"Moral values" - We're not reading between the lines.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

I've read a lot of posts here on DU the last few days. Inevitably, people have been posturing about how we can "connect with the heartland". People want to know how we can show the South and some of the Midwest that we do, in fact, have high moral stature.

You're missing the point completely.

When they say they want someone of "moral values" it's code for "we don't want you. We want one of us. Period."

When they say they want principles, they don't want to feel warmer and fuzzier about what's in the government. They either want A) a Southerner, B) an Evangelist, C) a conservative, or D) all of the above.

There is a vast divide in this country that has not healed since before the Civil War, and it thrives today. George W. Bush is simply the lightning rod for it. He embodies the "all of the above" answer that the South has been looking for.

Why do I say this? Why do I think the divisions from the Civil War remain today?

Exhibit A - post-election interviews. Whether it was Jerry Falwell, Alan Keyes, or some other extremist icon from their party, there was one word that if you were listening closely enough, you heard multiple times within the last few days: "slavery". Jerry Falwell likened the moral dilemma over gay marriage to the moral dilemma over slavery that occurred before the Civil War. Alan Keyes has repeatedly likened abortion to slavery (odd as it may seem, coming from a black man). And it hasn't been limited to these two wackos. This isn't coincidence, people.

Exhibit B - just take a drive through some deep southern states. Is it coincidence that a place like South Carolina or Georgia has issues about confederate flags? Is it surprising that there was a backlash to the University of Mississippi trying to phase out all confederate-style memorabilia? How many times do you see banners and posters saying "The South Will Rise Again!"?

The point is this - the schism we're peering down at today is not a recent occurrance. It's been festering for decades and centuries. The only new occurrance was someone who could tie it ALL together and truly rally behind. Whether or not Bush truly believes or is truly an Evangelist or Christian is pointless to argue. Perception is reality, and that reality is that he's an uber-zealot working for your average religious extremist.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd love to have some feedback on these ideas.

[geek tragedy]

1. I agree. The Confederacy has finally defeated the Union.

Jefferson Davis Bush is now President.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. kick

[sangh0]

3. I disagree

When they say they want principles, they don't want to feel warmer and fuzzier about what's in the government. They either want A) a Southerner, B) an Evangelist, C) a conservative, or D) all of the above.


IMO, we do the same thing. If I had a nickel for every DU post that complained about Dems who who didn't "stand on principle" (meaning THEIR OWN principles and not the candidates principles) I'd be richer than Bill Gates.

I've seen plenty of posts from people who want "principles" and I'm sure that they "don't want the religious right. They want one of us. Period"

And the worst part of it is that while we are just as divisive as intolerant as the repukes, unlike the repukes, our rhetoric stinks and drives the middle away. Our rhetoric has helped the repukes convince people that we don't share their values, while the repukes do.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Oh really? We're stringent in whom we want?

That's funny, because all along I've heard people say that we want anything from an extreme liberal like Kucinich or Sharpton to what practically amounts to a Republican in Joe Lieberman.

[sangh0]

10. Yes, incredibly stringent

I've heard people say that we want anything from an extreme liberal like Kucinich or Sharpton to what practically amounts to a Republican in Joe Lieberman.

And your own words prove what I'm saying. Lieberman, with his long history of supporting very liberal causes like gay rights, is considered a repuke by the vast majority of DUers.

And while if you take a large enough sample, you'll find DUers spanning the spectrum, but you'll have to look long and hard to find a DUer who would support both Sharpton *AND* Lieberman. I really doubt that there's more than 2 or 3 DUers tolerant enough to support both of them at the same time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. I might take this moment to remind you of something

DU is less than 1% of our party. Don't take what happens here as what the whole party really is.

[mbee]

4. Slavery is their number one favorite thing and the reason they are

so outraged is one thing in my view. The Black population is no longer their slaves so they have the poor white gun toten, Walmart workers as their slaves. They resent that they have to have white people for their slaves and they are angry with us because we want equal rights for all. The whole thing is about the classes and a few controlling the many and keeping all the money in a few hands. The reason they hate Bill Clinton is that he was able to successfully help many poor people begin to be able to have some assets. One of my favorite encounters when Clinton was in office was a dept. store employee who told me that it was the first time in her life she had savings in the bank. I felt so proud!

[slackmaster]

5. You're basically right but it ain't just the South any more

n/t

[QC]

23. True, but scapegoating is the purpose here, not getting at what happened.

So pretending that the problem is limited to the South will work nicely, thank you.

The reality, of course, is that if only the South had supported Bush, we would be celebrating Kerry's 372-166 victory right now. One can walk from Canada to Mexico, and from the Atlantic Ocean to the Sierra Nevada, without passing through a Democratic county. There are many millions of Americans who view liberals as self-important ninnies who look down on regular folks. Those are our problems, and thinking about them is too much trouble for some, so they prefer to scapegoat.

[flygal]

7. My problem with this....

I really believe there were a lot of more moderates who voted * this time. I think they are starting to be fed up with the hard core fundamentals in their party. It's starting in MT - they overwhelmingly chose *, but a DEM for Gov b/c the last Rep gov was completly useless and they saw right through her. There are several local repug groups fighting to take their party back and they started by endorsing democrats this year.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Sure, one simple question

Do the moderates REALLY think it was moral issues at stake? Or was that 23% that responded that moral issues as the leading factor in their vote just energized Republicans/Evangelists that we weren't going to sway anyhow?

[madfloridian]

8. You can't out-Christian them....I know. Trying to be like them won't work

I was raised this way, I heard it all. Luckily my parents were open-minded in addition to being religious.

If our party continues to try to be like them...we will keep losing.

[Catfight]

12. Exactly, I think we should be the exact opposite, the yang to their yin.

[mbee]

13. People over all couldn't give a rats ass if the government

backs morals or not. Bushco just used this as a cover for their election fraud. People want jobs, healthcare, childcare, education and to know their parents are not living in poverty. I think I read that shrub himself made fun of the R/wingers at one time, but he used them to get votes. I hope he shows him his real colors over the next four years!

[bloom]

11. Republicans vs. (evil) Liberals

We like being a big tent, tolerant group.

They like painting us as scumbags.

The Republicans have been successful in getting people to feel like they represent the "true" America.

We need a branding campaign to get Americans to see America as multi-dimensional and that it is a good thing to be tolerant - for others people's rights as well as ones own.

I don't think we need to change our message ( I think we could give up the gun control thing - because I think it is not central to a civil rights/bill of rights approach - which I think Kerry recognized) - but I think we need to package it better. Preach to the choir less and more to regular people.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

14. It's not Christianity...

George W. Bush is no more a Christian than Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. Both of them use religious rhetoric effectively to urge their followers on to do horrible things, but they're no closer to God or to Allah than the gravel in my driveway. The fact is that Bush's Christianity is highly selective and pretty much ignores the New Testament altogether.

The Democrats are the party of justice and mercy. We are the party of the Sermon on the Mount and prodigal son and the widow's mite. We are the party the believes in second chances and the party that understands that the story of the Good Samaritan is more than just a parable -- it's a sound basis for governance.

Democrats should spend the next four years working with liberal and mainstream faith groups of all denominations to build the type of infrastructure that the Republicans now are using so effectively. The other side has built an effective Corporate-Christian partnership even though the Corporate side cares nothing about Christian values and even though working-class Christians are the ones who suffer the most from Corporate Rule in America.

There's no reason we can't be even more effective in our efforts. The fact is, even Athiest Democrats hold most of the same core values with their fellow Democrats in the Faith Community -- you don't have to be Christian (or of any other faith, for that matter) to believe that "Love Thy Neighbor" is a pretty good basis for domestic policy. It's going to be a long, slow process -- all the more reason to start now.

Some Resources:

Libaralis

Liberal Christianity: A Possible Resolution to Many Thorny Issues

National Council of Churches

Unitarian Universalist Association

American United for the Separation of Church and State Note: Executive Director Barry Lynn is an ordained minister.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. It doesn't matter whether he is or not; Hitler claimed to be a Christian

What matters is that faith has a built in set of mechanisms that claim superiority. There's no need to justify any actions; they are "good" by definition. Those who don't believe are inherently inferior. Those who don't believe are inherently less moral.

The problem is accepting that belief is better than non-belief. For this, Christianity is to blame and its adherents owe the rest of us a big damned apology and diligent work to bring their believer allies to confront the forces of dark, monolithic certainty.

People can absolve themselves by saying he's not a Christian as much as they want, but that doesn't mean anything. The problem with faith is faith itself: it is patting oneself on the head and confirming that one is good. George W. Bush may very well be a true, deep believer, and many of these "values voters" definitely are. The beliefs are not uniformly good.

Tim McVeigh took last rights.

Fundamentalism is the vigorous rejection of objective reality, and it has a prejudiced component of presumption of superiority; that's not an aberration of the faith, it's a logical side-effect. It's not the necessary result, but is ONE of the necessary results.

I'm personally sick of those of faith who constantly absolve themselves of any of the ills brought by their brethren. It's a bizarre and self-congratulatory construct that says that everything good that happens comes from god, but all the bad is somehow not its fault. Religion is the greatest danger facing our republic today, and it's not the perversion of religion, it's religion at its core.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I don't disagree with anything you said there

In fact, you highlighted what I said.

You're right, but the perversion you speak of the exegisis of Christianity as a means of simply saying "We are better than you. We want to be in charge. Period."

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

24. Have fun losing more elections...

One of the hallmarks of prejudice is when a person takes the worst features of an indivual member of a group and then assumes that those features are shared by all members of the group. What you're doing here is the spiritual equalivalent of profiling. Would it do any good for me to dredge up examples of atheists or agnostics who were horrible people and accuse you of being in the same league?

Are you equating Gandhi with Hitler because both had religious beliefs? Is there no moral difference between Martin Luther King and Timothy McVeigh? Are you really that foolish?

The Democratic Party has allies in the faith community and those allies, along with its allies in the athiest and agnostic communities, need to be cultivated and not alienated.

[Morning Dew]

16. They can't own the words, I'm calling it "Moran Values"

ain't nothin' moral about the Repukes or the fundies.

[lapislzi]

18. Civil War issues

Slavery was a single issue in the Civil War. Not the only one by far. I would also submit that it is a moral absolute that chattel slavery is wrong. Denying any group its civil rights is simply wrong, in absolute terms. I don't have many moral absolutes, but those are two of them.

I agree that we are peering down that schism, with more than 200 years' worth of perspective. Do we as a people have the moral fiber necessary to avert a second civil war?

We can expect no quarter from the other side. But when we as Americans lose our ability to compromise with each other and build coalitions of diverse groups, then we cease to be a nation.

As a party, we need to sit down and figure out what the deal-breakers are, and move out from that corner. Compromises will certainly be unavoidable, and I don't know yet what those will have to be. You won't ever eliminate friction, but you can work towards common ends.

If we as Democrats can do that, then the onus will be on the other side to come to the table. Divided, we stand no chance.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. I did not suggest that slavery was the only issue

I only used it as exhibit A of the long standing divide that we face. And yes, I agree with you that civil rights for all groups is a moral absolute, but remember that not all parties agreed on that, nor do they still agree to this day.

[PSU84]

21. Lincoln's great mistake

was to fight to keep the South in the Union. He should have let them go. Today, Red America would be a third world country - with a per capita GDP comparable to that of Brazil. Blue America would be far more prosperous than it is now. Slavery would have died out in the South and the Blue States would have continued to offer refuge to them while it lasted.

It was a tragic mistake not to let the South go. We will pay the price until the nation is re-aligned or a new constitution recognizes the political autonomy of Blue America. The divide between Blue America and Red America has become a rupture.

[smiley_glad_hands]

22. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

As a southern democrat that lives in the capitol of the confederacy, I can tell you that people here still have grudges from the civil war. There was a huge outcry here in Richmond not too long ago about a museum having a statue of Lincoln. This is not the party of Lincoln anymore.
Republicans have hidden there hate an contempt in 'code' language for years. "Values" is a code for white supremacy as far as I'm concerned.