A recent thread asked why "hillbillies" and "rednecks" were for Bush

[Rowdyboy]

Could part of the reason be that we call them nasty names?

My answer to the general question:

"Because the Democratic party, which was once their voice, has deserted them. Instead of concentrating on issues that matter to lower/middle class workers, things like minimum wage and health care benefits, taking care of the weak and elderly, things that made a difference in their lives, the party is now headed in a different direction.

Now, the party that should be their economic foundation, favors issues they despise: flag burning, GLBT rights/marriage, late term abortion and keeping religion out of the classroom. We're fixated on supporting unpopular social and political issues while the true Democratic base suffers.

They (the base) can't afford to take care of their parents or provide decent day care for their children and we (the "real Democrats") waste our energy fighting over the difference in gay marriage versus civil unions. It's silliness, pure and simple.

How relevant are we? Apparently, not very...

I, personally, support flag-burning, support GLBTrights/marriage, support late-term abortions, and support keeping religion out of the classroom (STRONGLY). But I am not an average American. I am a god-damned yellow dog Democrat. My opinion doesn't matter. Unfortunately, theirs does.

Any thoughts, or am I hopelessly out of touch?

[anarchy1999]

1. Ummm, yes.

Hopelessly. Tone down your rhetoric. And no, I don't think any of us here really support burning the flag. The flag belongs to us, doesn't it? Why burn it, let's just take it back while we are taking our country back as well from the corporations and the military-industrial complex that has taken over the government and the society of this nation.

You in or out? Or do you just want to go burn a flag?

www.grannyd.com

[Rowdyboy]

6. I don't want to burn a flag, and I don't really care if you do....It's not

an issue to me...But, damn, they still seem to be able to kill us politically, brand us as extremists and generally make us look like fools with crap like this.

When will we learn?

[K-W]

10. The flag is not ours. It is a tool of division and control.

It rally's troops, makes people conform, and convinces us that we arent human beings, we are americans. Flags should go the way of most of the hereldry of Kings and Kingdoms. Its time we stopped clinging to the remenants of a society none of us would ever want to live in.

[Rowdyboy]

17. Well, thats all fine and good but is the American electorate going

to achieve "enlightenment" in time to affect the 2004 election? Is the freaking flag the hill we choose to die on? Fight your fight, but I could give a shit less whether we have a flag or not.

[K-W]

19. The only fight I'm fighting is the one to get rid of Bush.

Im just saying, flags are not good things.

[Rowdyboy]

22. Got no problem with that...

Flags are NOT good things...

[Cheswick2.0]

46. no, the hill we chose to LIVE on is this

When the flag which is a symbol of our freedom becomes more important than that freedom we are doomed.
I dispise the notion that we are supposed to pander to the stupidest common denominator. We are supposed to educate people and bring them along to our way of thinking, not vice versa. Our problem is that we don't own the media.

[anarchy1999]

11. Wait just a minute, you wanted to burn the flag, not me. I suggested not.

You are branding yourself as an extremist and deciding for all of us we are fools? Is that about right? You are busted, RowdyBoy. Oh, and by the way, it was your "Crap".

[K-W]

13. you misunderstood the original post

He phrased it wrong, but what he was saying is that he was on the liberal side of all of those issues, but he still thinks the party focuses on them too much. He meant he was against the Flag Burning Ammendment, he just wrote it wrong.

[Rowdyboy]

18. YES! Maybe my phrasing was poor, but at least you

got the point.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[ladjf]

66. The Democratic Party didn't leave them.

They deserted the Democratic Party when it became apparent that the agenda of the Democratic Party included assisting minorities, primarily blacks, in their quest of equal rights. That exodus from the Democratic Party is well known created a change of balance between the two parties that the Republicans like to refer to as the Southern Strategy, starting during the Nixon administration with the help of ex-Nazi propagandist who were employed by the Republican Party.

Ironically, the Southern white middle and lower income people who are so enthusiastically supporting Bush are actually backing their enemy. In addition to the racial factors, the Republicans have been able to convince the right-wing "fundies" that somehow, by voting for Bush, Christianity will eventually prevail politically. In other words, America will abandon it's democratic form and became a pure theocracy.

[ladjf]

67. They refuse to think objectively.

They have been trained from birth by ignorant preachers to "just believe", "have faith" and to not question God's authority. These lessons get carried over into the political realm with the President sitting at the right hand of God and therefore shouldn't be questioned.

These are some extremely dangerous thought processes and could lead to the total demise of America as a representative democracy. Once people are trained to not think logically, ANYTHING is possible by those who have the means to manipulate.

[Rowdyboy]

70. Those preachers who "trained them from birth" to "just believe"

with the "President sitting at the right hand of God" must have missed the Clinton administration. There certainly was no love lost there....

[ladjf]

76. That's because Clinton didn't portray himself

as an agent of God. Although he said he was a religious person, he did not participate in the religious quest to turn America into a theocracy.

[Pattib]

78. Exactly. And their pro-choice stand trumps anything the Democratic party

does for them. I live in the Fl. panhandle and everyone I work with, with the exception of African-Americans, votes Republican. I try and talk to these people to no avail.

It's odd because I work with women who receive some government assistance, whether it be food stamps or reduced/free lunch for their kids and they see no correlation between the way repubs want to cut social programs which they take advantage of and their own lives. It's amazing.

Most say that they don't necessarily like Bush but they are pro-choice so they can't see voting for Kerry. In 2000 we had more registered democrats in my county than repubs. and Bush received about 80% of the votes. Go figure. My county also has about 60% of its kids on the free lunch program. A high number of people here are unemployed and on government assistance.

[ladjf]

65. That's because they require no objective process.

They have been trained from birth by ignorant preachers to "just believe", "have faith" and to not question God's authority. These lessons get carried over into the political realm with the President sitting at the right hand of God and therefore shouldn't be questioned.

These are some extremely dangerous thought processes and could lead to the total demise of America as a representative democracy. Once people are trained to not think logically, ANYTHING is possible by those who have the means to manipulate.

[library_max]

69. The Republicans have the money and the willingness to lie.

What you have described are not the positions and priorities of the Democratic Party or modern liberals, but the Republican false stereotype of same. We are losing the propaganda war because we are not rich and because we are not liars. People who don't pay attention or don't get out much are easy marks for propaganda.

[Rowdyboy]

23. Sorry about the rhetoric but

It's all I've Got!!!

[0007]

61. Don't ever be sorry ever for being YOU

[MercutioATC]

2. Actually, I think it's because Bush is "likeable"

The average American sees Bush as somebody they'd like to have a beer with. He comes across as a good old boy.

Kerry doesn't. He comes off as an insider who's more comfortable at the seaside in New England than on a farm in the midwest. \

Bush is more the everyman. Kery just isn't.

When you add to that the whole religion thing, Bush does have considerable appeal, even to those he screws.

[Dark]

5. I think you nailed it.

And, unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to change it.

[Sandpiper]

9. The real kicker about it is

Bush is more the everyman.

That Bush has never lived a life of anything other than wealth and privilige.

[MercutioATC]

12. Agreed. Unfortunately perception counts more than substance.

[K-W]

14. That is just their media personas.

Kerry is perfectly likeable and does very well with people. THere are very few politicians that arent very good with people from all walks of life.

You are simply buying into thier personas. Bush is not an attractive candidate for president. He is a product of our warped culture.

[MercutioATC]

86. I'm just saying why I think the public likes Bush.

...and when you get right down to it, the personas are what matter to a lot of people.

[Rowdyboy]

71. Probably, the most important point made of the whole thread!

And yes, you are correct. People would prefer to have a beer the Dubya-he is "everyman".

In reality, I believe that is the most serious thing we have to fear from him. He relates to the "average Joe". We don't.

[noahmijo]

3. I think most democrats including myself

Are opposed to outlawing burning the flag, but don't necessarily advocate doing it. It's a way to seperate our country from the Soviets who would pretty much imprison anyone who would speak out against Russia.

[Dark]

4. But is there a better name?

I've never heard of anyone complain of the name 'hillbilly'. Redneck I have heard of a few being uncomfortable with it. But once again I ask for an adequate moniker.

And I agree with you about the abandonment. The Democrats are out of touch with them.

But should we renege on their work with the GLBT community just to placate these people? Should we destroy all the pro-choice movement has accomplished? Should we replace evolution with creationism?

But I disagree with the name thing. I don't think that the name calling has anything to do with it. Many hillbillies know that us city-slickers call them that regardless of politics, and many are proud to carry that name. Many associate that with purity, the same purity they find in their religion and their country, uncorrupted by city life.

Personally, I believe that it doesn't matter what the democrats do. Hillbillies, or will not support the democrats until they are all like Zell Miller. But I hope I am wrong. And that is why I started the thread. So I can find the cause of this problem and then maybe the solution.

[Rowdyboy]

15. And I share with you the desire to find the cause of the problem

We may not agree on solutions, but we seem to be in agreement that there is a serious problem.

To answer your questions:

1) Should we renege on our committemnt to the gay community?

Oh, Hell, no

2) Should we destroy all the pro-choice community .....?

Oh, Hell, no

3) Should we replace evolution with creationism?

No. Only after you've "crawled a mile over broken glass, just to kiss the *** that ****** that ***" (Feel free to pm me if you want the words to this evil National Guard ditty).

But none of those radical solutions is called for. Basically, it boils down to this..."Do you want to fix the problem, or do you want to bitch about the problem?"

I know my answer

[Sandpiper]

7. Most of the "rednecks" that I've known

Wouldn't be offended at all if you called them a redneck.

[K-W]

8. Stop blaming democrats for things out of their control

It is not the Democrats fault that people dont vote in thier best interests. It is a problem of humanity, our culture, and society. It isnt the democrats fault that after the populist movements and revolutions that have created America, the trends of our cultures are heading us the way they always do.

[QC]

20. The Democrats bear some responsibility for this one.

By dropping the economic issues that were our bread and butter for decades (for fear of being accused of--clutch the pearls!--"class warfare") we have allowed cultural issues to fill that vacuum. And the cultural thing is the GOP's home court.

We could probably win back a large share of the working class if we took up our old populism again, but that would mean being willing to offend the elites, not to mention detaching the party from the corporate teat. And then there's the fact that many alleged liberals hold the working class in contempt--the subject of this thread--and don't want to be associated with them anyway.

There are many things that the Democrats can't be blamed for, but our inability (or refusal) to appeal to the working class is not one of them.

[K-W]

26. People dont act rationally.

Do you really think the democratic party is that incopetent? Do you really thinkk the answer is that easy?

We cant appeal to working class people because working class people dont vote rationally. They vote racism, bigotry, religion, machoism.

This is not our fault. The democrats have changed thier message because people stopped voting for them. That is the long and short of it. The democrats have yet to figure out a way to combat republicans in our current culture, but you can be damn sure the answer isnt trying to appeal to a nation that no longer exists.

Edit for QC: I did no way intend to infer that all working class people are bigots etc. I was referring to those working class people who vote against thier economic interests for Republicans.

[QC]

27. Did they have a special on broad brushes down at Ace Hardware?

...working class people dont vote rationally. They vote racism, bigotry, religion, machoism.

My family is working class and we vote Democratic. So much for your halfass assertion. And I better stop now, before I say what I really think about you. It's not worth getting banned over.

[K-W]

28. QC, I was referring to your post. Calm down.

You said "We could probably win back a large share of the working class" I was referring to these working class people. How you can get angry at me for using misleading language astounds me.

I'm sorry I didnt make myself clearer. But your reaction was out of line.

[QC]

33. Well, I tend to get angry when people tell me that I am incapable

of rational thought and motivated solely by hatred. I guess I'm just funny that way.

But I do appreciate you supplying such a brilliant example of the very problem that I was referring to. I couldn't have made up something better than this.

Yes, Virginia, many liberals do hold the working class in contempt. And that just might be why the Left in this country is all but irrelevant politically--it has very nearly become the exclusive monopoly of smug, sheltered middle-class types who view the masses as a dirty, icky bunch of people we're better off ignoring, lest we dirty our hands.

[K-W]

34. Why dont you listen to me before you judge me ignorantly.

I have tried to clarify to you what I meant in my post. Now you are simply lying about me.

I do not hold the working class in contempt. You are horribly mistaken and I suggest you calm down and think for a second before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

[Rowdyboy]

35. Honest to God! You guys have a really exceptional discussion

going on here. I REALLY hope you continue, if only for my own education.

DU constantly amazes me.

[QC]

36. Hmm, looks pretty unequivocal to me.

We cant appeal to working class people because working class people dont vote rationally. They vote racism, bigotry, religion, machoism.

There's nothing there to indicate that we're only talking about some subset of people. I can only go by what you posted.

But enough of that.

Obviously there are people we can never reach. To hell with them. But there are also lots of working people who feel disenfranchised by a system in which both parties ship their jobs out of the country while chasing after the votes of the comparatively affluent. I can't tell you how many times I've had guys say to me, "Neither party cares about the working man." And when they say that, I never know how to reply, because they're right. The Republicans are always sucking up on big business, and we spend an awful lot of our time trying to appeal to "soccer moms" who think that the whole world can be childproofed, or whatever the new bogus demographic is this election, but no one seems especially interested in discussing things like job security for working stiffs.

[K-W]

39. Yes, I was not clear. THEN I CORRECTED MYSELF

and you still attacked me. I explained, and edited my post to reflect the fact that I was NOT talking about working class people in general.

But enough of that.

You are making very valid points but you seem to refuse to look at it from another angle. I know that working class people feel certain things about democrats and the democratic party. You are however just assuming that they are either true, or the result of the democratic party saying the wrong things. Perception is a two way street. The democrats have to say the right things, but the people have to listen and the people have to make the right judgements.

It can not and is not as simple as you think it is. It is not that democrats made the mistake of appealing to soccor moms. Democrats should appeal to soccor moms. Democrats should appeal to around 80% of this country.

Has it occurred to you that democrats were forced to seek new demographics because working class white males stopped voting for them? Why are you assuming that the democratic message caused the votes, and not the other way around.

Look at Reagan, he was a hero to many many working class people even though his policies were aweful for them. They liked him because he used propaganda and appealed to emotional issues. They voted republican because conservatives convinced them that minorities were taking thier jobs. What were the democrats supposed to do? They were talking plenty about the economy. They were talking plenty about how Reagan was screwing the workers. The workers werent listening, Reagan made fun of liberals. The media supported Reagan. The democrats were forced to find votes in other places and focus on other groups. Meanwhile Unions were on the decline, to a large part as the result of Reagan, meaning the working class base of the party was weakening. The dems had to focus on women, minorities, enviromentalists, etc to scratch every possible vote from those groups. The party had to seek more corporate money because Unions couldnt counter corporations anymore.

This is a different world than before. This is a different America. We cannot simply go back by having the democrats talk economics. They are talking economics. Go and read what dems are saying. You wont find it on cable news or the newspaper.

Certainly we need to communicate to working class people that we and not the republicans are looking out for them. But the democrats are trying very hard and doing many good things. There are certainly valid criticisms and the Democrats are still in a bit of a tailspin, but this is not just about democrats being out of touch. They arent exceptionally out of touch. They just need to find ways to communicate to those people and right now there is no easy answer on how to do that.

[QC]

40. I saw the edit after having replied to your original post.

I'm sorry, but I don't read the same posts over and over just in case someone might have made an edit. Anyway, it's nice to know that you do not really hold such a strange opinion as the one that earlier post seemed to express.

And you raise some excellent points here. Obviously a big part of the loss of working class votes is race. There's no denying that. I don't think it's the only factor, though, a some people apparently do. A key one is effective use of media, and your Reagan example is very apt. The old bastard was awful for the working class, and yet many supported him because he was able to give the impression, at least, that he liked and respected them and shared their values. Reagan's media operation was slick, no doubt about it. And what did we counter it with? Mondale! A very decent man, but as plodding and uninspiring a candidate as one can imagine. Chances are that no one could have beaten Reagan in 1984, but putting Mondale up against the smoothest media operation in history, and having him campaign on the necessity of taking our medicine even though it tasted real bad, well, it was a recipe for disaster. I'll never forget that election--after proudly casting my first vote, I stayed up to watch my candidate lose 49 states.

So how do we improve the marketing? Polling shows that our ideas are more popular with the general public, so long as they are not explicitly identified as liberal. But apply the label and people run like scalded dogs. What do we do to sell our ideas more effectively?

Has it occurred to you that democrats were forced to seek new demographics because working class white males stopped voting for them? Why are you assuming that the democratic message caused the votes, and not the other way around.

There's a definite chicken-or-the-egg issue here. My hunch would be that the loss of votes came first and was worsened by the fact that the two party's economic agendas more or less merged, which made cultural issues the main difference. The working class is generally more culturally conservative, no matter where in the world you go. If both parties want to ship your job away, but one at least pretends to respect your values, which one will you vote for?

[K-W]

42. But you are buying into perceptions, not neccessarily facts.

Now I am too young to really speak on Mondale, but was he really that bad? I can only speak for today where we have plenty of inspiring democrats. We have plenty of democrats who can articulate thier views in inspiring ways. Kerry is not the best speaker in the world, but he isnt too bad either. Gore was a little stiff, but he wasnt too bad. These guys couldnt have ever been nominated if they didnt inspire people and if they werent at least above average speakers and didnt have at least above average charisma.

The problem is that they are run through the media and societal filter. They are ignored, belittled, misquoted, and misrepresented. We live in a country where Bush is a leader and Gore told tall tales. Bush never led, Gore never told tall tales. So the Democrats simply saying the right things doesnt do the job. I am always surprised when I actually bother to listen to what democrats are saying. I try to be objective, but its impossible to avoid public perception. I cant help but be sucked into it sometimes and start thinking the problem is the democrats.

Like any party the democrats are far from perfect and we should be looking critically at thier message, plans and strategy, but until we find a solution to the perception problem we will constantly run into the same wall and democratip politicians will lose confidence in liberal messages and run for the center... which brings me to point 2.

Yes, democrats are far far far too fiscally 'conservative.' They should not support Nafta, they should not be in the corporate pocket, but they arent there for fun. They think they need money to even hope to compete with the republicans. Especially in the perception hole we are in. Money buys elections. It is considered a fact of life in politics today. Corporations have money and spend it very liberally in politics. Unions are disappearing and weakening. They were once the social balance to corporate power. The democrats dont think that they can be politically relevent without corporate power behind them. I am not so sure I disagree. I dont know that the democrats can risk alienating more elites in the hopes that they can create a rebirth of labor power. They could end up handing America to the Republicans for decades.

I think we absolutely need to use grassroots organization to create a social balance to corporations before we can ask the democratic politicians to wean themselves from the corporate teat. Until then we have to let them stay alive any way they can and support them so we stay in this game.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. I don't know how old you are, but I was 30 when Reagan was elected

and by the end of the 1970s, the Dems had already let themselves be portrayed as the party of the elites.

Maybe it was poor PR, maybe it was a lack of response to Republican propaganda, but the public image of the Democratic Party was not "the party that fights for the common person" but "the party where elites think up new ways to upset traditional values."

The social revolutions of the late 1960s and early 1970s were deeply offensive to a lot of middle and working class people.

When the Republicans decided to become the party of "traditional values," the Democrats became more strident about advocating social change while slacking off on their advocacy of economic issues. This attracted a subset of wealthy elites, since the wealthy have always been more laissez-faire in their personal behavior than the middle and working classes have, and they could afford to be anti-racist, because they were going to have the money to keep other races at a distance, anyway.

Working class people felt that they were being told to integrate their neighborhoods and schools by "elites" who themselves had no contact with other races except as servants. The Boston school integration mess of the late 1970s was only the most widely reported example of this phenomenon. In Minneapolis at the same time, a really half-assed school integration plan, which required exact percentages of each race in each school and annual refiguring of attendance boundaries, fueled a flight to the suburbs that continued for years and is probably partly responsible for the rise of the Republican party here.

The late 1970s were also the days of high inflation and crushing interest rates and the first stirrings of the stampede to outsource manufacturing jobs. The Democrats seemed unable to control the economy and they appeared to be working against traditional values. Jimmy Carter appeared care-worn and stressed out, and who can blame him?

Along came Reagan, looking jolly, relaxed, and reassuring. He spoke for "traditional values" and told people that their problems were all due to high taxes and big government. To people struggling with inflation and high interest rates, low taxes sounded great, and to people reeling from the social changes of the past 15 years, traditional values sounded great.

The more I think about this history, the less I blame working class people for not voting Democratic.

If you're trying to sell a product, you don't whine about how "those customers don't know what's good for them." You figure out what they're looking for and tailor your selling approach to their wants and needs.

I agree with Rowdyboy. Push those economic issues: a rise in the minimum wage, putting people to work by rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, universal access to healthcare, affordable housing, affordable daycare, lifelong access to learning opportunities, a restructuring of payroll taxes so that the poor pay less and the wealthy pay more, super-low interest loans for farmers, and other things that will make rural and working class voters' lives easier.

You simply can't run on gay rights and flag burning if you're in Podunkville or Rustbelt City. You can hold those positions, but they can't be your flagship positions. You should tell the truth if asked, but then quickly move on to your plans for lowering payroll taxes on low-income people or your plans for universal healthcare.

[QC]

90. Excellent post!

:kick:

[Rowdyboy]

29. LMAO..Thsnks for the break!

[K-W]

30. Ignore EOM

[Rowdyboy]

21. Well who should I blame for the fact that we (the Democrats)

lose elections that we should win? I've gotta blame SOMEBODY!

We (Democrats) seem to enjoy throwing away our advantages.

Correct me iof I'm wrong.

[nomatrix]

16. Guns and God

nuff said.

[leftistagitator]

24. The Rednecks didn't leave over gays or abortion.

Rednecks stopped supporting the Democratic Party when we stopped being the Party of the Old South. The minute we committed ourselves to civil rights we lost the "Good ole Boys". Personally, I'm glad that we no longer have a wing of the Party that supports lynching, poll taxes, and segregation. Instead of abandoning civil rights to try to get our old base back, we should build on the one we have. The racist white male demographic is thankfully losing it's power with every election, it's just gonna take a little while longer to get over that hump in the South. Not that we shouldn't focus more on our progressive economic policies, as they really are at the heart of what kind of Party we are, but we should in no way abandon our committment to gays, minorities, women, the seperation of Church and State, and the 1st Amendment.

I think compromise is what's killing our Party, not the (very) few stands that we actually do take. Think about it, in the 70's, with conservatism at it's weakest, did the conservatives roll over and start compromising with us? Did they abandon their unpopular ideas? Hell no, they became hardlined and nasty, and fought like a wounded animal. They repackaged the same old bad ideas and added a religous tinge, and if anything became even more right wing. Well, now we're the ones who are wounded. Now's not the time to roll over and play dead.

[Djinn]

92. very well said ! (nt)

[Beearewhyain]

25. Intresting...

I think you bring up a good point. The repubs have made the dividing line around social issues (think dixiecrats) rather than economic ones. While we all understand the significance and implications of these issues we have done a poor job of selling this to the “redneck and hillbillies”. Our job is to make them understand that it is in THEIR best interest to support these policies rather than ridiculing them for being “ignorant”. If you think about it, when was the last time anyone of us responded positively when someone called us stupid? I am not saying that any of those working class (southern or otherwise) people who disagree with us are right, just misguided; how else can you explain Labor Union resistance.

[Rowdyboy]

31. "When was the last time one of us responded positively

when someone called us stupid?"

Good question.

[K-W]

32. How exactly do we sell it?

Our media pushes conservative economics. Conservative economic propaganda appeals to people because it promises the impossible. In the long term we can fight to reshape the political and social perception. We can fight for education so that we can have a voting public that thinks critically about politics, but what do we do right now?

What do we do when we have the facts on our side, but millions of people ignore it?

[Beearewhyain]

38. I don't exactly know

I never meant to imply that it would be easy and I for sure don’t have the answers; however, part of my liberal philosophy is that collectively we can overcome obstacles and together we can achieve a greatness that is imposable singularly. If we can agree to compromise (John Kerry) and push the consciousness of this country in a positive direction(AAR, DU, etc.) we could accomplish great things. IMO it is all about direction. Slow, painful, deliberate direction and while I might not see the “perfect society” within my lifetime, at least I will know that I pushed it in that direction.

[new school Whig]

51. you've unwittingly nailed the problem.

No one likes to be condescended to, no matter whether they are formally educated or not. Why should we assume that we know what is in the best interest of the working class, and that they are "misguided" when they do the opposite of what we, the great knowers, think is best for them? Do you act in your best interest, are are you "misguided" also?

The working class people I know simply resent government intrusion in their lives, economically and socially. They think government is often a waste of money. And guess what? They are right. They tend to be culturally conservative, but they are tolerant as long as they aren't being constantly reminded how "ignorant" and "regressive" they are by upper middle class liberals.

My point is not that we should give up on our ideals, but rather that we should be flexible in achieving them.

Why should we fight school choice, for example, when it clearly has enormous support among the poor and lower middle class? Why should we take a knee-jerk anti-business stance, or help big business at the expense of small business through bad regulation? Instead, let's figure out a way to make things work in accord with our ideals, while showing that we can learn from our audience and adapt.

Or, are we willing to let the right be the true progressives?


JMHO...

[Beearewhyain]

52. And just what are those ideals that you speak of

forgive me if I unwittingly stumble upon another truth but my mind is a little slow to understand what those ideals are. Could you explain with a little more detail how those programs you propose ACTUALLY HELP the poor and lower middle class?

Edit: Spullingt

[Beearewhyain]

55. With all due respect...I am still waiting

How do these things help? You know, as a liberal I have a hard time debating facts so I am hoping that you will enlighten me to what I should think.

[new school Whig]

72. I wouldn't dream of telling you what to think...

...but at least consider that the people called "rednecks" and "hillbillies" may not be as dumb as you think.

I am pro-union, pro-civil liberties, but also strongly pro-business.

Maybe I'm an oddity in the Democratic Party these days, what some here would call a DINO; maybe my membership in the Democratic Party at this point is just a cultural and historical relic, rather than a true ideological alignment. But I do consider myself a liberal, more in the sense of Kennedy than Nancy Pelosi perhaps, but a liberal nonetheless.

I think that some liberals rely too much on the government for solutions that mechanisms of public choice can provide. Again, JMHO...

[SoCalDem]

37. republicans are dogs... democrats are cats

Their "base" accepts that "some" things that the party must embrace, are not to their liking, and they are willing to stick together long enough to get their people elected.. They know that the people running are not really "in favor of gay rights, when they pander to a gay group"..they know that the "nicey nice words said to union folks, are just that...words..".. They are willing to "look the other way" because they know that deep down, their people will "take care of them" once they are in office..

They "herd" well....accept scraps...are very good at sniffing butts...kowtow to the master....

Democrats expect "purity of issues".. We tend to demand total adherence to core values of the party.. In this area we see no gray..only black & white.. If one of ours strays even a bit, to try to woo a disparate group, we howl like cats who have been stepped on..

Cats are not herded easily...we yowl...we pout.... we turn aloof...

we need to take a page from their book sometimes.. Cut our guys some slack and have faith that once elected, they too will follow the path of our party..

[K-W]

41. Well, its polarization on both sides.

Many dems cant vote for a candidate who isnt pure on the liberal issues, but on the same token, many republicans cant vote for a candidate who isnt pure on the same issues.

Some people could never vote for a pro-life candidate, some people could never vote for a pro-choice candidate.

The problem is that we refuse to compromise. We have moral absolutism on both sides. We must do everything to protect the enviroment. We must do everything to support corporations. We must drastically reduce the military. We must do whatever it takes to stay #1 in the world. We must not regulate guns at all. We must ignore the right to own guns.

Not everyone is extreme, but there is a large number of Americans that will not compromise on at least one issue. This creates a major problem, because we can never unite if we refuse to compromise. We have a war. The only way to make democracy work in this enviroment is to get everyone to agree, thus the whole facism thing.

All americans need to learn to embrace compromise. I dont really want to compromise, its repugnant, but it is the only way to stop fighting amongs ourselves and focus on the issues of the economy and labor that threaten to throw our nation in the sewer. We need to work together on those issues that we can all agree on. Jobs, healthcare, education, etc. Then we, as a nation, can continue to debate the contentious issues until we can reach an adequate compromise or national consensus.

[xchrom]

43. hmmm? i understand your point

but to a certain extent i think it's off track -- though i will say that cultural issues are used to divide americans.
average americans have had control over their lives usurped by the corporation{ and that includes europe as wel} -- but what happened as a result was an exposure of some agendas that are positively deadly -- let's take ''pro-life''; i.e. it's not about unborn children, it's about controlling your body. power in a very backwards sense. they would jail you for exercising your rights over your body.
i find white flight to the republican party often mirrors white flight to the suburbs. there's real hate underneath there.
i think liberals need to learn they are in a dangerous neighborhood before they begin compromising.
conservatives mean to harm them if they can get away with it.

[K-W]

45. I'm not sure I understand.

Where do you disagree with me?

I think we need to draw a destinction between motives for party platforms and motives for individual citizens beliefs and votes. Pro-life platforms are about control. Pro-life individuals are genuinly earnestly concerned about unborn children.

[RebelOne]

48. My son is a redneck, but he will vote Democrat.

He was born in Miami, FL and moved to Mississippi to live with his father when he was 13. He is sort of a bigot, also. Calls Arabs "sand niggers." But he said, hell, no, he wouldn't vote for Bush because everytime a Republican gets into office, the jobs go down the drain.

[K-W]

49. Another victory for the truth.

Good thing we still have that on our side.

[Bridget Burke]

44. Nobody here read the original thread?

It was just another braindead example of divisive prejudice by somebody from a dull-as-dishwater midwestern state.

You aren't hopelessly out of touch.

[Beearewhyain]

47. No, I did not read the original thread

Could you provide a link so that I might place all this in perspective.
Thanks

[Bluzmann57]

50. Ummm...

I don't want to get into a pissing match with you so I'll have my say and then move on. I live in a "dull as dishwater" state, Iowa, and I am proud of it. We may indeed be "dull", but we have a work ethic that is unmatched anywhere else, we have fine colleges and universities, we have friendly people, lowercrime rates, and just a fine quality of life. Personally, I am a "working stiff" who is a Democrat, Union member, and above all else, an American. Yes, we have problems here, as does everyplace else, but overall, its a fine place to live and, having been to both coasts, I don't care to live anywhere else. And I ain't a bigot either. And maybe I am a "hillbilly" or a "redneck"(personally I like Bartcop's redneck Liberal term) but so be it. I do believe a major reason that people leave the Democratic Party is because of the elitists, the "holier than thou" people. They are out of touch with most of us. I saw some of them first hand during the lead in to the Iowa caucuses. In fact, they turned me away from Gov. Dean.

[bushisanidiot]

53. The Repukes are Inserting Gay Issues Into The National

debate.. they want to change the friggin' constitution to make us second class citizens. Sorry, but I think that's something worth standing up and fighting against!

If you think the democratic party has deserted the poor, ill and elderly I think you've been watching too much Fox "news"..

[SlingBlade]

54. This spoiled trust fund baby Bush

Has done a great job of using the Class card , The Race card , And the Patriotism cards in the South.

If they would only look beyond his words and look at the man, I think they would see that this guy is not worth their respect much less their vote.

[dbt]

56. I am a Hillbilly.

I loathe, despite and DETEST bu$h. Hillbillies believe it is wrong to steal, to cheat and to lie. Hillbillies are all about being left alone to live their lives the way they see fit. Hillbillies think that the way one believes is nobody else's damn business.

Any Hillbilly who favors Republicans is, IMO, hugely misguided and not worthy of the appellation (Appalachian?).

:evilgrin:
dbt

PS: The flag is only a symbol. You can burn the cloth all day long, but the symbol will still be there when you're done.

[Individualist]

77. Hear, hear!

Well said, dbt. :toast:

[dusty64]

57. There is NO reason to compromise

the values we believe in while at the same time becoming more populist. The Democrats abandoning economic policies in particular, that benefit the People is the main reason they are losing these voters. The worship of corporations and the failure to follow a different path than rethug lite IS the problem. Its time to become an opposition party again and offer a stark constrast to the rightwing. Being for civil rights and keeping the government out of our bedrooms and our bodies is NOT the problem, its all in the way it is defined. Explaining it in this fashion would appeal to most citizen's liberatarian views on social policy would knock the wind out of the American Taliban sails and expose their evil agenda for what it REALLY is. QUIT LETTING THE RIGHTWING DEFINE EVERYTHING, that needs to be a first order of business!

[Hubert Flottz]

58. A hillbilly is in a position to Look Down on the rest of the world!

His feet are planted on the highest ground around, but yet the hillbilly looks down on hardly anyone at all!

[misanthrope]

59. I can't believe...

...that you would even need to ask this question.

The GOP has long realized that "ignorance" and "fear" are the two biggest forces in the history of homo sapiens. Both of these are not only rampant and naturally self-replicating, but easily exploitable.

The Repubs began to blatantly exploit xenophobia in the late 50s when they sensed the great middle-class unease in reaction to the Civil Rights Movement. They knew that Southerners are by-and-large conservative and chiefly voted for Dems out of deference to societal norm, not because of ideals. They hammered that sliver of fear further into the Southern psyche and let it go to work.

Next thing you know, blue collar folks all around the nation were reflecting the same unease with egalitarian principles and the Repubs were quick to jump on it.

[0007]

60. ...hopelessly out of touch?

Emphatically
FUCK NO!!

[LeftHander]

62. WRONG! Clear CHannel and Right WIng Radio....to blame

The past 8 years Clear Channel has eaten up all the country readio stations in the country and right wing voices have kept the dialog so far to the right that any liberal becomes a "wacko".

The Democrats has always kept up on social issues. It is the right that has effectively silenced any debate and force fed NeocCon garbage to the masses.

[vetwife]

63. You want to know why..They don't know any better...

Most of these people are beleving what they hear from Faux. They have never traveled any further than Grandma's house trough the woods.
They hear what the funamentalists say on Sunday (usually their only time out to anywhere) other than the Waffle House and that is it. They are very close minded on issues regarding anything that does not line up with everything they have been taught all of their lives. Reading is basically out because many do not comprehend what they are reading. True. If they do read, its usually the Bible and even that, the preacher explains it to them. These same folks are against unions, even though a union is in their best interest but they have been brainwashed into telling them a Union is communism and will eventually cost the company to go out of business.

I know these things. I am from Georgia. My Father was a Baptist minister but a democrat. He had traveled and my late Mother's family was into politics and the Medical profession, so we had been exposed to higher learning. I am the only who of three children who traveled further South than 20 miles in 50 years. I traveled the entired country and my husband, a veteran traveled the entire world.
I have visited outside the US and when anyone talks to these rednecks (and you are right poster) they wear shirts proclaiming redneck, so therefore they don't find it offensive, they are proud of it. They feel I am alien. I a liberal, outspoken, and open minded to other ideas. We would not even fit into our own community but we have a family history here and a home and position in the community. I try to talk to these folks, but how do you describe the color yellow to a blind person? This is the nut to crack. They don't understand. They are naive and basically when Howard Dean said that someone needs to sit down and talk to those people riding around with cofederate flags on their pickups..I got it. I was not even a huge Dean supporter, but he was right on ! I got it. Edwards and Sharpton wanted to get huffy but the truth is, how will these people ever know any difference if they are not taught any different. Maybe many are to set in their ways to change. I am telling you. They are still fighting the Civil War and they are very misguided in idealog.

[ladjf]

64. The Democratic Party didn't desert them.

They deserted the Democratic Party when it became apparent that the agenda of the Democratic Party included assisting minorities, primarily blacks, in their quest of equal rights. That exodus from the Democratic Party is well known created a change of balance between the two parties that the Republicans like to refer to as the Southern Strategy, starting during the Nixon administration with the help of ex-Nazi propagandist who were employed by the Republican Party.

Ironically, the Southern white middle and lower income people who are so enthusiastically supporting Bush are actually backing their enemy. In addition to the racial factors, the Republicans have been able to convince the right-wing "fundies" that somehow, by voting for Bush, Christianity will eventually prevail politically. In other words, America will abandon it's democratic form and became a pure theocracy.

[dsc]

68. Our party has a fundamental misunderstanding of swing voters

They appear to believe that swing voters are pretty much moderate across the board and if we moderate ourselves in the places we can without losing our base then we should. Instead, many of them actually are conflicted. They vehemently disagree with us on social issues but agree with liberal economic prescriptions. Thus we actually need to give these people economic reasons to vote for us. To site a couple of examples. Howard Metzenbalm never lost a general election in Ohio. This is despite his being one of the most liberal senators in the US Senate. He gave people who disagreed with him on life issues and on gay issues a sea of economic reasons to vote for him. Robert Casey is an example of what kind of people these are. He was very liberal on the economic side. He favored single payer health care, fully funded drugs for seniors, increased taxes and spending, but was pro life and not great on gay issues. We need to give the economic Democrats reason to vote for us again.

[republicansareevil]

73. I have one friend who is Appalachian.

I guess that counts as "hillbilly." And she is as liberal and anti-racist as they come. I too dislike these terms along with the stereotyping of Americans into these common wisdom demographics. Anyone can be a liberal, and anyone can be a conservative. No one is bound to vote a certain way because of their race, religion, region, gender, socio-economic class, level of education, or anything else. It's true these are all predictors, to some extent, of voting patterns, but unless you are a political analyst or statistician working with such data, what good does it do to harp on such things. You can take any statistic - such as the fact that a much higher percentage of black men are in jail at any time than white men - and use it to support whatever "truth" you already believe. But the "truth" is always more complicated than most people realize.

[DNA]

74. So-called "cultural" issues

have taken over from economic issues in our political discourse, largely thanks to the Republican party's pushing of the cultural wars, the Democratic party leadership's refusal to be significantly different from the Republicans on economic issues, and the corporate media's insistence on giving these largely insignificant cultural issues huge play, even while ignoring real bread and butter issues. Heterosexual couples are not at all affected by same-sex couples, yet you'd think our lives depended more on what other people we don't know are doing in their bedrooms than on whether or not we have decent jobs and our kids' schools can afford to keep their doors open. We've all been sold a bill of goods, not just the "rednecks." We don't have to fall for it, though.

I also wonder who the real swing voters are, though. Our country is changing demographically, even as we speak, and huge numbers of people do not vote. Everything we know about non-voters - a far mure significant portion of the population than middle-of-the-road "swing" voters - leads us to conclude that liberal economic programs would reach them far more readily than yet another right-wing cultural red herring.

[tom_paine]

75. Not out of touch at all, Rowdy. Not at all.

And the Repugs have used it against us.

Now, I'm not saying we should abandon these positions, but as with gun ctonrol, we need to tone it down and focus on what's important, which is tsrengthening the Constitution and Bill of Rights back to health!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

79. NO!!! "Hillbillies and Rednecks" left us when we passed Civil Rights!!!

They are bigots who believe in a White, Christian, Theocracy!

To Hell with these racsists!!!

[RememberTheCoup]

80. thanks for not generalizing (nt)

:eyes:

[QC]

81. Who are you to call someone else a bigot?

I think you need to deal with your own raging prejudices before griping about someone else's.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. You're absolutely right

I've long maintained that if the working class and rural people felt more economically secure they wouldn't get so hysterical about their social issues and adopt a more live-and-let-live attitude.

If your economic life is out of control, you're going to want to cling to some kind of stability, even if it's an imagined "good old days" when everyone packed firearms, saluted the flag, and never even fantasized about anyone of the same gender.

[Rowdyboy]

84. Several of the replies to this thread help explain why Progressives

and Democrats remain perpetual minorities. Some of us have no interest in reaching out beyond the narrow confines of our ideological prejudices.

One thing is certain; if "those people" don't give us their support, we'll remain losers. The working poor and rural voters have far more in common with us than they do with the BFEE, but they don't know that because we keep pissing them off by our ideological purity.

[QC]

89. It's the Teeny Tiny Tent Theory of Politics.

An electoral loser, but it does keep one from having to associate with the hoi polloi.

[Delano]

85. You support flag-burning?

I don't. I think people should have a right to do it, but it don't support it, and if I were a cop, I don't think I'd be all that enthused about protecting a flag-burner from the angry mob he'd incite...

[Rowdyboy]

87. No, actually, I agree with you...

I only support the right to burn the flag, I personally would never do so. The very idea makes me VERY uncomfortable.

[Delano]

88. Good to know.

Rightwingers will takw what we write and twist it around in a second. We have to be very careful how we phrase things. It's a shame, but we're held up to one standard, and they can say whatever they want...

[Forkboy]

91. Good thing you're not a cop then