The Failure of the Culture Wars

[Kevin Spidel]

I found this interesting post by Ben Lowe, a candidate in IL06. He is the only Democratic Candidate who had the courage to throw in his hat against Roskam.

Engaging the Moderate Majority Means Recovering Common Ground to Pursue Common Sense Solutions.

The post-election maps of 2004 supposedly proved it beyond all doubt: America is divided into two warring ideological factions, red states and blue states. Right-wing talk show hosts attack Democratic candidates, and are, in turn, attacked by left-wing bloggers. The Great Communicator gives way to the Great Divider. Yet all wars require two combatants, and every punch is answered with a counter-punch.

A powerful irony underlies this so-called "culture war", and it’s an irony powerful enough to influence who wins the next election.

Sociologist James Davidson Hunter revived talk of culture wars in the early 1990s. He hypothesized that on a wide range of issues, positions were not arranged haphazardly but tended to coalesce into two camps: the traditional and religious vs. the progressive and secular, or, more concretely, Republican vs. Democrat. Of course, no academic or political theory goes unpunished, and considerable debate continues about the existence and nature of any culture war.

The irony is this: Both Hunter and his challengers concur on one fundamental point, but a point that is largely disregarded in contemporary politics. To whatever extent a culture war exists in America, it only engages 5-10% of voters on either end of the political continuum. These are the party loyalists, those who give generously and work sacrificially for the cause, and who are most effectively motivated by alarmist rhetoric and confrontational stance. In the middle stands the vast and moderate majority, those who seek composed communication and mutual respect, and are alienated by a political process marked by the lobbing of hand-grenades and smoke bombs against entrenched opponents, turning compatriot Americans into enemy combatants.

The bottom-line? The political future belongs not to the extremists, but to the moderate middle, not to those who resort to clamor or smear, but to the party that carries a big umbrella. Of course, the political and media elite profit from culture wars over abortion, gay rights, gun control, the flag and pledge, stem cell research, and the like. But the moderate majority rejects both the extremes and the rhetoric, preferring a stance somewhere in the middle of the issue, along with a rhetoric of respect rather than demonization.

More here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/1/821167/-The-Failure-of-the-Culture-Wars

About Ben Lowe: http://www.loweforcongress.com/2009/10/welcome.html

[cali]

1. I highly recommend "Culture Wars" by Hunter. It's a brilliant book.

[drm604]

2. So "the middle" is always the best solution"?

Who gets to decide what "the middle" is for a given issue?

Is "the middle" really acceptable for things like gay rights and stem cell research?

Sometimes there is no middle. What would the middle position have been on slavery? What would the middle position have been on southern seccession? What is the middle position on the death penalty?

"The middle" is not some absolute place that is the real solution to any problem or conflict. It's simply a shifting relative position along a political spectrum that moves when the extremes (by which the middle is defined) shift. As such it has no relation to real world workable solutions except when it coincidentally coincides with them.

Am I the only one who's noticed a very recent spate of posts pushing for the idea of equivalence of the two parties along with the idea finding some kind of middle ground compromises for our differences.

Sure, push the country far far the to right and then, when the left pushes back, start pushing the idea of compromise in order to end up where you really wanted to be - to the right of where you were previously while convincing the left that they've held you in check.

[Odin2005]

3. There is no compromise with bigots. Human rights are absolute and non-negotiable.

[drm604]

4. Exactly.

Of course, the author of that Dailykos piece would probably call you and I extremists.

If we can be called extremists it's only because this country has been pushed so far to the right that educated commonsense is now leftist extremism relative to a good part of the rest of the country.

[OHdem10]

5. Because of their Intensity, the RW is able to keep the fight front

and center before the TV Cameras.

No one , not even Hunter can deny the absolute Polarization
in this country.

The Polarization is between the Left and Right. IMO, Cultrual
differences lay at the root. I am not talking God, Guns, Gays and
Abortion. I am talking Culture.

Urban, Rural Suburban. It is beginning to appear that these differences
are so strong that the Polarization is here to stay for a good long
while.

Think about it, if you grew up in state where there are more
trees than people, where it could be miles to your closest
neighbor, shopping is certainly not close by, your world
view, your whole approach to life is going to different
from someone who grew up in a Cosmopolitan area.

Those who grew up in more urban suburban environment
have had to learn to have people close around and how
to get along. Learn to work together for the good of
the community. Rural counterpart has had to be much
more independent, look out for themselves as am individual,
often rely only on themselves and family. Foreced resourcefulness.

Politicians IMO, often exploit the polarization for
political purposes rather than trying to bring the
groups together.

One side is not right and the other wrong. This is how
the GOP have tried to play it.

[cali]

6. I dunno. I've seen a lot more of people working together here in

the rural Northeast Kingdom than I ever saw in the suburbs.

[drm604]

9. There is indeed right and wrong here, or at least correct and incorrect.

There are basic disagreements about the nature of reality. Facts are being being disputed here, and facts are not subjective. Global warming and evolution are just two examples. These disagreements aren't just subjective differences in how the world is viewed. They are disagreements over real physical things.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. From what I've seen on DU the moderate middle may be middle but not so moderate

They verbally attack people who do not agree with them the same way the left and the right attack each other.

[Vincardog]

8. Those who stand for the middle stand for NOTHING. Quit the "moderate majority middle" BULL$$$$$hit