I don't agree that we have to acquiesce to this false "values" debate

[jpgray]

It's false because they are not upholding any particular values at all. These "values" exist only to be paired with a right-wing economic agenda. The right-wing revolution didn't start with the idea that values must come before all else, it started with Lewis Powell. Powell's manifesto caused a half dozen like-minded billionaires to create a system of policy groups and think tanks that would graft tremendously unpopular elitist policy onto a series of wedge issues that were designed to turn out a plurality of ignorant voters.

Why do Daschle et al seem weak when they parrot or half-endorse the GOP side of the "values" issues? Because this debate of values has been designed for GOP victories, and therefore before any Democrat has a chance to carefully craft his/her centrist position, the Republican will have staked out the stance that nets the most votes. We can't base our stance on morality and values using those issues the GOP designed to defeat us and our populist economic policies.

But that's what we've done. The polling on gay marriage made the GOP decide to make it a pivotal part of their campaign. Do they really care about gays marrying? Nope. But it's a great way to get their other policies through. Now look at the AWB expiring this year. Notice how this was NOT made part of the national debate in any significant way. This is because the polling showed widespread support for it. That's why George kept it down as an issue, offered a watery gesture of "support" and let it expire quietly. He couldn't appear to offend the NRA's sensibilities, but also he couldn't support a side of a wedge issue that was tremendously unpopular. His stance was the perfect solution.

Wedge issues aren't about values to the GOP, they are about winning. The instant a wedge issue that is a major part of our national debate ceases to be popular enough to get the issues they really care about into Washington, it will be dropped for something that will. If we play this game with them, it's like playing musical chairs with your opponent constantly seated. It's only a matter of time before you're going to lose.

[Guaranteed]

1. It's just bigotry. We're gonna back down in the face of BIGOTRY?

We're better than that. Come on.

RFK's fucking rolling over in his grave with some of the posts on DU.

[jpgray]

2. Did you read the post? Where do I say back down in the face of bigotry?

[Guaranteed]

3. No, I'm not saying you're saying that.

I'm saying that that's what other people are saying.

[jpgray]

4. Sorry--I agree, and it is also pissing me off

We are on the absolute right side of the gay marriage debate--these people deserve equal rights. But it occupies a place on the national debate it has no right to occupy--that's the problem. Gay marriage is a very important issue, but it shouldn't be *the* issue that decides the election. We have to find a way to have voters think "I disagree on their position here, but in light of everything else, they get my vote." The way to do that is to be competitive using "values" issues we create ourselves, rather than run to those the GOP uses only to take the less-popular spot. To my mind, we have much more fertile ground for creating them than does the GOP--we actually are the party that lifts people up. The problem I think is that we are categorically unimaginative and untalented right now in crafting these advantages into a shifting of our national discourse. We have got to get a lot better. It's not that our position on gay marriage is killing us, it's that we haven't framed an issue that will kill them more.

The idea isn't to give up our values, but rather to use our own to destroy them in the same way they are using false values to destroy us.

Now if only I knew how to do it.

:dunce:

[madfloridian]

5. Musical chairs is a good description.

Only they get the chairs.

[jpgray]

7. We need to either disrupt their defining of the debate

Or we need to learn how to define one from which we can win, using the best of our policies. I'd say the raw ingredients were present with Kerry in enough numbers, but the management of them was not very imaginative at all. Mostly he had to take stances based on what Bush was talking about--the opposite virtually never happened.

[madfloridian]

8. I don't blame Kerry....they have an awesome machine.

It is hard to accept how vicious they are. I hope we are prepared next time...without giving up our values for theirs.

[Zero Division]

6. I agree. It's just a code word for the Christian Right's agenda.

We need to expose it for the falsity that it really is. I think the majority of people who claim values as a priority when asked about political priorities only think of the endorsement of values as an endorsement of homophobic laws, anti-choice laws, and putting an end to the separation of church and state. "Family values" is, of course, essentially the same thing.

It's an attempt by the right wing to sound "moderate" on social issues, when they're anything but moderate.

Thus, when a Democratic politician endorses "values" or "moral values" they either come across as vague or insincere to a lot of people. I'm not saying we shouldn't take back the meaning of values, but we need to expose the it's exploitation by the right wing before we can take its meaning back.

We need to call the right wing out for labeling those of us who don't support the Christian Right's agenda as "lacking values or morals".

Some of this fight must happen on the political level, but primarily it needs to happen on a deeper social level, especially within our religious institutions.

[jpgray]

9. I'm not sure we can expose it, but we can create our own

And our wedge issues could actually have some meaning and progressive ideals behind them. The minimum wage could be the centerpiece of one. Raising taxes on multinational corporations and dropping them on the lower classes could be another. We need to have definitions of these issues that would make the position we would stake out so superior that the Republicans, forced to hold on to their elitist policies, would rapidly have a losing issue at the center of the debate.

[blondeatlast]

11. We need a few strong points NOW for 2006.

Supporting labor issues is a good one, IMHO.

[blondeatlast]

10. Those "anti-gay" propositions were an effective GOTV tactic.

It had nothing to do with "grassroots" and everything to do with Karl Rove.

[ibegurpard]

12. People are afraid of the word "values"

Because the religious right has owned it for so long. I think we need to recognize that "values" can be looked at as a way to reframe the debate to showcase our support for issues that all of us support and always have. Before you run away from it, you need to look at what they're actually saying when they talk about "values."

[jpgray]

13. My point is we need to stop playing to their manufactured "values"

Because they are designed to make us lose, I'm not sure why people are surprised when they have that effect. My argument is that we can and should create our own. Let people disagree with our stance on gay marriage--let it be unpopular. But also, let us have an issue that trumps it and makes those who disagree vote for us anyway.

[ibegurpard]

15. Oh, I absolutely agree

But many people hear "values" and think that means we're giving up and adopting positions that are reprehensible to many of us and it doesn't have to mean that.

[andym]

14. no doubt wedge issues helped *, but the economy may have been key

Wedge issues almost certainly helped *'s GOTV. However, analysis of the exit polls supports the idea that people held a referendum on the incumbent based on their family's pocketbook

See this thread for analysis.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1322827

[jpgray]

16. That's certainly possible, but note that "morals" and "terror" were cited

In the exit polls at least, that's what that 51% was saying motivated their vote. And that means to me that this "values" nonsense was the cause. When people believe the country is going in the wrong direction and Iraq is a disaster, I can't imagine what else it could be.