Why aren't more people Democrats?

[IndianaJoe]

I am a Dem. I see my party as the only real vehicle for positive change in this country. Sometimes it fails to move things as rapidly as I'd like. Sometimes I get angry because some of its members don't vote the right way. Sometimes the party isn't where I think it should be.

But then I consider the alternative.

Then I wonder why, or better how, any decent, fair-minded person would be in a party that looks for intellectual leadership from the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, or Palin. That takes seriously the views of the likes of Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, or Phyllis Schlafly. That get their "religion" from Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. That have as leaders men like Nixon, Agnew, the Bushes, or silly old actors like Ronald Reagan.

It amazes me -- it really does -- that anyone could be a Republican. But there are many of them. Why?

[virgogal]

1. Simple. Different strokes for different folks. Human nature.

[SharonAnn]

86. The R-W media goes for the "emotional" hook. Directly to one's reptilian brain,

completely unfiltered by analysis or logical thinking.

Moral outrage!

Scary minorities!

Women taking control!

Terrorism!

Booga-booga!

[PDJane]

2. I think it's brainwashing...........

constant, undadulterated brainwashing....from the teevee and the radio and the 'news'...and a constant barrage meant to equate socialism with communism.

It's totally bizarre to me how many vote against their own interests.

[IndianaJoe]

22. Yeah, like the recent vote in Missouri. It baffles me. n/t

[iris27]

89. Eh, Dem turnout was VERY bad for this primary (overall voter turnout was 13% statewide). Two out of

every three voters who came out asked for the Republican ballot.

[applegrove]

78. In the 19th Century Disrali came up with the idea that conservatives had

to get the working class to vote for patriotism/conservatism because that was the only way to get them to vote against Liberals & their own best interests.

The GOP has accomplished this only it isn't just patriotism...it is guns, gays, god, and anti-abortion.

[jeffrey_X]

94. Agreed. I grew up in middle Indiana. Raised by a "normal" household....

folks were christian and not very political at all, but "liberal" was always used as a derogatory term. I never understood it.

[Enthusiast]

101. Tune in to

Rush Limbaugh you will start to understand it.

[izquierdista]

3. Willful ignorance

Listen to the master on this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQT7_rVxAE

[IndianaJoe]

5. Carlin has it right. Its the Rich and the rest of us.

But why are people so stupid as to buy into their shit. Why don't they ever wise up?

[dubyadiprecession]

19. There aren't enough wealthy republican voters...

so not only do they make money on the working classes, they also need them to turn up to vote republican/Tea party so they can get their tax cuts as well.

[LibDemAlways]

39. They get working class people to vote R by appealing to

their prejudices. Reagan's famous portrayal of "welfare queens" struck a huge cord with some of my relatives, who totally bought into the idea that black people were buying steak with welfare checks while they struggled to feed their families. The ridiculous notion that minorities are being given preferential treatment is at the heart of why so many people vote against their own self interest. That and the R's completely bogus claim to be the party of "family values" - another means to rope in the votes of simple-minded people.

[IndianaJoe]

43. It's an old saw about Dem's being the party of "handouts"

But it still resonates with a lot of people. We have a person like that at our office. Everything that the Democrats do is viewed as a personal ripoff. Her latest peeve is Michelle Obama's trip to Spain and what it's costing the U.S. taxpayer.

And you're right. The party of "family values" is a familiar line. I suppose it still hits home with some. Although people like Vitter and Ensign certainly give that the lie. Morality trumps economics in some people's scheme of values. Dems are viewed as the party of "Hollywood," and gay rights, which for silly reasons, make some people nervous.

Its kind of irrational, but some are Republicans for such reasons.

[Maccagirl]

4. They appeal to the selfish, ignorant side of human nature

and not to our better angels. Life is easier when you have scapegoats and don't have to think or feel deeply.

[IndianaJoe]

9. I read a book by George Lakoff

I'm going by memory, but he said that people in the U.S. basically see reality through the prism of two separate metaphors. The Republican one is that of the "strict father" -- life is hard, a struggle, and only the strong survive. To be strong one can't be sentimental. You have to be disciplined. Your children have to be physically punished if they don't do the right thing. Next time, they'll learn. Life is a zero sum game. It's Darwinian and cruel. There are winners and losers. The losers are dead weight and you have to cut them loose. They'll drag you down.

The Democratic metaphor, according to Lakoff, is that of the nurturing parent. There are problems in life, and its best if we address them collectively. Life is generally better for everyone if we share, respect one another, and cooperate in making life better. Children need to be taught why something is wrong and educated to understand why bad behavior is self-defeating not just for them but for everyone. Working together promotes a general good. We live in a society and it isn't all about just you and me.

I think he was onto something.

[oldlib]

6. They only think of themselves

and have no consideration for others. They only vote to protect that which they have.

[handmade34]

10. I believe they are most of the time

unable to think beyond the box they are enclosed in... most lack any sense of empathy and cannot comprehend any concept or idea that sounds "different". They are too ignorant to know that they are ignorant.

[IndianaJoe]

13. I think you're onto something about the inability to empathize

Two nights ago I went to dinner with a lawyer and we discussed politics. He told me that he didn't understand why we just didn't seize an oil-rich country and solve our energy problems that way. When global warming came up he laughed and said why should I even care about that?

I think a lot of Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-gay, and anti-black because they've never experienced bigotry, prejudice, or intolerance themselves and therefore can't relate to anyone different than them who has. But it still amazes me that so many people are this way. How antithetical it is to all the values we've supposedly been taught.

[GoCubsGo]

77. Or...

In the case of the non-wealthy ones, they vote to protect what they think they will one day have. They are wannabes. They think that the GOP is going to make them rich, while failing to recognize that the GOP are the ones who are, in fact, robbing them blind.

[Mariana]

112. I don't see how that can be true for many of the older ones.

My parents and all their friends, and those older teabaggers we see at their "rallies" are retired and will NEVER be rich. They know it.

Part of the problem is that they tend to vastly overestimate how much they pay in taxes. Ask them to dig out their 1040's and calculate the actual percentage of their total income they pay in income tax and it's much lower than they imagine it is.

There's a hell of a lot of irrationality going on with them, too. My dad, for example, will rail on against the idea of raising taxes on the rich, but he strongly favors doing away with the cap on the Social Security tax, which of course would be a tax increase on the rich.

[handmade34]

7. lack of critical thinking skills

fear
apathy
ignorance
indoctrinated Christianity
laziness
cowardice
still at the 2nd level of Maslow's hierarchy
dumbed down education in the United States
inability to reason or be rational

:shrug:

[caledesi]

82. Totally agree hm. nt

[MajorChode]

8. More people do identify with Democrats

The problem is Democrats don't get out and vote as often as Republicans. When the Republicans get in power, they tend to piss enough people off that they get out and vote. If they did this all the time, the Republicans would be marginalized to the point of irrelevancy and we wouldn't have to compromise with the fucksticks.

[IndianaJoe]

16. I think lots of people -- Dems and Repubs -- vote the way they

do simply because that's the way they always have. There isn't any message or issue that can move them to do anything else.

[nosmokes]

11. Just my opinion, but no one wishes to be part of an organization that folds

in the smallest of winds, has no strength of conviction and sees as it's path to victory trying to out Republican the Republicans. So the Democratic Party is slightly less corporate than the GOPosse. At least they're up front about it. Sure the Dems are the better choice between the two, but that's damning with faint praise if there ever was.

[IndianaJoe]

14. I sympathize and agree with much of what you say.

But that seems to me to be a reason for not belonging to any party, or not voting at all. Because Dems aren't liberal enough or confrontational enough is hardly a reason to vote Republican. It's making matters worse.

[enlightenment]

23. What does 'belonging to a party' have to do with anything?

Do you honestly define yourself by your political party? Would you be unable to make an informed decision if you didn't belong to the Democratic party? Do you really think that people who do not belong to a political party don't vote?

Gads.

[IndianaJoe]

25. No, of course not. I don't "define myself" by my party.

But I am pragmatic. I see the U.S. as a two-party system and the only party around that offers me any hope of addressing the country's problems in the right way is the Democratic party.

Maybe that makes me a lukewarm Dem. But I don't see any other practical alternative.

[Radical Activist]

12. Too many Democrats are afraid to anger corporate special interests.

Democrats water down their message and water down their agenda in a misguided attempt to attract the support of large corporate donors. Many are also afraid of being controversial in any way. It's portrayed as being more moderate but the reality is that there's very little base of popular support for corporate lapdogs.

[angels81]

15. Why aren't more people Democrats?

I think its pretty easy to figure out. rethugs are the only ones out there talking to the people. They have faux news spewing their line 24/7, they have organized tea party groups all over the country to spew their lies, and were are the Democrats? How many people know who is head of the DNC? Where is the Democratic voice countering the rethug lies? The only thing the Democratic party has shown the people is, how quick they will cave to the rethug machine.

I think people saw how inept and weak the Democratic party is, when they failed to fight for healthcare and the single payer option, when every poll showed a majority of the people wanted a single payer option. Democrats in congress refused to fight for what the people wanted, and instead gave the insurance companies almost everything they wanted. They are now doing the same thing when it comes to bushes tax brakes for the rich, wallstreet reform, and a strong jobs bill.

I think those are some of the reasons why there aren't more Democrats.

[IndianaJoe]

18. It's hard to be enthusiastic about Dem wishy-washiness

But it's crazy to use that as a reason to be a Republican. Maybe my question really is: Why are there so many Republicans?

It can't simply be blamed on Fox News.

[angels81]

29. It can't simply be Fox News.

I think it is that most people don't spend much time thinking about politics. The only time they start thinking about it, is around election time. There only involvement is they watch the news or maybe read a newspaper. Fox news spews the republican line 24/7 and CNN isn't much better. If you only hear and see one side of the issues, and the other party is nowhere to be seen, except to look weak and inept on the issues, its no wonder more people don't vote republican.

[IndianaJoe]

30. I think a lot of people watch Fox because it gives them what

they want to hear. It reinforces their system of values and beliefs. And that scares me. If people see nothing wrong with the filth that Fox spews, it doesn't say much for the people or their values.

I watch MSNBC pretty much for the same reasons. It portrays Republican actions and motives the way I view them. Watching MSNBC reinforces my beliefs.

For straight news I listen to NPR. It's pretty balanced.

[angels81]

31. It can't simply be Fox News.

I agree, but its also that more people have access to Fox News. Fox was smart to make sure they were part of the basic cable package. In many parts of this country MSNBC is not a basic cable offering, you pay extra to get it. When the two choices you have is Fox or CNN, Fox wins hands down.

[IndianaJoe]

34. Well Fox sure has the viewers. You can't argue with the

numbers.

I suppose if you're a news junkie, and Fox is the only game in town, you watch it. But I can't watch it for 10 minutes without getting so riled that I have to turn on something else. CNN is on most cable packages and Fox destroys it.

Maybe the problem is the way too many Americans view the world to begin with -- sort of selfishly. And Fox tells them that's just fine.

[Enthusiast]

103. There is enough

RW bullshit spewed on MSNBC to suit me.

[Enthusiast]

102. And you are right. nt

[SoCalDem]

17. 40 years of time & propaganda spent on making conservatism the default position

Truthfully, "conservatism" has probably never been more than 30% at any given time, but because they have been so successful at media/message manipulation, they have managed to convince the majority that they are not a majority .

If you look at the 70% remaining, probably a good 1/3 of them are apolitical, probably another 1/3 are diehard dems and the remainder are people who flip back and forth, depending on what their issue of the day is.

Media has managed to convince most of America that soundbytes & two/three word phrases can sum up a movement or a philosophy, and then they douse their coverage of news liberally with these phrases to help their spread. Even "liberals" come to use them.

How many times have we here at DU bristled when "one of ours" says "Democrat party"?

Right wingers/conservatives have a unity of message that we have never/will never have. They don't know what they are FOR (except for tax cuts for the rich), but boy-howdy...do they ever know what they are against.

By accusing US of everything they are against, our "side" is automatically on defense...on EVERYTHING.

Righties have SHOWN us all how they legislate..over and over, and other than spending every penny they can get their hands on to prevent others from doing something/having something, starting & maintaining ridiculous wars, and giving money to their friends, they have not been successful at advancing our society. But societal advancement is not what they ever have in mind.

When the default position is theirs, any dem who gets elected is automatically an aberration.. a placeholder until a republican gets his/her seat. They never accept that the public chose someone else..a dem.. they assume that the public was misinformed, naive or stupid, and they set out to destroy the election-winner,l so they can resume their rightful position of power.

This is what the deification of Reagan was all about. In fact, Reagan was "acceptable" to dems because they were mad at Carter for the bad economy & his inability to get the hostages back, and too many people bought into the media's portrayal of him as an ineffective leader. Carter was actually the LAST president who told us the truth.. But like that famous movie line.. we can;t handle the truth..

[stray cat]

20. Many see dems as more antagonistic to them - and calling them idiots doesn't endear them to us

[IndianaJoe]

21. I think there's something to that.

I think sometimes that we are portrayed as kind of silly -- a party of "tree huggers" or people overly concerned about "political correctness". And yes, labeling them as stupid probably doesn't win their allegiance.

[lonestarnot]

24. One word, inculcation.

[IndianaJoe]

26. Inculcation? Sorry, I don't follow you. Can you explain?

[lonestarnot]

113. look it up.

[no_hypocrisy]

27. Blind trust, fear, ignorance, lack of thinking, family tradition.

[IndianaJoe]

28. I don't disagree with that, I guess.

But it amazes me that so many would use that as a reason to vote Republican. What answers do Republicans have to generalized "fear" And have they really ever given us any reason to "trust" them at all, much lest "blindly"?

[lib2DaBone]

32. George W. Bush.. the kind of guy you want to have a beer with...

.. that sure worked out well for the NASCAR dads, didn't it?

Also worked out well for Pat Tillman and our troops in Afghanistan. Just think.. it only costs us $436 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY!

[OHdem10]

33. The Democratic and Republican Parties both serve the same

groups. Very Rich, Rich Upper Middle Class. Actually those who
earm %60,000 annually are the primary concern of each party.
(Drop to about $40,000 in very close races.Half the country does not vote or participate at all in politics.

In this system, Democrats are compelled to get Republican
votes. This is why you have those ConservaDems always
voting with Republicans. It is coming home to roost as
the country has become more polarized.

Both Parties are Pro-Business since DLC, Centrists took
over.

Those who do not vote do not see much difference in the
two parties and neither party really has their interests
at heart.

[IndianaJoe]

35. So you're saying that people view Republicans and

Democrats as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. At least that's the perception. But you're also saying that they really are Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- that that's the reality -- and I just can't go along with you there.

It really does make a difference who's in control. The Iraq War taught me that.

[lib2DaBone]

36. I know many people who have quit voting...

Why? Because it doesn't make a difference.

Do you think Joe Lieberman is going to make any more difference over Ben Nelson?

Or Max Baucus vs. Jim Bunning?

John Boehner vs Nanci Pelosi?

They are all Mother Fuckers.. each and every one of them ....out for their own criminal gains.. they could care less about you and I...

[IndianaJoe]

41. Well, personally, I see a big difference between Boehner and

Pelosi. Baucus is a tool, but certainly better than Bunning. Lieberman and Nelson is too close to call. I go along with you on that one.

[rucky]

37. Because we're not clear about what we stand for.

It may be clear in our minds, but we don't communicate it well.

[IndianaJoe]

40. Wierd isn't it. But true.

We can explain why single-payer is the way to go until we're blue in the face, but a Republican just starts bloviating about "death taxes" or "pulling the plug on grandma" and we're on the defensive.

We do have to message things better. I totally agree with you.

[frazzled]

38. More people are Democrats than Republicans

As of the last count I could find (2004), there were 72 million registered Democrats and 55 million registered Republicans. (The rest are registered as Independents).

[SharonAnn]

88. Maybe so, but all the Independents I know reliably vote Republican.

[HipChick]

42. My father/brother/uncle told me to vote Republican ..

that is what I actually hear from some woman..they either don't think for themselves or were brought up to be totally subservient to men

[IndianaJoe]

44. When I was 4 years old, my Croatian immigrant grandfather

put me on his knee and told me: "Joe, don't ever vote Republican. They won't do a damn thing for you." He was right.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Because all the PR smarts are on the Republican side

and the Democrats keep blowing chances to look good to average Americans.

[IndianaJoe]

47. I was thinking about "Cash for Clunkers" when I was reading

your post...and how Democrats got no credit for a very popular program. I think you're right. Maybe we need a propagandist -- a liberal equivalent of Frank Luntz

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. It's more substantive than that

For example, I think that the Dems began losing the rural Midwest vote in the early 1980s, when family farmers were being hit with a double whammy of low crop prices and sky-high interest rates. (Farmers typically borrow against anticipated harvests to pay their expenses for the first part of the year). Farms that had been in families since the Civil War era were auctioned off to the lowest bidder (usually an agribusiness front), and people lost a way of life that they loved and took pride in.

Now suppose the Dems had said, "You know what, you guys need a break. We'll set up a program of low-interest refinancing so you can pay the banks."

The farm belt would have been THEIRS for years to come.

Instead, they did NOTHING.

Yes, it was the Reagan administration, but at that time, the Dems had a majority in Congress. If Reagan had vetoed a farm relief bill, the Dems could have shouted it from the rooftops, calling Reagan an enemy of family farmers.

Instead, they did NOTHING.

Meanwhile, the Republicanites started playing up to the social conservatism of rural communities by harping on the school prayer, gun control abortion, and gay issues.

The Dems also angered organized labor (and ultimately destroyed part of their own base) when they refused to stand up for the air traffic controllers under Reagan and then, later, went along with NAFTA and other "free" trade pacts. They did NOTHING when companies began shipping jobs overseas. (I remember seeing Pat Buchanan on TV in the mid 1990s, arguing against NAFTA, and I thought, "I can't believe I'm agreeing with Pat Buchanan on ANYTHING, but he's absolutely right on this issue.")

The right-wing noise machine has certainly been a factor, but I fault the Dems for 1) not setting up an equal noise machine and 2) shooting themselves in the foot so often that they probably don't have any toes left.

[Marr]

46. Why should they be? The Democrats take special care not to talk about class issues.

And they take *extra special care* to only act on behalf of the wealthy.

The two parties seem to have a gentleman's agreement that they'll treat economic issues the same way, and just split the vote along topics like gays and guns. You're only going to interest so many people with those arguments.

Really-- look how close the vote counts tend to be. Do you really think that's a product of two competing ideologies? We've got two parties that have, over time, settled into a comfortable, profitable little dance.

[IndianaJoe]

51. The Obama political braintrust seems to think that taking on

class issues won't win them elections. But you're saying that not taking them on costs them elections. My heart is with you, but my head tells me that the braintrust is probably right.
Jeez, right now the Republicans have labeled Obama a "Socialist" and he's probably less of a leftie than Bill Clinton was.

[Marr]

69. I think that braintrust is weighing popular rhetoric against corporate dollars.

In other words, how populist can they speak and still get funding from Wall Street. The answer, of course, is 'not very'.

So I don't think their rhetoric is so much the center of public opinion as much as it is the center point between public opinion and corporate acceptance.

[Joe Chi Minh]

48. Because the voting machines are ornery critters and don't like them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. For the same reason a few people who are Rs will ask the exact

same question you just did.

Though on a more serious matter, a few brain scientists have determined that this is not unlike religion (The same areas of the brain go active in FMRI) And we are starting to think that some of this might even be... I know scary, genetic.

[IndianaJoe]

52. Woo! That's an answer I didn't expect! :-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Read on it, the research is still very sketchy

and the implications are down right scary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/02/11/politics.genes/index.html

[philly_bob]

50. Republicans leaders are rich, good-looking ex-high school jocks & cheerleaders.

An ex-Republican relative once explained to me that she couldn't tolerate what the Republican party had become under Bush. But she also couldn't stand labeling herself as a Democrat because Dems were not well-dressed, were nerdy, less good-looking, less "cool".

Republicans, she implied, were like Fox News Anchors & television pitchmen.

That's one person's opinion, which I repeat with distaste.

[IndianaJoe]

53. Another answer I didn't expect !!!!

Those Republicans are just better looking than us!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. There's something to that

One evening in Portland, some friends and I decided to have a drink in a hotel bar after seeing a movie. We watched a group of people arriving, and one of my group commented, "They all look like Republicans."

Come to find out that there was a sign in the lobby about some sort of Republican Party banquet.

Years later, doorknocking for Kerry, I was assigned a neighborhood in the southwest corner of Minneapolis. I got a friendly reception at every house where someone was home. However, I walked up to one house, and when the woman came to the door, I just knew that she was a Republican. And I was right.

[IndianaJoe]

58. I was going to a basketball game in Washington D.C.

last year. There was a panhandler sitting outside the arena asking for change. Anyway one well-dressed guy in a suit walked past him, ignored his pitch, and responded "Why don't you just get a damned job!" The panhandler looked at him and said: "You must be a Republican".

A lot of people in the crowd chuckled.

[SharonAnn]

90. When I ran for office here, people told me that I looked like a republican! Really!

Guess they thought I was too well-spoken and too well-dressed to be a Democrat? Go figure.

[AlabamaLibrul]

54. From the right - brainwashing. From the left - The Dems are Diet Republicans. n/t

[Boojatta]

56. More people are Democrats.

Back in day, George W. Bush tied in one election and won another election.

Then, given the choice of Republican McCain plus Republican Palin trying to continue the Bush policies, or Democratic Obama plus Democratic Biden offering hope and change, people made a clear choice in favor of the Democratic alternative.

[IndianaJoe]

61. So why are we worrying about the mid-terms?

What are the Republicans going to do for the unemployed?

[Odin2005]

59. Because both parties serve the same masters.

[Gravel Democrat]

60. Why aren't more Democrats Democrats?

Imagine how difficult it would be for most of America if there were no "parties". People would have to think too hard about too many things and real issues would have to be discussed. Probably wouldn't work, unfortunately.

When they get home to their mansions people like James and Mary Carville laugh at the serfs.

[alarimer]

62. But the Democratic Party (at least as represented by those in office) are no longer what they were

The entrenched Washington interests (of Democrats as well as Republicans- it's pretty much a revolving door of the same assholes back and forth depending on who is in the majority) are not the people's interests. It makes no difference that people belong to one party or another. What they need to do is vote for neither party and kick all the bastards out. Or almost all anyway: I'd keep Kucinich, Grayson, Feingold and Sanders and the rest can go to hell on a broomstick. I'd kick out the current President and corporate whore of a cabinet too.

If you're looking for change, don't bet on the Democrats. Clearly they've not done a real bang-up job in that department lately. Same shit, different day.

[PhD]

63. Responses from actual Republicans

I thought this was an interesting post, so I posed the question "why do you support Republicans instead of Democrats" to 3 Republican voters.

The first is my father, who was once a reliable (if moderate) Democrat until the Reagan years and is now as rabid a Republican as you'll ever see. Based on his comments, I'd lump most of his reasons together as "traditional values." My father is a great outdoorsman, and this conservationism/environmentalism is probably what kept him a Democrat as long as he was. However, what he loves most about the outdoors is hunting and fishing. The rise of gun control, animal rights, and other movements that he sees as a war on such an important part of his life really drove him away from the Democratic Party. He is also a man of religious faith, another traditional institution that liberals are "waging war against," in his words.

The second person is my husband. He's always been pretty conservative (an example of opposites attract) and the number one reason he votes Republican is economic issues. I could never relate all his views on macroeconomic theory, tax rates, and financial policy here, but suffice it to say that he doesn't agree with any economic view of the left. He said something along the lines of "Republicans try to remove roadblocks so anyone can succeed, Democrats try to create roadblocks because it's unfair for someone to succeed. Republicans pull people up, Deomocrats push them down."

The last is my son. He is in the National Guard (following in his parents footsteps) and national security is his greatest concern. He calls the left "incredibly naïve" about the threats facing the country and the sacrifices people like him make to keep attacks like 9/11 from happenening again. I won't try to put too many words in his mouth, but I know he was very deeply offended by protestors who disrupted the funeral of one of his friends killed in Afghanistan.

You can agree or disagree, but I'd say these reasons are probably representative of most Republican voters.

[IndianaJoe]

65. In talking to my lawyer friend the other night

we discussed economic issues. He opined that the Democrats had blown the budget out of whack and that something had to be done about it. When I told him that Keynesian economics says that we shouldn't be trying to balance budgets in the worst recession since the Great one, he told me that he didn't agree with Keynes and that "He was a Milton Friedman guy."

As for Democrats always leveling down and Republicans pulling people up, well, I would have to disagree. How many people are winners in the game of life and why? Anyone that looks at the wealth disparities prevalent in this country today can't help coming away with the idea that there's something very, very wrong. The Rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And how did the middle class fare over the last 8 years? And what did Republican economic policies do for people's IRAs and retirement accounts? Mine is devastated.

As for people protesting in Afghanistan, well I can understand how your son might feel. But of what strategic value is Afghanistan? What are our aims there? What is really achieveable given the level of corruption of the Karzai government. My lawyer friend's answer was to "bomb them to oblivion." Sadly, Afghanistan is now Obama's war and my hope is that he's right about pulling out next year.

[PhD]

109. Son's response

My son says you and I have oversimplified his position. He says that what is "completely naive" about Democrats on national security isn't just Afghanistan but the threats in parts of the world they completely ignore (China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.). He goes on to say that he would have supported Democratic leaders of the past like FDR (who recognized and prepared for the threats of Germany and Japan long before WW2) or JFK (who recognized and prepared for the threats of USSR in the Cold War) but they would be called "war-mongers" and never even be nominated by the Democratic Party of today.

I won't even mention Keynesian economics to my husband--he'll give me an earful about how discredited it is by its failure in the Great Depression and the stagflation of the 1970s and blah, blah. Yes, I've gotten that speech more than once and it's not worth hearing again just to post the feedback here!

[IndianaJoe]

111. Thank you for sharing all this.

I know it's all anecdotal, but it's interesting to understand how real people think. And more importantly, why they think that way. I'm not sure that the views of your father, husband, and son all are simply the by-products of Right-wing propaganda, as some would suggest. Nor do I believe that they are somehow genetically predisposed to be Republican (I enjoyed the articles Nadia posted about some people being genetically predisposed to react violently on hearing the word "Clinton"). I think sometimes what we believe is triggered by emotions, but I don't think the triggers are genetic.

During the Vietnam era, when I was in college, I was a little turned off by the ultra-rad chic that went along with being against that war. I was raised in Indiana, a Catholic, and a lot of my political thinking was a product of a lot of Cold War input about the monolithic Communist threat, the belief that Asia was a stack of dominos, and that the Reds really were out to bury us.
So I was kind of OK with that war and was so for a long time. I felt that pulling out would be irresponsible. And I thought a lot of the anti-war rhetoric I was hearing in my dorm and elsewhere on the campus was fueled more by not wanting to be drafted than any genuine moral outrage about why we were in Vietnam. I also had a friend from high school that had his legs blown off two weeks after he was in-country in 'Nam and when I heard people run down the Army and what it was doing there, it angered me because, to my mind, it cheapened the sacrifices that guys like my friend had made and were making there. All that shaped my views then. In looking back on it now, and how it all turned out, I know I was very wrong not to oppose that war. Vietnam was a huge political mistake. By the way, I served in the military after college -- 4 years, most of it in Germany.

I find it odd sometimes, when I look back on the history of my political beliefs now, to realize that I am now far more liberal, you might say even radically leftist, today than I was when I was younger. Most people my age (60) follow the opposite track. My present views have been largely shaped by a lot of reading, mostly of history and by what I've seen of life in the context of my profession (Lawyer). I have come to see through those influences that little people -- "average people" -- usually get the short end of the stick in life unless someone looks out for them. In America, no one is there to protect them except, ocassionally, government. I've also grown very tired of the fact that our very real problems never seem to get addressed because people with vested interests, usually very wealthy people, don't want to see them addressed.

It's interesting what motivates people to think certain ways, isn't it?

[HughBeaumont]

97. "Republicans try to remove roadblocks so anyone can succeed" . . . .

That's just simply hilarious.

Yeah, little things like

* support corporations that crush small businesses to ash,
* pretend those tax cuts are a viable substitute for a living wage that keeps up with a soaring cost of living,
* support job offshoring (in a sense, slavery) and call it "competitiveness", even though it really only matters who invents the cheaper mousetrap, not the better one,
* never giving a single thought as to what would replace outgoing industries, only believing that a generic plan of "constant invention" will fix that issue. Problem is, you need money for that, and no one HAS any,
* support lowering wages rather than raising them,
* scoff at the fact that the musical chairs circus known as education is bankrupting most new workers to the tune of 5-6 digit debt and creating degrees that are all but worthless,
* supporting privatized retirement, a massive scam that almost guarantees workers will remain working until they die,
* supporting the cutting/defunding of nearly every social program, resulting in poor schools, crumbling infrastructure and a social safety net that isn't worth the paper it's non-existent plan is printed on,
* don't even begin to understand that one's success and well being in life is almost completely tethered to how gainfully they're employed,
* refuse even for a second to blame corporate leaders for the absolute MESS we're all in, and even refuse to see that it is a mess.

We're one supremely compartmentalized Republic; one where the smallest and most exclusive compartment not only owns every other one, but does their godDAMNest to make sure the owned never even come close to getting out of "their station".

A cab driver in France is far more free and brave than any American citizen can ever be. He'd likely never have to pony up dough from multiple charities to save his own life, or God Forbid, the lives of his family members. Nor would he sit idly by and take it in the ass while corporations try and screw the citizenry. Not only do we allow the screwing, but are resigned that we can do absolutely nothing at all about it.

And one only needs to look at who was in control for the past 30 years while this screwing was going on . . . supported wholeheartedly by those who truly believed they'd be in the "1% Club" someday.

Reaganomics = bullshit. This is the prime reason why I can never be a conservative - because I don't believe that money is more important than people, love, compassion, honor, loyalty, family and good.

[PhD]

108. Well...

My husband and I are trying to keep a business afloat in the midst of asinine California regulations that are killing us, so I think he has a point about well-intentioned rules that can turn into job-killing obstacles. We have already laid off 3 employees and are likely going to layoff another 2-4 before the end of the year. If we didn't have ties holding us to California, we've decided we'd be much better off moving to Nevada or Arizona. This seems to be California's achilles heel judging by the number of companies that have fled over the past 20 years. It's amazing how the state used to be the center of the aerospace industry and now it's dwindled down to almost nothing.

[Enthusiast]

104. All three perspectives are a result

of years of misinformation. Of course the narrative has been "Democrats want to take away your guns, faith, economic opportunity and national security". But it is based on misinformation, not reality.

[spin]

64. Because when we are in charge we piss people off ...

We pass 2000 page bills without anyone having a chance to read them. (Seriously, what difference would a few days make.)

We promise and fail to deliver. Why is the Guantanamo Bay detention camp still open? Why are our rights still being violated by the Patriot Act?

Many Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans.

We kiss BP's ass. They destroy the Gulf and we help them cover up.

We fail to create jobs, but instead direct bailouts toward large banks, corporations and Wall Street. We create a stimulus program that doesn't stimulate, then we try to blame Bush for our failure. (This gets old after a few years. Obama will never get reelected by blaming Bush for the economy in 2012. Recessions eventually end, hopefully before the next Presidential election.) If so, we can claim credit.)

We ignore the opinions of many voters and push unpopular legislation through over the voters objection. We act like we know far more than the average citizen and they should just let us rule. (So do the Republicans.) Elitism irritates the hell out of intelligent people. Often there are educated viewpoints on both sides of any issue.

People suspect that both parties are paid for and owned by the big international corporations. (And they might be right.)

People are beginning to believe that Obama is one of the greatest speakers of our history. Unfortunately a good speech doesn't translate to good leadership.

Our administration over reacts to the threat of buffoons like Glen Beck. They fire an employee before finding out her side of the story because of the fear that she might be a subject of a story on Glen Beck's program on Fox News. So what? Are we actually terrified of a guy with several black boards who wears sneakers, jeans and a shirt and tie? This fool has a red phone and challenges the White House to call him up and dispute what he says. Why not take him on and blow him away?

Fox News is very anti-Obama but they do indeed had a LARGE megaphone. Instead of saying that they are not a "real news organization", just why not send out our best people to fight for our cause? Why not use Obama himself to fight and defend his programs. He could blow both Beck and O'Reilly away in a one on one. You stand up to a bully. If you run away, he wins.

The most important thing we need to do as a party is to get back to representing the voter. Beware of the Tea Party. They are just in an infantile stage but they may be able to overcome their initial problems and become a serious threat to both Democrats and Republicans currently in office.

[IndianaJoe]

66. The Tea Party is no answer

They are mostly a bunch of bigoted idiots funded by Republican money. I don't see them as a grassroots hope for America. That said, I hear and agree with your critique of the Dem's performance. They got some things through -- TARP (which I believed saved our banking system), Health Care (which wasn't the single-payer I wanted but still better than what we had -- being able to get insurance for pre-existing conditions alone makes it better than the status quo in my book). Obama's not the civil libertarian I hoped for, but he's not torturing people anymore. That's better than what was going on before. Financial reform's not what I wanted either, but there's an improvement.

If there's going to be a grass-roots movement for real change, I still believe the Democratic Party's our best hope. I think we've got to actively push for a truly liberal reform agenda within the party. None of the issues you mentioned are likely to improve with a Republican administration. Everything you itemized is a solid critique of Democratic leadership. But none of them are reasons to be a Republican.

[spin]

84. I agree, but still beware of the Tea Party ...

if our party doesn't change and follow the wishes of the voters. Neither the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is currently seen as a grass roots party.

The Republican Party may have as much or more to fear from the Tea Party as do Democrats. True, the Tea Party is conservative but the tea baggers get their shit together, they may decide to attempt to replace the old timers in the Republican Party. This may not happen at the upcoming mid term elections but might occur at the following election, especially if the economic situation is still poor.

The Republicans had power for eight years and they failed to hold true to their basic principles. People across our country are totally fed up with both major parties in Congress.

Chances are slim that the Tea Party will play a significant role in the long run. In fact, since they are conservative, they may well hurt the Republican Party in upcoming elections.

Still, it might be wise for our party to follow through and deliver on promises. Many Democratic voters might just say, "What's the use." and not show up at the polls to vote. This might put the Republicans or possibly even the Tea Party in a stronger position to win future elections.

[Orsino]

67. Because of the goddamned TV...

...and all the goddamned money that tells us not to be.

[deaniac21]

68. I'd hate to see the the future of America without an opposition

party. You have to have ideas go through the wringer before they become policy.

[IndianaJoe]

71. I could understand being a Republican -- a long time ago

When they perhaps stood for more than tax cuts for rich people and standing in the way of any effort to address practical problems.

Today they may be a party of opposition, but they aren't loyal or responsible opposition.

To the extent that ideas go through a wringer any more, that wringer is more within the internal debates and/or power plays of the Democratic party. The Republicans have no program at all other than to protect or enhance the already entrenched interests of the wealthy.

[deaniac21]

72. Yep, there isn't a Democrat that has ever been influenced by money.

:shrug:

[IndianaJoe]

74. Or sex, or the need to get elected.

I don't say we're Simon-clean, but I don't see the Republicans as a responsible alternative to the Democrats. The 8 Bush years were an unmitigated disaster by almost any measure. The Republican party today, if anything, is worse than it was under W.

The wealthy will always buy off some key Dems to try to keep power or preserve their interests. But the Dems, overall, are still better than the Republicans. You might think marginally. I think generally speaking, they're a hell of a lot better.

[deaniac21]

75. All politicians get their money from the same places.

[IndianaJoe]

81. That's what Ralph Nader used to say.

That there's really no difference between Dems and Repubs. But that's baloney. Also, they don't really get all their money from the same places. Labor doesn't fill Republican coffers. There's lots of PAC money from interest groups -- environmental groups, MOVE-ON, gay and civil rights groups that goes to Dems that doesn't go to Republicans. Not everyone in the Democratic party is bought up. Unlike the Republicans.

[treestar]

96. Then why isn't the opposition from the left rather than the right?

The ideas of right wingers in the US are outmoded.

[underpants]

70. They think they are richer than they are

[IndianaJoe]

73. Or they think they too will someday become millionaires. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

76. A fair question

From what WE see, the answer is obvious.

What is it that makes a person believe in Republican lies and even advocate for their candidates, despite their outrageous policy proposals, non-answers to serious questions and obvious hypocrisies?

I can't tell you. It boggles the mind that people buy their crap.

Media propaganda and the "dumbing down" of national discourse may be the answer, but it doesn't explain the sheer NUMBERS of wingnuts who seek to sabotage their own success.

It's a mystery to me.

[Better Believe It]

79. You see the Democratic Party "as the only real vehicle for positive change in this country."???!!!

What about the role of the labor, civil rights, human rights, women's rights, gay rights and all of the other mass movements that have changed America for the better?

The Democratic Party did not organize nor lead those movements.

[IndianaJoe]

80. That's a point....But most of everything you mentioned

was ultimately implemented by the Democratic Party. Progressive agendas historically have had grass roots starts, a concensus for adoption builds, and the Dems have put the ideas the movements spawned into effect.

None of the movements you mentioned had Republican support.

[Better Believe It]

92. When was the right to strike and organize labor unions implemented by the Democratic Party?

Ever hear of the Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffen Acts union bashing laws that were passed with most Democratic Senators voting for those laws?

And if workers have the right to strike and the right to organize why was the S-1 Senate bill prohibiting the use of "strike breakers" called permanent replacements proposed during the first two years of the Clinton administration and why was the Employee Free Choice Act proposed during the first two years of the current administration?

Both of these moderate pro-labor proposals died in Congress. The Democrats failed to pass either bill with control of the Senate.

Would you like to revisit the real history of other progressive mass movements?

[IndianaJoe]

93. I don't see where what I said was so wrong.

You make no mention of the National Labor Relations Act (the Wagner Act), which provided for recognition of the right of collective bargaining in the first place. It was put in place in 1935 by the Democrats as a key part of the New Deal.

Taft-Hartley was passed in 1947 under the Truman Administration (but over Truman's veto). And I think you're mistaken about who had control of the Senate at the time. In the mid-term elections of 1946, the Republican Party won control of the upcoming Eightieth Congress, gaining majorities in BOTH houses of Congress for the first time since 1931. The "Class of 1946," as the first-term Republicans were called, was dominated by members of the conservative "old guard": John Bricker of Ohio, William Jenner of Indiana, William Knowland of California, George Malone of Nevada, Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, Arthur Watkins of Utah, John Williams of Delaware, Richard Nixon of California, Karl Mundt of South Dakota, and Charles Kersten of Wisconsin. These freshmen congressmen were eager to overturn as much New Deal legislation as possible and one of their first priorities was to amend the Wagner Act. And that's just what they did, passing it, as I said, over Truman's veto, on June 23, 1947.

Landrum Griffin was passed in 1959 and was signed into law by Eisenhower. Here, you're right, it was passed when the Dems had control of both houses of Congress. LG was mostly aimed at curbing certain abuses, most notably in the Teamsters Union, involving union ties to organized crime, collusion between dishonest employers and union officials, use of violence by certain sectors of labor leadership, and the diversion and misuse of union funds by high ranking officials. LG provided for the regulation of internal union affairs, including the regulation and control of union funds. Former members of the Communist party and former convicts were prevented from holding a union office for a period of five years after resigning their Communist party membership or being released from prison. Union members were protected against abuses by a bill of rights that included guarantees of freedom of speech and periodic secret elections. Secondary boycotting and organizational and recognition picketing (i.e., picketing of companies where a rival union was already recognized) was severely restricted. In the field of arbitration, an amendment to the Taft-Hartley Labor Act (1947) written into Landrum Griffin authorized states to process cases that fell outside the province of the National Labor Relations Board. It is true that organized labor has, in general, opposed LG for strengthening what it considers anti-labor provisions of Taft-Hartley.

[IndianaJoe]

99. On the Emplyee Free Choice Act, the Dems have been trying

pretty hard to get it passed. Dem "control" of the Senate requires getting 60 votes, which these days, as a practical matter, is a near impossibility. There are always a few Dems that are bought off. I pulled this from Wikipedia:

110th Congress
On February 14, 2007, in a full Committee markup session, the House Committee on Education and Labor voted 26-19<13> to report the bill to the full House. Republican members of the committee voted unanimously against reporting the bill, citing numerous amendments proposed by Republican committee members that were rejected by the Democratic majority on the committee.<14>

On March 1, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the bill, 241 to 185. On March 30, 2007, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, introduced the Senate version of the Employee Free Choice Act<15>.

On March 1, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the act by a vote of 241 to 185. On June 26, 2007, the Senate voted 51 to 48 on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the bill, 9 votes short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture and prevent an anticipated Republican filibuster.<16> As a result, the bill failed to pass during the 110th United States Congress. In the 111th United States Congress, as of July 9, 2009, the Senate version of the EFCA, S.560, had 40 cosponsors in addition to its sponsor (Edward M. Kennedy, D, MA).<17><18>

The Senate on June 26, 2007 voted 51 to 48 on a Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 800 (the House version).<19> Because 60 votes were needed to invoke cloture, the bill did not pass during the 110th Congress.

111th Congress
On March 10, 2009, the bill was introduced in the 111th Congress by Sen. Kennedy (Democrat of Massachusetts) and Rep. George Miller (Democrat of California). Kennedy described the bill as "a critical step toward putting our economy back on track," while Miller also put the bill in the context of the 2008 economic crisis, declaring, "If we want a fair and sustainable recovery from this economic crisis, we must give workers the ability to stand up for themselves and once again share in the prosperity they help to create."<20>

Although only 41 senators are Republicans, Senators Ben Nelson (Democrat of Nebraska) and Arlen Specter (Democrat of Pennsylvania) announced that they did not support the bill in March 2009.<21> In addition, Blanche Lincoln (Democratic senator for Arkansas) and Thomas Carper (Democratic senator for Delaware) both stated in April that they would not vote for EFCA in its current form.<22><23>

Dianne Feinstein (Democratic senator for California) has also announced that she would prefer to seek alternative legislation. Sen. Claire McCaskill indicated in a meeting with the Missouri Chamber of Commerce that it is unlikely that EFCA would pass in its current incarnation.<24>

On July 7th, 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) chose the bill as the first piece of legislation that he would co-sponsor, joining 40 other Democratic senators.<25>

On July 16th, 2009, reports were made that Senate advocates proposed dropping the provisions removing the employer's right to demand an extra ballot.<26>

On July 17, 2009, the New York Times reported that in an effort to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a group of key Democratic senators are planning to change the proposed legislation to remove the "card check" provision of the EFCA, which would have allowed unions to be certified solely by majority sign-up.<26>

Given the above, I don't think one can say the Dems are anti-labor at all. And the failure to pass EFCA is no reason to abandon the Democratic Party and certainly no reason to vote Republican.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

83. Around here (Arkansas) it's because of the church.

All the bible thumpers around here telling you who to vote for. Papaw lost interest in going church because he got tired of the all the "bush loving".

[iris27]

85. Because apparently there are people in the world dumb enough to think that Colbert is the real deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8897074

To win the allegiance of such people, you just have to be shouting louder and longer than the other guy.

[w8liftinglady]

87. people in my neck of the woods have been told you can't be Christian and Dem

I swear.

[Enthusiast]

105. Well I can understand why.

Since the Democrats are waging war against Christmas. :rofl:

[w8liftinglady]

106. lol!!they haven't seen my kids around Christmas then!...or theiirs,for that matter..

[old mark]

91. There is a large number of very stupid and angry people, and the right lies to them

and manipulates them.


mark

[mike r]

95. The "best" explanation:

The best explanation lies in the theory of Rational Irrationality: individuals derive psychological rewards from holding certain political beliefs, and since each individual suffers almost none of the harm caused by his own false political beliefs, it often makes sense (it gives him what he wants) to adopt those beliefs regardless of whether they are true or well-supported.
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm

[Safetykitten]

98. There are, they just are republicans at the moment.

[Enthusiast]

100. Because of a very effective

misinformation campaign carried out by the right wing corporate media. That and some truly piss poor Democrats holding office.

[laughingliberal]

110. There have always been more registered Democrats than Republicans. We win when we give them...

something to vote for. The Republican party was all but dead in 2008. The 'bipartisan' policies allowed them to regain credibility. We needed to drive a stake through their evil hearts AND their failed policies of the last 30 years. We didn't. Our leaders breathed new life into them.