A message or three of hope

[TeacherABC123]

A few things prompted me to write this, but mainly it was the comments of my liberal friends who are so very worried about the course of the next four years. My replies to them generally helped, so I hope this brings you some solace as well. Since I tend to be long-winded, I’ll load them as separate posts.

A few points to keep in mind:

1. The Christian Right is crowing about its major victory last week, and the mainstream media, always looking to “explain” and rationalize current events, seems more than happy to help out. In most modern elections, “the big difference” is usually a moniker given to one sub-group of the voting population or another. For example, “Soccer moms” were credited with electing Bill Clinton. This time around, it is the “Evangelical vote.” That’s nice, but you have to realize that the hard-core “Evangelical vote” comprised of probably only a quarter of the Republican tally. The other (roughly equal-sized) GOP splinters (the small-government conservative/libertarian, the pro-business types, and the new voters that the GOTV campaigns woke up) do still exist. Further, since voter turnout was around 55%, and 51% went to the GOP, that means that only about 6% of registered voters make of this year’s “critical voting bloc”. (One-fourth of one-half of one-half equals one-sixteenth)

Now, when you talk about the imposition of zillions of new Christianity-based laws, there truly is little to fear. Sure, there might be one or two new ones tossed out to the Evangelical Voter to ensure they don’t disappear in 2008, and you’ll hate them intensely. However, a plurality of the Republican Party (the libertines and the businessmen) still belongs to the Reagan-ite types like myself, who simply want a smaller, well-defined and limited government that takes as little from my paycheck, my freedoms, and my family as possible. (Personal note: I was very happy to hear that the Democrat nominee in the Indiana Governor’s race was the first to mention “smaller government.” Had Kernan won, I would’ve been just as content.) If the President starts pushing for Congress to pass policies that limit my freedoms, whether it be for progressive causes (like the prescription drug benefit) or for Christian causes, I’ll still be opposed. His mandate quickly disappears if he turns his back on the Reagan Republicans. If you lurk on FR, you’ll note the many threads that feature intense debate on both sides of major issues like the Assault Weapons Ban, legislating Christian dogma, funding (prescription drugs, education, NEA, etc), creation vs evolution, etc. There really is no looming danger of a “united 51%” of the nation pushing for a theocracy. Honest. (Iran makes a very fine example of why such a government should be avoided at all costs.)

**A quick challenge to well-reasoned posters here: John Kerry urged that the Gay Marriage debate be a State issue, not a Federal one. Please explain how Abortion and Gay Marriage are not BOTH State or Federal issues (whichever is your preference), when each center on intensely personal familial decisions that conflict with traditional Christian teachings.

[TeacherABC123]

1. continued

2. The Supreme Court appointments are a-comin’! (Although we’ve all said that for the past 2 elections, LOL) However, you should note that Republicans nominated Kennedy, O’Connor, and (get this) Souter and Stevens! Only 3 of the 7 GOP nominees are hard-right (Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia)… two are centrists, and two are solid liberals. 2-2-3… you must admit, that’s a decent balance. Yes, the delicate balance is currently 4-2-3 in your favor, and will likely soon go in favor of the Right, but it will not be the 2-0-7 that you dread. The GOP has not been egregiously hard-lined in their appointments over the years, and there’s no reason (other than a healthy paranoia) to think that might change now.

Further, just look at the history of the Justices, and you’ll note that, unlike the electorate (acknowledging the old saw: “those who are not liberal before the age of 35 have no heart, those who are not conservative after the age of 40 have no brains”), they tend to become more liberal with age.

Finally, the Pendulum swings every 20-30 years, very consistently, and very predictably. You know you thoroughly reveled in the Warren years, and that the Burger Court was a slow withdrawal from that heyday. The Rehnquist Court (4-2-3, as noted above) was rather centrist (actually cowardly, IMO. They dodged SO many big issues that I wanted to see addressed!!). The next 20 years will finish the Right-ward swing, and it will not be insurmountable. Then it will swing back, to another liberal joyride. My side of the fence survived Warren, yours will survive Brown/Estrada/whoever.

3. You’re not impotent. You nominated a Senator (they rarely win… gotta go with governors) who has no major legislation with his name on it in 20 years (be honest), and he even admitted to committing war crimes (in an era where the world is hitting Milosovic - and soon Hussein - hard!)... and you STILL came within one state of winning. That’s impressive (or disheartening or unconscionable, depending on your personal opinions), and leaves room for gains in the near future.

Take heart, take care, and don’t be despondent. I’ll stand in the trenches against the tyranny of a Republican police state (yes, several parts of the Patriot Act made many on the Right nervous, too) just as boldly as I would against a Democrat Communist state. America will continue to be great, for the same reasons She is great now. The reasons I list and that you list may be different, but they do not negate each other, they add together… and they do not disappear just because you really don’t like the outcome of the last electoral cycle. Goodness knows I was flummoxed by 40+ years of Democrat-ruled Congresses! ;^)

I look forward to reading your replies!

[flygal]

6. Thank you for writing..

I've always felt like a moderate Dem - welfare reform for one. Most of the repubs I know are voting for their guns! You can't convince them for a second that dems don't want to take away their right. I have to have hope that they will fight the fundie movement!

That said, my biggest concern is the media. Not only fox, but cnn has blatantly switched to the right side of so many issues. Most of us here are turning it off but that doesn't give them much choice to stop feeding the conservatives. Any thoughts?

And thanks again - I wanted to hear from a conserv who wasn't throwing it in my face about "morals".

[crispini]

2. I hope you're right.

You're the kind of reasonable Republican that I enjoy hearing from, and that I'd like to hear from more often. Your post made me feel somewhat better.

Here, however, are a few reasons why I *don't* feel better.

- This administration has a long track record of making changes to policy through changes by the rules federal agencies operate by instead of through laws. This is how they have managed to get rid of so much environmental regulation. They simply fly under the radar, things change, and people don't notice. (I'm afraid I can't substantiate this with a link as I heard it on NPR, but if you're really interested I'm sure I, or you, could google around to find it.)

- This administration has a history of being, IMO, underhanded. The whole Valerie Plame affair -- the fact that someone in our government outed a valuable spy and nobody was fired over it -- is reprehensible, low, sneaky, and disgusting.

And, um, I had a few more but I forgot them. More later.

Anyway, thanks for writing and welcome to DU! :hi:

[TeacherABC123]

3. Thanks for the kind words

I like straddling the line and enjoying solid discussions with every side of any debate. (I also play a GREAT Devil's Advocate, whether I agree with the position or not, LOL... the hallmark of a good Socratic-method teacher, IMO).

You wrote: "This administration has a long track record of making changes to policy through changes by the rules federal agencies operate by instead of through laws. This is how they have managed to get rid of so much environmental regulation. They simply fly under the radar, things change, and people don't notice. (I'm afraid I can't substantiate this with a link as I heard it on NPR, but if you're really interested I'm sure I, or you, could google around to find it.)"

Yeah, that kind of approach has always made me grumpy, no matter who is in office. Sadly, there's little hope of changing that procedure, although in my idealistic dreams, it could be curtailed somewhat someday! However, you should take note the the Code of Federal Regulations has 30 volumes just on Environmental Law, whereas there are only 12 for Education, Commerce-and-Trade, and Telecommunications... combined! (Agriculture adds another 15 volumes, by the way. That makes 45 total for the growth of flora and fauna. Only the Internal Revenue Code volumes, with 20, come close.) It'll take quite some time before Environmental regulation is in danger of falling "merely" to second place.

Oh, and Here's reason #4. Ashcroft resigned. A liberal from St. Louis (who I can't help but adore) always seethed at the fact that he hails from her state. =^)

[crispini]

5. Oh, yeah, Ashcroft resigned

And now we get Mr. Torture Is Just Fine and Dandy By Me.

Yippee! :evilgrin:

I can't really weigh in on how much environmental legislation is enough, or too much. I'm not a scientist. My position is, we only get one planet, let's not eff it up. So I'd be in favor of erring on the side of caution. This administration keeps insisting that global warming has no basis in reality. When, in fact, more and more scientists are insisting that it has been scientifically proven.

I guess I'd just like a government that understands facts and science, no matter what their political persuasion.

Actually, at this point, Nixon's looking pretty good to me. :D

Anyhoo... come back and visit, and bring us more moderate comfort. :hi:

[magellan]

4. 241 Republicans in Congress

have stood by Tom DeLay despite his four official ethics violations and repeated charges of corruption, because he donated to their PACs. I wonder if yours was one of them?

Don't trust morality to guide any politican. The drugs of power and money are too seductive. They'll slap the laws on us and continue skirting them themselves.

You wrote:
**A quick challenge to well-reasoned posters here: John Kerry urged that the Gay Marriage debate be a State issue, not a Federal one. Please explain how Abortion and Gay Marriage are not BOTH State or Federal issues (whichever is your preference), when each center on intensely personal familial decisions that conflict with traditional Christian teachings.

The difference is that the abortion amendment grants rights; the proposed defined marriage amendment restricts rights. Worse yet, it wants to discriminate based on flawed religious grounds.

If Christians are so Pro-Life then why are no efforts made to amend the Constitution to ban the Death Penalty? It doesn't take religious belief to see that innocent lives are being lost there.

[newyawker99]

7. Hi magellan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[magellan]

8. Thanks, NewYawker

Happy to be here. :)

[Justathought]

9. Staying Alert

I am new to the DU forum and I thank TeacherABC for the post. I am not so sure that what you stated could relieve my fears as to where this country will go in the next four years. I maintain that Democrats need to stay alert and active on every issue that would take away rights and liberties of the people in this country. That includes keeping an eye open on the Supreme Court. This president asked for unity in his decision to invade Iraq under false pretenses and I do not want to let my guard down again. I believe for unity this administration needs to stop acting out on policies that continue to divide the nation and look at democrats as viable voices for compromise.