This is a retread from the now-defunct Roving Ellipsis.
This marks the second phase of my split from the Democratic Party (the first being clean coal technology).
I think this is useful in that it sheds some light on how popular perceptions of both major political parties are founded more in image than truth.
See if you can recognize some of your own arguments in this.
In Opposition to Principle
It has become clear to me, through reflection and discourse, that it has long been the case that the Democrats have resolved themselves to the function of an oppositional party. That is, their stance on principle is rather limited to mere identity politics, lacking any cohesive philosophical underpinning.
Again, the Democrats are wont to adhere to a disparate grouping of policy positions, and yet no one can explain the relation of those positions one to the other.
A rather unfortunate event is here recounted, in which I was beset upon by a cabal of party operatives, dragged to the door, and kicked squarely in the ass until I fell out on the other side.
I offer to you, for your understanding, the following history, to be henceforth known as “Salvo I.”
————————§——§————————
The opening shots were fired by none other than Amy Sullivan, who wrote a piece for Time, “TIME Poll: Faith of the Candidates,” which begins:
The hoary joke that a "religious Democrat" is more of an oxymoron than "jumbo shrimp" couldn't be more wrong in this election cycle, in which it's the Democrats who are talking comfortably about faith while their Republican counterparts dodge the subject. Even so, as the results of a new TIME poll show, the conventional wisdom about the two political parties and religion may be so ingrained that no amount of evidence to the contrary can change perceptions.
True enough. The conventional wisdom is difficult to overcome.
This was shortly followed by Digby, writing at Hullabaloo, then who proceeded to all but burn Sullivan at the stake, from a strictly secular view, of course. Let us say that he felt her work to be of limited value.
This was, in turn, picked up by Pastor Dan at Street Prophets, in his post, “The Democrats’ ‘Religion Problem,’” where he states:
Digby thinks that Sullivan's talk of being "faith-friendly" is a stalking horse for social conservatism....
I think Sullivan's trying to make the party safe for social conservatives....
More to the point, I'm not willing to gamble with core Democratic values - such as the right to choice - to find out if I'm wrong or right on that score....
The following is my comment to that post:
I have to disagree with the conception of "core Democratic values" as portrayed.
I really don't see a right to choose as being a core Democratic value. Neither does Rep. Jerry Costello (D) of Illinois' 12th district, among others.
And I'm not one to see the Iraq War as being a big issue to define a vote by, no matter how much I personally may be against it.
I just don't see it. And maybe this is because I'm reading Rawls over here now, but what of this thing about "reasonable tolerance?"
For the record, I already know that I'm not going to be getting an abortion, so it doesn't really matter to me all that much; the issue of federal funding does. Even as much as I appreciate well-shaped noses, I don't support the federal funding of surgical repair.
The whole abortion issue is a lot more complex than a simple yes/no.
As for Iraq, the people voted for it. When they desire differently, let them vote differently. If the voters somehow thought that people would not die in a war, then the voters were simply mistaken; the record still stands.
Yes, there is a wide perception that the Democratic party is actively hostile to religion, something that I've written about extensively. And that matter needs some attention, if it is to be changed.
Bringing more social conservatives into the Democratic party will balance out the radicals to the left, which will add to the appeal of the party on the whole.
Other issues very important to voters are very localized, such as regulations for the safety of chemical plants in New Jersey, or water management in Colorado.
In summary, there are many social conservatives, or moderates if you will, that are already in the Democratic party, and marginalizing the concerns of those that are already in the tent isn't going to help matters much.
NOTE: Though this was not a part of the original comment, my opposition to the federal funding of abortions lies in the belief that an unwanted pregnancy does not rise to the level of public health concerns that are currently funded so, such as tuberculosis, AIDS, or hepatitis. That is to say, the condition is not itself communicable. Yet, as it stands now is no guarantee that it will remain so in the future.
His response:
I think you're simply wrong.
Choice is a core value: it's been a Democratic plank ever since Roe, for crying in the night.
I don't know why you're bringing up Iraq here, but people are voting differently on it. If you don't understand that 2006 was a change election based on the war, you don't understand politics.
As for those radical leftists, who, exactly, are you talking about? Are we still bashing Jane Fonda? Michael Moore? Seriously: who are you talking about, and what are their positions? I'm willing to bet that anyone you name is going to be a whole lot more mainstream than they've been portrayed.
The assertion concerning the Democratic position was successfully contested in another post which gave the history of the planks of both parties since the Roe decision.
This reply is brimming over with red herrings. The appeal to the Roe decision is a bandwagon fallacy. The statements on Iraq are an argumentum ad hominem. The remarks about Ms Fonda and Mr Moore are poisoning the well.
Oh, poor ignorant me! And I really mean that, because I still had some hope of reasoning with the man, even after that outburst.
But to be clear, among the radicals I was referring to are the 16% of Americans that believe that there should be no form of governmental regulation or control over abortion procedures. And so, his argumentum ad populum could only occur within the bounds of the like-minded, and in no way dispossesses the 84% of their position.
My reply, boldface added here for emphasis:
Even if you wish to state it as a core value, there are many Democrats which are simply not pro-choice. Like when Jimmy Carter stated that personally he was against Roe, but he would uphold the law of the land.
Now, were every pro-life Democrat thrown out of the party, the Dems slim majority in congress would quickly be lost.
And I'm bringing up Iraq as a matter of an example of a widely-perceived core value.
And I do, in fact, understand that discontent with the war, as part of an even larger discontent with the handling of the War on Terror, was a significant factor in the results of election '06.
I also understand that this war is temporary, as all wars are-- it will come to an end.
And then where are the core values when there is no longer a discontent to drive them?
Jane Fonda isn't really so different than a lot of people in SoCal. She might freak out people in Florida, but in LA her views are old hat.
Same with Michael Moore. Way far left for Alabama, not so for New England.
Which kinda comes back to the point I was making about tolerance for differing values.
Just as you were writing the other day about Muslims and blacks being more socially conservative. Are these groups that the Democratic party can take for granted are going to vote D, and refuse to consider their views?
The same with latinos. Most latinos have more socially conservative views than Democrats as a whole. Should these views be ignored in favor of "core values?" Exactly why Texas lost the latino vote. Observe how frequently the Cuban population in Florida votes R.
Again, observe that somewhere around 40% of AFL-CIO members voted for Bush in '04. Observe the backing of Republican candidates for several years running by the Firefighters in Detroit.
Which brings me back to Rawls' concept of "reasonable tolerance." Are "core values" to be constituted in such a manner as to be inclusive or exclusive? But that is a rhetorical question, and its answer is of limited value.
The "core values" are indeed exclusive, and the legitimate question is, in what order of the hierarchy of values is tolerance situated?
His response:
I've heard this argument before.
Too many times to count, in fact. Remember what I said about blacks and Muslims? They vote for Democrats, 9-to-1. There's simply no danger of losing enough of them over abortion or homosexuality to help the Republican party. Not so long as the GOP is identified with oppressive economic and security policies. When the Republicans shed their history of racial division in the South, then they'll be competitive with blacks. As for Muslims, they'll have to wash the stench of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and Iraq in general off themselves before they have a hope. And that's assuming the Muslim population in the US could move an election. They're far too small to do so.
Latinos have been a swing vote for years now, and it looks like they're swinging back to Dems in nearly the same numbers as black and Muslims. The immigration "reform" program has been an unmitigated disaster for Republicans, and it's going to keep Hispanics away from them for a generation or more. (Ignore the Cubans. They're an anomaly who were never in play for the Democrats.)
The same trend is apparent in union members, who are swinging back toward the Dems. The IAFF has come out swinging against Rudy Giuliani, and the SEIU, where most of the action is these days, is solidly Democratic.
Last, Democrats simply don't need the votes of Louisiana or Alabama. More to the point, they're never going to get them in a presidential election. Not for a long, long time, or unless something truly cataclysmic happens.
Any way you slice it, Democrats are not under any pressure to give up on their social principles. That's not to say that people who are pro-life or anti-marriage equality are not or should not be welcome in the party. But it works just fine without their views carrying the day, thank you very much. It's not intolerant to say so: the majority of the party holds those principles very dear. Why should they give up on them in order to get nothing in return? It's not going to help them win a single election, nor turn any sizable group of people. So why should they compromise their morals? Just because?
Now, you see that 16% has become “the majority of the party.” Mathematically unfeasible though. Were the entirety of that 16% registered Democrats, they would still form less than half of the party. Update: The latest AP-Ipsos polls show an increase in the number of registered voters that identify themselves as Democrats. And so, the people that believe in no form of governmental regulation over abortion has gone from roughly 35 to 40 percent of the party (assuming the entirety of the 16% are registered Democrats) to around 30 percent-- what could best be desribed as a sizable minority.
My response:
I think I see the disconnect here
And it has to do with a different focus.
You say:
"Democrats simply don't need the votes of Louisiana or Alabama."
And while this may be true as far as the presidential election is concerned, that Democratic governor in Louisiana is certainly well-served by picking up some of the Democratic vote in that area.
There's a Democratic senator in Florida and Nebraska (both named Nelson). Both of these gentlemen are among the more conservative Democrats. A candidate far to the left of either of them would be practically unelectable in those states. Same with the senators from Arkansas.
All of those seats count toward the majority, to determining the chairs of the committees.
So, Thing #1 is: "To the Left" means different things in different regions.
Here's the stats from '06 exit polls for congressional representative, from Chris Bowers' article here:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=105
Whites who self-identify as non-Christian (Jewish, no religion, or other religion) vote for Democrats at roughly the same 70-75% rate as do non-whites. As such, the current Democratic coalition is by far the most diverse ever assembled in the history of American politics. For example, in 2006, according to exit polls, 89% of African-American voters, 87% of Jewish voters, 75% of GLBT voters, 74% of non-religious voters, 71% of voters with an "other" (non-Christian, non-Jewish) religion, 69% of Latino voters, and 62% of Asian-American voters chose the Democratic candidate for US House.... In fact, roughly 60% of all Democratic voters fit into at least one of the demographic groups listed above, compared to about only 20% of Republican voters.
And from where I'm looking here, not so concerned with the executive branch but in representation generally, I question the equity of the quality of representation possible.
You have to water the mule, PD. You have to water the mule.
So, Thing #2 is: Equity of representation.
Xpatriated Texan also replied to Pastor Dan’s comment:
Just a couple of tweaks:
First, we carried La in both 1992 and 1996 - so I wouldn't put it out of our realm of possibilities. Also, the Republican bungling on Katrina makes it possible to make in-roads.
Second, by saying, "We're not in danger of losing these people," you are, in effect, saying, "yes, let's take them for granted".
As far as I'm concerned, that's a recipe for enforcing your opinion on others as surely as it is for the right to do it, and I oppose it. I don't think we should give up on our social values, but I do think we should continue to encourage the participation with the groups identified above. By encouraging tighter connections, we break down the barriers that exist for them to embrace our larger values.
The goal, as far as I'm concerned, is never to simply let enough conservatives come in that our party changes entirely. It is to make it welcoming to those who are moderately conservative or non-ideological so that they can come kick the tires, check out the drapery, and end up being transformed in the process.
My reply to XT:
What I was really getting at here is that the issue needs to be framed cohesively as a matter of principle, and not as a matter entirely separated from anything and everything else.
That is, state the principle first. Then proceed to demonstrate how that principle is reflected in action.
And for all the assertions of rights that I hear-- the right to choose, the rights of a fetus, etc.-- none of these rights seem to be grounded in a solid principle.
As I said, it doesn't really matter to me a whole lot one way or the other. I think the people that use this issue as a litmus test, one way or the other, are completely delusional. I simply don't understand single-issue voters, any more than I understand people that vote straight ticket.
However, as a matter of principle (if there are, in fact, any principles involved), I might find myself in agreement.
COMMENTARY:
Do you get the idea that Pastor Dan is willfully deceiving himself in a wishful thinking fallacy?
I wonder what Melissa Harris-Lacewell would think of all of this.
Still, let us be clear now. This is a matter of abortion only secondly. The issue at hand is one of political constructivism, though its operation is in reverse. That is, how might we identify this principle, so that we might see where else this principle is in operation? For surely, the policy is firmly grounded in principle, is it not?
Pastor Dan continues:
I just don't buy it.
What we've seen ever since 2002 is that forthright progressives hold their own regardless of where they are. That's not a guarantee of election, but it is to say that running as Republican-lite doesn't confer any kind of advantage. As a matter of fact, it's a distinct disadvantage.
I trust local representatives to know their community and to know the best approach to running for office in that community. And again, they're welcome in the party even if they are socially conservative. But the fact is still that compromising on those issues is not going to bring us more senators, more representatives, more anything. It's just going to be a capitulation that makes Dems look like spineless panderers. That ultimately hurts them in the areas where they are strong, and it kills them in the places they could be strong.
Bottom line: successful marketing requires a real alternative, not "we're just like them!" And morally, I'm not willing to concede on those principles.
Sorry, no sale.
My reply:
I'm glad you replied to this.
Because, really, we got away a bit from the central issue, that of core values. And you kinda brought it around again with this:
"I'm not willing to concede on those principles."
Which has to do with the larger issue of "reasonable tolerance."
Let us examine the right to choose as an example here. Again, nothing to do with it in specific, but merely as an example.
First of all, let us agree that the "right to choose" is a function, that abortion itself and all of the specific instances of it which may take place are an operation of that function. Still, there must be some guiding principle behind that function.
Whatever that principle is, that is a core value. The function of the principle is not to be taken as a core value.
I have a few ideas as to what that core value might be, but I would like to hear from you on this. I really haven't arrived at anything definitive.
But I would warn you about stating something such as "reproductive rights," which might also include something like "having sex with your sister" (even though advocating this position might well be a winning strategy for taking back the south for the left). We already have accepted regulations concerning reproductive rights.
The principle of the core value is of great concern.
A response from XT to PD’s comment:
I'll agree that a large number of progressives have done well in a wide variety of places - but let's not jump to saying that they succeeded because they were progressive. Embracing representation on your number one issue does not necessarily transfer support on all of them.
I don't see either Pa or Va as being ready to elect a true Progressive. Bob Casey is good for Pa, but he's pro-life. Webb is a former Reaganite who is at least a thread right of center on most issues. Kaine had to vow to uphold the death penalty in order to win.
I can assure you that Tx-19 will not embrace a true progressive. It just flies in the face of reality to claim that we can just do what we want and people will love us for it. The first rule of behavioral shaping is that you meet someone where they are and lead them to where you want them.
Or, as PT says, you have to water the mule. It doesn't hurt if you give him something to chew on, too.
XT was right to call him on the causative fallacy (affirming the consequent).
Pastor Dan’s response to me:
See ogre's comments in JCHFleetguy's thread. He states the case pretty well, I think. But I'm not willing to budge on the function of the value, either.
That may be a pragmatic political stance, but that's what it boils down to. If you want to talk about in terms of "reasonable tolerance," fine: for me reasonable tolerance means allowing social conservatives a place in the party, but not allowing them to win the policy debates if I can help it. You can dress that up in all the philosophical terminology you like, but that's where it's at.
Commenter Sadie Baker replied to me thus:
Consensual childbirth is a core value. The government has no right to force childbirth on an unwilling girl or woman, for any reason.
Forced childbirthers have their own party already, it's called the GOP. Now that that ship is sinking they want to commandeer ours, but we're not going to let them.
My reply to Pastor Dan, boldface added for emphasis:
Thanks for the heads up.
I read the comments there, and I liked them. More along my lines of thinking than what's really out there though.
I don't see what you're so testy about. Already in one thread you've stated that it's ok to disenfranshise minorities of effective representation, as well as disparaging social conservatives as "Republican-lite."
I like to believe that you didn't really mean that, that you were getting all worked up, and said some unfortunate things.
I'm not trying to convince you; I'm trying to understand you. And really, I'm not so sure of the finer points of your position. But I'm willing to listen if you're willing to explain.
But please, exercise reason. It's good for the environment.
Now, there are many other issues to consider than just one. Here's a short list: global warming, minimun wage, safety of water supply, affordable health care. There's more.
It seems unfair to say that any disagreement would disqualify a candidate from being "progressive." I don't think it's quite time for the big Democratic purge.
You should also consider that it will simply be a matter of time until the Republicans realize that the strategy they have adopted will play itself out in a few years. They are very cunning, and will likely re-invent themselves (eg Reagan) sometime soon. It looks like the "compassionate conservatism" wasn't much of either, and they will be looking for something else.
And my reply to Sadie:
This cannot possibly be the correct answer.
The whole "right to choose" argument effectively denies the male's place in parenthood. There can be no consensus with only one input being considered.
But what gets me is the fact that this is a federal issue.
That is, the state has an inherent interest in regulating the practice (dictating waiting periods, the cleanliness of the procedure, etc.), and that regulary interest must be balanced with some natural right.
It's the extent and basis of the natural right that I'm interested in.
I'm not likely to change my views in regard to this one specific instance, but perhaps there is a greater principle we can agree on.
Some right is being asserted that I really don't understand. The "right to do as I please" seems fully insufficient. Not too long ago, it pleased me to drive 90mph down the interstate, and I got a ticket for it. Was I asserting my rights? Do I have a good case to present in a court? The fact is that I chose to go 90mph. Does that help? Should I write a letter to the judge explaining this? Don't I have a right to choose, too?
But the litmus testing of candidates is something I am highly suspicious of.
Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.
COMMENTARY:
Here we see that Pastor Dan has sacrificed his principles for passion. Because he believes passionately about this thing, he feels that it must be correct. Further, he becomes angry because he is unable to defend his position by means of logic.
Likewise, with Sadie Baker we see an emotional appeal, here paired with a false equivocation. But here we see in bald-faced form the argument that Democrats are not to attain to principle, but rather only to an oppositional function.
In none of this do I see some form of underlying principle. What on earth might it be?
Not so sure, but I can tell that serious inquiry is strongly discouraged.
As for the Democrats, a blind and unreasoning anger is a greater virtue than the capacity to identify a principle.
Next up: Salvo II in the War on Principle.
Quite pleased to be Mr P Traditionalist, your humble seeker of principle.
