Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

Ragnar,
If you do not wish to offend anyone whilst discussing religion in a political thread, why keep bringing it up? The fact that you have problems with religion as an animating force in people's lives, and hence their politics, should not preclude you from commenting on their politics, while leaving their motivations aside.

The scary thing about our government is that we are getting pretty much just what we ask for! As Pogo, the late philosopher, said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

[Giulietta]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

It's supposed to be like that Giu, a traditional type of thing, Called the Press Club dinner. Go to CNN website and you can read about it.

What about all the other times???? is it tradition also??

Just joking...ok??

I don't really have an opinion about him..(well I do but am not telling)....

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Ragnar,
If you do not wish to offend anyone whilst discussing religion in a political thread, why keep bringing it up? The fact that you have problems with religion as an animating force in people's lives, and hence their politics, should not preclude you from commenting on their politics, while leaving their motivations aside.

If you're advocating the complete separation between religion and the political scene, I'm with you. As anyone who has read a paper post-Reagan knows, however, the two are becoming more and more intertwined.

We're at the point where many good, otherwise intellectually honest people believe that Christianity, and/or the Judeo-Christian tradition(s), are at the core of the American Experiment (O'Reilly, a reserch-loving journalist I admire but don't always agree with, actually talks and writes about this as if it were indisputable.)

This is simply false, and trying to get it accepted as true, or letting it slide in the name of sparing others' feelings, can further weaken an alreaft kneeling republic.

My post was simply meant to shed some fact on this ever more popular falsity/philosophic emergency.

On another tack, why bother projecting motives, Sailway21?

You simply don't know me well enough to question whether or not I truly don't want to offend anyone, or what I have and don’t have problems with. (Putting the words "The fact" in front of an arbitrary assertion gives it no more weight.)

BTW: I couldn’t help but notice that you haven't said word one about the substance of the post.

Respectfully,

Ragnar

[sailaway21]

Rags,
I thought you were rolling along fine, until you broached and capsized under the weight of religion. I really can't see why you brought it up (again).

And, unless I am mistaken, you expressed the desire not to offend anyone of religous belief. The only "facts" I am referring to are your posts.

If you do not think there is anything to a Judeo-Christian heritage to this country and/or it's founders, that's fine. Some may disagree. I find it irrelevant to the current thread.

What's all this claptrap about a nation brought to it's knees and philosophical emergencies? This nation has many conflicting opinions and problems, but "brought to our knees"? ain't happening. Everyone who knew anything saw quagmire as far as the eye could see in Afghanistan, the 'nation' that brought the USSR to an impasse. Many of us are still awaiting the on-slaught of the brutal Afghan winter destined to aid in driving us out of that country. A matter of months accomplished what the Russians could never get done. Doesn't sound like a nation on her knees. The last time someone put America on her knee was 1776, and the resulting unpleasantness served to validate the original US Navy ensign, "don't tread on me". the fact that we do seemingly everything here by fits and starts should not be confused with inherent weakness. Prior believers in that canard include the Kaiser, the national-socialist party of Germany, Tojo, Mr. Gorbachev and his General Staff, Moammar Khaddafi, and Manuel Noriega. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are still in the process of getting the message. They will. I will concede it is an awfull lot like watching sausage being made, though. I anticipate, the result will be flavorfull in the end, if not the production.

[tdw]

I guess I'm opening myself up to a bit of foam speckled ranting from the RWWs but......last evening on the Daily Show Bill Richardson was interviewed. Seemed like an intelligent, articulate chap but I know nothing much about the guy. Any comments ?

[camaraderie]

Rags:
At present, the Right accepts altruism, duty, self-sacrifice, etc, as ideals -- as does the Left.

To stay on point...I think this core statement of yours is fundamentally in error. The only ideal the Right accepts is that of limited government and the freedom of the individual to make choices. I've never once thought that altruism,duty, self sacrifice etc. were ideals of the Right. They may be personal ideals...but i would say that the word GREED (and I mean that in a good way!!) has more to do with the philosophy of the right than anything you mentioned.

On the other hand, the left talks a lot about altruism, and the sacrifices we all have to make as they reach into our pockets to make sure that our slice of the pie is the same size as everyone else's...even if it is rather small.


I agree that religion is largely irrelevant to this topic except insofar as answering the original question about "what is the difference" between republicans and democrats....and I think it is quite evident that the MORE religious, church going Christians tend to gravitate to the Republican Party and take an active part in the shaping of the social agenda of the party.
The dems seem to get more of the Easter Sunday Christians, and Jewish vote along with the entire Church of Secular Progressivism.
I do wish that the Reps were not so dominated by the more fundamentalist Christian right on social issues as I think a lot of people that would support the economic and defense stances of the party are driven away because they cannot agree with the social stuff.

Now here is something I would like to understand better. Why does something on the order of 90-95% of black population vote democratic?
I get that there are income disparities and that poorer people are generally gonna vote for dems. But we have a nicely growing, well educated black middle class...we have a Republican admin who has appointed more blacks and other minorities to important roles than any other president...we have a strong religious communitiy within the Black community. We have a total failure of inner city schools and vouchers being backed by Republicans as a solution that would allow black parents to get their kids out of those bad schools. And...we have a Democratic Party which talks a good game but whose policies have been a dismal failure when you look at what has happened to the billions spent on "the war on poverty". So why is the Republican Party not getting a larger share of the black vote?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Rags,
I thought you were rolling along fine, until you broached and capsized under the weight of religion. I really can't see why you brought it up (again)...

It's plainly clear that religiosity, partly for honest reasons but mostly because there’s been a serious increase in the mystical element of our culture, is projecting itself into the political realm-- even Sen Clinton pretends to be an observer of religion.

Why addressing this fact is off topic in a political thread has yet to be explained.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

And, unless I am mistaken, you expressed the desire not to offend anyone of religous belief. The only "facts" I am referring to are your posts.)

But you wrote:

Originally Posted by sailaway21

The fact that you have problems with religion as an animating force in people's lives, and hence their politics...

As I said, you are in no position to know what I do and do not have problems with in others.

BTW: Are you claiming that when some % of today’s religious Americans want to use government force to assert their religion-based political agenda, pointing out the link between said policies and religion is inappropriate? If so, why?

Originally Posted by sailaway21

If you do not think there is anything to a Judeo-Christian heritage to this country and/or it's founders, that's fine. Some may disagree. I find it irrelevant to the current thread.

It's a simple historic fact, one I've abbreviated in the post you've yet to address directly.

More important, it is a philosophical impossibility to achieve real, long-term freedom under a religious umbrella. The fact that this isn’t immediately apparent to most Americans these days is ominous.

Freedom, for human beings, means respecting the individual. By definition, no religion allows for that.

Why?

What needs to be understood is that the components of a philosophic system are interdependent -- even in philosophies that proport to be anti-interdependence. (Likeit or not, we all have a philosophic system -- eventhose who insist that their philosophy is "no philosophy.")

How one believes society should be structured (politics) is derived form how one believes man should live his life (ethics.)

Ethics, are derived from two subfields, more or less simultaneously:

1) From one's view on the nature of reality, the nature of man, and man's role in that reality (metaphysics.)

2) From one's theory as to how man acquires knowledge (epistemology.)

You can't seperate politics from ethics, or ethics from metaphysics and epistemology.

I bore you with all this to show that one simply can't sever one's convictions Re reality and knowledge (an eternal God, other dimensions, revelation, unverifiable, essoteric experiences, etc) from one's politics -- not on paper, not in real life.

Sooner or later, something has to give. Either one's politics adjust to one's metaphysics and epistemology, or the two adjust to one's political convictions.

True, some individuals can maintain a split -- they pay a huge price in internal dettachement, but they pull it off.

Most, however, cannot, and do not.

All major religions call for sacrifice, altruism, humility to the point of self-denial and guilt, collectivism, etc.

These concepts are not compatible with the politics of freedom, and, is I hope I've explained well, sooner or later there needs to be harmony between one's political views and his other beliefs.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

What's all this claptrap about a nation brought to it's k
nees and philosophical emergencies? )

The nation is moving away from its roots at an alarming rate – it's been doing so since the 1900s. The increase in the role government plays in every aspect of our lives is in direct contradiction of the Founding – and there’s no end in sight.

This nation of alleged individuals, started by a revolt against far less intrusive policies by a king, has become a collective that only talks about individualism as a detached abstraction. The idea no longer feels immediately real to most of us – the more educated a given person, the less likely he is to accept the spirit of the Founding as relevant in today's world.

That’s a disaster.

+++

The rest of your response goes off in a direction that has little to do with my main point.

However:

Originally Posted by sailaway21

This nation has many conflicting opinions and problems, but "brought to our knees"? ain't happening.

It's happened.

We've been hit on our own soil, and there are still no real consequences to the true culprits -- if anything, others from that part of the world will be emboldened by the lack of our resolve long-term. (We need to communicate to our enemies in the only language they understand. One cannot act respectfully if one’s moral strengths signal weakness to one’s enemies. Example: Why NW Pakistan is still habitable is beyond any reasonable person's comprehension.)

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Everyone who knew anything saw quagmire as far as the eye could see in Afghanistan, the 'nation' that brought the USSR to an impasse. Many of us are still awaiting the on-slaught of the brutal Afghan winter destined to aid in driving us out of that country. A matter of months accomplished what the Russians could never get done. Doesn't sound like a nation on her knees.

Who made the Russians the standard to live up to, go by, refer to?

The nation responsible for 90% of terrorism worldwide, Iran, remains untouched and undeterred – heck, they are, and have reason to be, emboldened. Worse, as anyone with a feel for the region or the Eastern Med will tell you, at this point the Persian leadership will not back down -- they must be vaporized in horrific fashion.

Do you see us doing that?

Originally Posted by sailaway21

The last time someone put America on her knee was 1776,

Why do so many forget that the Brits burnt DC down in the 1812 fiasco?

Would you say that we displayed the sort of strength and commitment to victory that intimidates totalitarians during the Korean War? How about during the seizing of Western oil wells in the Middle East? Did we even launch a memo during the seizing of the Suez? What about the decades-long fiasco that was US involvement in Lebanon? Yugoslavia (ongoing, btw)? The kidnappings of all sorts of Americans in the ME? Do you think our response to the attacks on US embassies in Africa is the sort that instills fear in the mindset we’re up against? How about our response to the attack on the Cole? Or the one-hand-tied-behind-our backs efforts in response to 9/11? (We wasted a year begging the UN to ALLOW us to defend ourselves. That’s not a sign of a healthy nation.)

I don't think our response has been of the kind that scares rats back into their holes.

Neither do our rat enemies.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

the fact that we do seemingly everything here by fits and starts should not be confused with inherent weakness.

Do you get that we've been attacked on US-soil and have responded in a way that will not deter our enemies long-term?

Thanks to a largely unchecked intellectual class, this nation sees itself as worthy of sever guilt, a mechanism only aided by our Judeo-Christian heritage. The problem is that the guilt-ridden don't have the self-esteem to fight anything convincingly. Add Pragmatism to the equation (Dewey, James) and you’re looking at a weakened US.

We can certainly turn it around. I still think that the average American is starved for an act of rightful self-assertion by the US. I doubt we’ll see one before we’re attacked on US soil again. I also doubt that, at this point, one or two such acts by the US will be enough to deter the mentalities we’re up against in the long-term.

Is that enough “pure” politics for you, Sailaway21? ;-)

[PBzeer]

"Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm." On the British hostage situation in Iran, explaining why House members were not given the opportunity to pass a resolution about it.

Heaven forbid we hold anyone but our own President's feet to the coals.

[sailaway21]

Rags,
I find that I would agree with most of your political points in your long post. I also find, again, that your apparent obsession with the Christian Right obscures, for you, the salient fact that they, for the most part, would agree with your political points. Speaking for myself, and hopefully to end the religous conversation between us, I find that the entire basis of Christianity, in particular it's expression in the New Testament, to be ENTIRELY based upon individual freedom. Christians who's entire faith is based upon the idea that they are free to choose to believe, or not believe, are naturally strong proponents of freedom in every arena. These people believe that it is their choice, and only their choice, that makes them Christian. There are no other requirements for Christianity but free choice. And, at risk of prolonging the topic, those countries with the most active Christain populaces tend to value freedom far more than any others.

I would certainly be interested in discussing the differences between republicans and democrats, irrespective as much as may be possible of their religous beliefs.

[sailaway21]

Camaraderie,
Regarding the black and Jewish votes I must confess to the same bafflement you express. The only conclusion I can draw is that they vote democrat out of tradition and loyalty. Tradition originating around 1936, no earlier.

I have had the pleasure to be present for an Alan Keyes speech and found him to be tremendous. He is a fantastic orator and, unlike the Rev Jackson, there is intellectual weight to his oratory, and not just demogogary. The reason that, I think, he has not been successful in the political arena is that he is a polarizing figure. He tends to be a political preacher, not blessed with the politicians gift for 'finessing' certain points. That's part of why I like him, but death to a broader audience. He is much like Bill O'Reilly to a lot of people. You can agree with him on a lot of things, but not like the way he gets to where he's going.

I was listening to the radio this afternoon, while installing the new auto-pilot, and the topic of discussion was infant mortality, specifically in our local community. It wasn't 5 minutes into the discussion, before the designated socially aware person laid a large measure of blame at the door of institutional racism! I cracked my head a good one on the overhead upon hearing that one, and the rest of the broadcast passed me by.

The Republican party is the color blind party of the two. As I see it, color doesn't matter so there is little need to discuss it on a regular basis, unless it is the matter at hand. I, like the Republicans, see no purpose to 'hate crime' laws. Shouldn't a conviction for aggravated assault be enough without dignifying the cretin convicted by an examination of his motives? On the other hand, the Democrats, especially when in political season, wish to talk of little else. To my eyes, there seems to be little difference in their views of blacks in America than the condition of the Kurds under Saddam Hussein. I suspect that blacks, who don't buy into the endless victimology, are probably like most of the 50% of Americans who don't vote. Another words, life is comfortable enough that there is little need to get off the couch and down to the polls.

The Jewish vote seems to be taken for granted by the dems as well-for reasons that escape me. The Democratic party's treatment of Joe Lieberman may, hopefully, cause a sea-change in that regard. Hard to believe the guy was their vice-presidential canidate just four scant years before!

I suspect that the first woman or black president will be a Republican, on the theory of "only Nixon could have gone to China". We'll see. J.C. Watts must have got tired of being broke or something.