when you are no longer able to work. True, there is one decision you can't make that is in the state's hands currently. You can't take your money and spend it on high-risk investments, nor do you have to pay commissions. Either way, you won't have that decision to make because if privatized your one decision to make is whether or not you turn over your retirement to an investment house or not. Given the recent scandals, the volatility of the market, etc. I'm not so sure this is a wise long-term investment when faced with the opportunity to invest in something that is guaranteed. Here the debate over the individual's capacity to choose is a false one. It's about responsible government. It's about ensuring that everyone who has earned the right can feed themselves and house themselves in the future in a way that is free from the inherent risk of market investments.

Anyway, who was it that was trying to weaken American power? Shouldn't we be considering what it is that weakens American power and what sort of moral responsibility to the world we have as a center of power? I think this is a better question to ask yourself.


Anyway that's what I would say to this person.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. The RW has bribed the media

and the folks have been misled. I just had a similar argument with a freeper on this very topic. As soon as he mentioned media, I pounced. Since this Armstrong Williams nonsense was disclosed, we can no longer trust the media to be neutral. They have manipulated the American public. I told my freeper buddy that I am smart enough to research and investigate and learn on my own without the media having to spoonfeed me. Too bad the majority of the right apparently does not do this.

He was speechless.

[American Tragedy]

18. NATIONAL SOCIALIST?!

What the fuck?

Tell him to read a fucking book - try Joachim Fest. As any moron could tell, the Democratic/progressive agenda is diametrically opposed to that.

Moreover, I don't know about other Democrats, but overall I support far less government interference in individual lives and decisions.

[imenja]

22. true, I missed that. "Mein Kampf" would be the book

The definition of "elite" today seems to be anyone who picks up a book other than Ann Coulter, BO, or a romance novel. Reading is evidently too subversive for conservatives.

[Taxloss]

25. Sweet, wasn't it?

Socialist in the sense that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

[cestpaspossible]

19. When someone calls you a Nazi, they're not being friendly

[Orangepeel]

23. he just proved that the problem is how the message is being disseminated

because he believes that the message is something that it isn't.

The Democratic party believes in a fairer economic system (which would result in lower taxes for 98% of Americans), a safer America that doesn't ignore real terrorist threats to pursue an unrelated agenda and that works with allies to gather information, and more individual freedom (revise the patriot act, stay out of bedrooms, etc.). Put those things together with other important items, like access to quality health care and a cleaner environment, and most Americans prefer our agenda over the republican agenda.

The very fact that he thinks the Democratic message is high taxes, a weak America and less freedom means that we are having trouble getting the message across. Partly, this is our fault for not articulating it well and letting republicans frame the message. But partly, it is the fault of the media. It is true that most reporters vote Democratic, if surveys are to be believed. But most media owners -- the ones who control the agenda -- are not.

[lectrobyte]

27. Where to begin?

I think some of his assumptions about Dems are full of it:

higher taxes (uh, Bushco has run up deficits and shifted tax
burdens to the states, one reason many state Repub parties are rejecting some of their moves)

weakening of American power (Yes, now that we are alone in the
world, we are much stronger. Oh wait, I forgot Poland)

more state control of individuals' choices (Your friend isn't talking about abortion? Or what? Less choice for who on what?)

Plus, I think some history lessons are in order. Look at what lead up to the "socialist" movement in America - the great depression (Social Security), unchecked power of corporations (EPA, consumer safety laws), abuse of workers (Unions, OSHA etc.). Sorta like the gunslinging sherriff in the old black and white westerns, as soon as the badasses are run out of town, we think we don't need him anymore, until the next evil gang shows up...

I still think the lack of an energy policy (unless you call grab all the oil just before it peaks) will be history's harshest judgement of our era. Seems like the deficits would have a "conservative" all riled up, too, unless they've already shifted their 401Ks etc. into Euros.

[Just Me]

28. HOW our "message" is being disseminated,...

,...and how the response is being tallied IS THE POINT!!! Our "message" serves the interests of the many rather than the few!

How many Americans believe that their government is supposed to act in the best interests of its people?

How many Americans believe that their government is supposed to fairly collect a "toll" (being the price for living in this civilized nation) and apply it towards strengthening the WHOLE nation (not merely the elite)?

How many Americans believe that the "protection" our government is constitutionally required to provide includes protection against economic, physical and psychological abuses by those within our own country?

How many Americans believe that our government should advance social INJUSTICE and/or economic INEQUALITY?

How many Americans believe our government should feel free to deceive us all about social/economic/global realities?