Bush claimed that he was not going to "negotiate with terrorists" like the prez of Iran because sitting down with him would legitimize his statements in opposition of the two state solution, among other issues. We criticized this rhetorical tactic as counterproductive and now liberals are advocating the same strategy. He labeled Iran as part of the axis of evil and coined the term "Islamic fascism" at the same time he was stating that this is not a religious war. Now, those who see the political advantages of the warren pick are absolutely wrong and bigots.
Sitting down with someone does not legitimize their position, it de-legitimizes it. The premise of debate is that we disagree, otherwise we would not have a debate. Not debating or interacting legitimizes a position because each side is not willing to discuss their differences. So, if Obama does not interact with or debate the opposition then how serious is he about change. How serious are we if we are not willing to do the same. Meaningful, long-lasting, change is slow and painful.
You argue that you are in favor of debate, however, you enter the debate insisting as fact what we are attempting to persuade people to believe. Entering a debate stating as the premise what you are attempting to persuade is not a debate. For example, you state that "those who oppose equal rights are wrong, and I am going to tell them loudly and clearly that they are wrong.", as evidence that we need to debate more loudly. The point of the debate is to establish gay marriage as an equal rights issue. We (at du) all agree that it is, however, it is those who are on the fence or who don't see the civil rights aspect, that the debate is meant to effect. Additionally, the debate is not about convincing the oppositional debater, but the audience, in this case the public. You state that you are not going to pretend that they have a valid viewpoint, however, I think you are confusing this with agreement. A viewpoint is by definition a subjective perspective. It is not objectively valid or invalid. Of course, for those who disagree, the way they see the world is "right" and we are the ones who are "wrong". Of course, we disagree. That is why we are having such problems. We know that they will uniformly state their perspective as fact, characterize our disagreements as unchristian, shake our hand and walk away. We can not enter the debate with the same tactic, because if we do then we are merely symbolically grandstanding.
This method (stating as fact what you are attempting to persuade) is a researched political tactic that the republican party has developed to influence public opinion. This is the same tactic that bush has used for the last 8 years. Establishing that we do not torture as the premise of a debate about torture. Establishing that Iran can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons as a premise to discuss the development of nuclear weapons. The function it serves is to stifle debate, not foster it. If both parties enter the debate stating what they are attempting to persuade then the net effect is 0. Using divisive language and labels to characterize another persons position, confounding it with that persons identity, only separates. Another well researched tactic is framing a political wedge issue into a narrative that distorts the premise of the opposing view, followed by strong verbal attacks. Your post does not issue strong verbal attacks, however, the strong verbal attacks are evident on this site and are explicitly in violation of site rules as are arguments that gay marriage is wrong. My comments regarding verbal attacks are not directed at you, but at a disturbing pattern that I see emerging.
No one here has argued that warrens views are supported by or consistent with liberal views. Most are displeased, yet hopeful that this is a political maneuver. No one here has argued that "reaching out" means adopting an alternative view. However, we are told that our comments are both, and that such comments justify accusations of bigotry and prejudice. Additionally, we are told that compromise means that we are willing to throw the gay community under the bus and that we have used them as a voting block without any real intention of fighting for the civil rights issues that affect their community. These are very strong accusations. We have stated repeatedly that we intend to fight for gay marriage, compromise does not entail a change in the mission, and that "reaching out" does not mean adopting an alternative view. I do not expect you to instantly believe that everyone's intentions are altruistic, but I ask that you give us the benefit of the doubt. I also ask you to give obama the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you let him become the prez before you declare him a sell out.
The biggest problem that I have with your arguments is that you are contradictory and base your personal experiences as symptomatic of the right-wing as well as a guide for achieving our goals. You have distorted and mocked what our arguments are based upon and flatly rejected that reaching out can be a powerful political tool that creates political capital or that provides political cover. You claim to be a recovered liber. and independent, who would never vote republican, which means you are not independent. You assert that when clinton and others attempted to reach out to you and show you that they were on your side, you resented it and hated them for it. When did clinton reach out to libers? Don't ask don't tell? Naft?-libers party platform is not in favor of free trade agreements because they lock in specific capital arrangements. You where told a narrative about clintons fake reaching out and how it was evidence of the weakness of the democratic party and the control of the DLC. Let me get this straight. The democratic party, and liberals, have been marginalized or a significant minority for the majority of the past 38 years and are a weak party. Well then, the republicans should have accomplished significant legislative achievements across the spectrum. But they didn't, the republicans have used all of their political capital to re-consolidate wealth. All the cultural issues have failed and were merely distractions in the narrative form.
You claim to never have been an ideological member of the religious right but insist that we will not be able to persuade right-wingers because of your personal conversion story. You tell a story about how liberals should never compromise their principles as if someone has argued that we should compromise our principles. We have argued that we should compromise, never our principles, but compromise. For example, warrens pray could be a compromise. We said (as a party) we were going to be different, inclusive, listen to all opposing views, and take the political high road and not insult others who disagree with us and attempt to find common ground. Thus, we can go first, allow this unpleasant event and wait to see how the opposition will respond. Do you actually think that we believe everything is going to be instantly excellent and the republicans are going to role over. No, this type of political tactic is based upon the prediction that we will treat them with respect even as they disrespect us. Have you not considered the fact that asking warren to give the prayer is a very public way to reaffirm that obama does not agree with him and others regarding gay marriage? If we had a UU minister pray, would we be discussing our commitment and addressing those who differ? You stated in your article that the right-wing is mad at warren for doing this, so how does it play into their hands politically. Basically, his acceptance was the realization that the republican party is a sinking ship that he does not want to go down with. He has to pray for a man who has explicitly, on multiple occasions stated that he supports equal rights for gays in all area's. That is like a UU minister praying for Bush, please! This is a victory for the right? More evangelicals voted for obama than any previous democratic president since carter. Thought they could not be persuaded to find common ground with liberals.
You want some examples of common ground. Gay marriage is an issue of religious freedom!!! You ready for this: Im a UU, we are christian, we marry gay's. Reformed Jews marry gays. Other religions marry gays. Why should my religious freedom to participant in a gay wedding that is recognized by the state as equal be violated? Why is it that certain christian denominations are the sole providers of the definition of marriage? Why is the state acting as a mediator between religious denominations? Is that big government or small government? I believe in family values which is why I don't want to proposition 8 to dissolve marriages because it is destroying families. Why are we taking a popular vote to decide if other peoples families should be destroyed? Common ground can be a way of claiming the other parties ideological positions as justification of your principles. You want more common ground. Jesus was a liberal, I would argue that he was a radical. He was not a conservative. Jesus spoke multiple times about helping the poor as the primary means of salvation, and he advocated handouts. He turned water into wine and then he gave it away. He never mentioned homosexuality. There are two other small references commonly interpreted as justification for the sinful status of homosexual acts. If sexuality is so important, why did Jesus fail to address it in clear terms? If people believe that everything in the bible is inspired by god and therefore the ultimate truth, then how do we address the commandment of women to not speak in church and to cover their heads? Why does the bible say that men with long hair are a disgrace? What is too long? IF THEY START GETTING MAD AND CALLING YOU NASTY NAMES-"As a christian I take these religious issues serious, and I know that you do to, I was hoping we could discuss religion in a respectful manner". THEN CONTINUE-If I disagree with another christian about religious beliefs, rituals, or values is my religious freedom to practice and believe as my church instructs protected? If I am not-religious and do not believe in god should I be forced by the state to accept a religious definition of marriage and the family?
You see where I am going with this. Don't bash other people and label them as unconditional zombies. Present these issues as serious religious questions that are part of your spiritual quest. Frame it within the context of "finding common ground" and "reaching out". Either they back down or double up. Make the haters say it. Make them announce that UU is not a real religion. Make them come out and tell everyone what the "true" christian definitions are. Make them say or imply that reformed Jews are non-believers so who cares what they do. Make them dismiss other religions. Be kind, respectful, and genuinely interested in their views. How many people do you think they will turn off? You really think most evangelicals are going to accept the idea that one or two denominations are "right" and the others are "wrong". You think this attempt to "find common ground" will bring to the service the extreme differences of opinion people have and the problems with deciding what marriage is.
C, that is what I was trying to say about previous social movements and reforms. Its not that they don't believe and assert that the other side is wrong. Its not that they say the racists were right. Its that they said, I think the bible says-Im equal and that we should love each other and live together. I believe it is morally correct for me to resist your acts of oppression, but I have christian love for you and will not respond with violence if attacked. If attacked I will forgive you. THEN, THEY WERE BRUTALIZED. They forced us to see it, and it changed minds. Its a tactic.
We can, through attempts at compromises and dialogue that seeks to find "common ground" change minds or expose the ugly side of religious intolerance. If it works in Mississippi, then it will work anywhere. What is stopping us from organizing "common ground" forums? Why are we expecting obama to do all this for us? He did not promise us miracles, he told us we were going to have to stand up and get involved. We can capture this moment ourselves. We can capitalize on dissatisfaction with the republican party and apply the right amount of pressure and cover that will optimize our chances at legislative reforms. Or we can complain about how obama is a sell out, play into the media narrative that they have been carefully constructing. We can play into the stereotype they have created of reactionary bloggers. I say, we confuse them, expose them, convert them. Time to mix it up folks.
PS-on a related note. Important writers at Redstate are debating making deregulation of drug laws the primary platform of the revamped, small government, elimination of wasteful spending, new republican party. I think it goes back to the silly little concept known as "common ground". Your welcome!
http://www.redstate.com/jaded/2008/12/04/this-story-is-why-the-war-on-drugs-is-an-utter-failure/Its called a complete meltdown!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
