nvolenec (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} nvolenec) wrote,@ 2005-02-11 03:30:00 |
|
Response to "How to save the Democratic Party: The Lytle Seven-Step Guide" in the Gateway 02-08-05
First off I'd like to say I appreciate your concern about the Democratic Party, a single party being in power without opposition is unhealthy for democracy,no matter which party it is. As far as your 7 step guide I don't really agree with your suggestions, or even to the idea that the Democratic Party needs saving. I do agree that this administration did a better job during the presidential campaign than Kerry's group, but I don't think this can be generalized to claiming that the Republican Party is so dominant over the Democratic Party or that the Democratic Party needs to be saved.
Step 1 advised that the Democratic Party should "Admit to yourself 'Bush won, we lost. There's not much we can do about it now'"
Well actually Matt theres nothing the Democratic Party can do about that, its done and in the books. But it Matt seems to think that people protesting Bush is simply the Democratic Party throwing, "hissy fits over the fact that they lost." Thats a very narrow view, I see the protests as a group of people regardless of politically affiliation congregating and showing their disapproval with Bush's policies. As far as I know none of the protesters was holding a sign claiming that Bush was not the legitimate president, but my information on this is incomplete as I couldn't make it to the protest myself.
Step 2 isn't really a step at all, its not a suggestion just a vague criticism that implies that Liberalism is the problem with the Democratic Party.
My question is this, whats wrong with Liberalism? How is it any better or worse than Conservatism? And finally what are good definitions for Liberalism and Conservatism? I would imagine that if you asked 10 people off the street you'd get a wide range of definitions for both. Some people associate Conservatism with "values", interestingly enough 22% of people in this last election said that "Moral Values" mattered most to them in who they voted for(source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel
As I'm already in the middle of a massive tangent from the main point of this post I'll continue with one more thing even more off topic. I understand the objections to abortion, it comes down to the debate over when life begins. I completely understand someone feeling passionately about something that they consider murder. But I don't quite understand why people are so up and arms over gay marriage. There is the idea that it takes away from the sanctity of marriage but in the grand scheme of things why is this issue more volatile than say the death penalty. I can understand homosexuals being passionate about the right to marry. From my point of view its the idea of the sanctity of marriage vs. the legal rights of a minority population. In that comparison the rights of a minority win out over a vague idea that somehow 2 people of the same sex marrying destroys marriage.
Ok I lied I'm actually going to take a second massive tangent from the subject of this post, but hey its my journal so I'll do as I damn well please. I think that the religious right has the perception that the Democrats are a bunch of Godless heathens (like me, yes I am an atheist) but thats not true at all, in fact one of the ideas for "revitalizing" the Democratic party is to make it more clear that Democrats don't like abortion but they feel that concessions need to me made in certain circumstances.
Step 3: "Don't get mad, come up with better ideas"
Apparently Matt has a case of selective hearing, this is something I notice with extremists of both parties they tend not to even listen to the opposing candidate. He apparently thinks that Bush won because he had better ideas, I think both candidates had good ideas but they appealed to different people. Believe it or not Matt, Kerry did suggest plans for Social Security, terrorism, homeland security, and tax reform. (I'm sure I'm missing some but its 3am give me a break) I especially liked this quote from the article, "John Kerry on the other hand, never elaborated his plans except for 'bringing our allies to the table.'" Just because Bush never used diplomacy doesn't mean it's dead. I know thats a word we havn't heard for the past 4 years so lets say it together Di-plo-ma-cy (in case you're still having trouble try this link: http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/2/D0240
Step 4: "Bill's time is over. It's time to let go."
Whats wrong with Bill? (I was tempted to leave this as my only response to step 4 but i just cant resist)
I think the Democrats strategy with bringing Clinton around is simple, it makes people identify the Democrats with the relative bliss we experienced under President Clinton's tenure. By relative bliss I mean, no major wars, a strong economy, a national surplus instead of a debt, ya there was that one sex scandal thing but lets not dwell on that, at least not for the span of this post, once I'm done feel free to dwell as much as you like. Just for reference at the time I thought Clinton should have been impeached for perjuring himself, not the sex, who cares about the sex thats something between him and his wife. But in retrospect there are a lot worse things than perjury.
Step 5: "Conservatism wins, every time it's tried."
I'm just curious what your basing this on? I'd like to go back to my question from before, what makes Liberalism better or worse than Conservatism. Thats all i have to say about the main theme if this step, but now I'd like to address some of the statements made in the text of this step.
First: "Conservatives understand there is evil out there in the world, and we don't trust the United Nations to deal with it."
I really want to address this whole idea of terrorists as evil. I didn't really grasp the significance of it until I was watching a documentary about the presidency and religion. What does it mean for something to be evil, it doesn't mean its really bad which is what i assumed when i heard Bush talking about terrorism after Sept. 11th, it means a product of the devil. So apparently we weren't attacked by Osama Bin Laden we were in fact attacked by the Devil, so why aren't we invading hell? Ok that was a bad joke but it does point out that when Bush says Osama Bin Laden is evil, that means that he is a servant of the Devil, and that has a real significance to me. I don't think Osama Bin Laden is evil, he's definitely not a good guy, but not evil. For example Bin Laden has a large family, I would assume that he is good to his children, I doubt if someone saw him interacting with his children they wouldn't say he's being evil to them, brainwashing maybe but not being evil.
Second: "The American people are way smarter than Liberals give us credit. (In some cases, they think we're all sheep.)"
I've always thought it was the other way around Republicans see the people as sheep. I've always seen the Democratic Party as the party of the people, the party that helps out the little guy. I guess I'm just wondering what you referring to with this, some examples please.
Step 6: "Pessimism sucks. Ditch the 'doom and gloom.'"
This is the political world Matt, whichever party is out of power snipes at the one that is. Thats the way it always has been. Can you honestly tell me that Republicans were optimists with Clinton's policies? One statement from this section that caught my attention was this, "The war on terror is working." Which war on terror are you watching Matt? The one thing that amazes me is that somehow Bush manages to take credit for there not being any terrorist attacks after Sept. 11th with out taking credit for Sept. 11th itself. I really don't know how he managed that but I think its kind of incredible, and not in a good way. It's not that Democrats are pessimists it's that they see the Administration and the world as we all do through the screen of their own views, thats the same reason Republicans see the world as a better place today than before Bush was in office. Maybe we all should do our best to be more objective, not judge any person or policy before all the facts are in. I always endeavor to do this but I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I fail.
Step 7: "Get away from Hollywood" (hang on tight kiddies it's almost over)
The first line of this step reads "Actually, I can be more specific than that, and in five words: Get away from Michael Moore. In this country we have a thing called free speech, the Democrats cant control what Michael Moore has to say any more than the Republicans can. Free speech is why I can write this and you all (I'm hoping more than one person made it this far through my tangled mess of ideas and criticism) can read it, its also the same reason Matt Lytle could write his article in the first place. As far as I know none of the Democratic candidates for president used Michael Moore or his film in any way, but the Republicans had no problem attacking him.
Ok I'm aaaaalmost done now, just a few more final comments. Thank you to anyone who read this whole thing, and I'd appreciate any comments you have. As far as Matt's assessment that his article would draw torrents of negative feedback, I'd just like to say that I am not a democrat, I'm registered as an Independent, although I did vote for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. I have no affiliation with the UNO Campus Democrats in fact I have yet to attend a meeting but i do intend to. I hope no one will take my statements on this blog and attempt to generalize them as the views of any political party.
"Unless they change now, or at very least admit what I suggested in Step 1, then, let's just say the Democratic Party will be over."
Ok Matt, I admit that you suggested Step 1.
</rant>
First off I'd like to say I appreciate your concern about the Democratic Party, a single party being in power without opposition is unhealthy for democracy,no matter which party it is. As far as your 7 step guide I don't really agree with your suggestions, or even to the idea that the Democratic Party needs saving. I do agree that this administration did a better job during the presidential campaign than Kerry's group, but I don't think this can be generalized to claiming that the Republican Party is so dominant over the Democratic Party or that the Democratic Party needs to be saved.
Step 1 advised that the Democratic Party should "Admit to yourself 'Bush won, we lost. There's not much we can do about it now'"
Well actually Matt theres nothing the Democratic Party can do about that, its done and in the books. But it Matt seems to think that people protesting Bush is simply the Democratic Party throwing, "hissy fits over the fact that they lost." Thats a very narrow view, I see the protests as a group of people regardless of politically affiliation congregating and showing their disapproval with Bush's policies. As far as I know none of the protesters was holding a sign claiming that Bush was not the legitimate president, but my information on this is incomplete as I couldn't make it to the protest myself.
Step 2 isn't really a step at all, its not a suggestion just a vague criticism that implies that Liberalism is the problem with the Democratic Party.
My question is this, whats wrong with Liberalism? How is it any better or worse than Conservatism? And finally what are good definitions for Liberalism and Conservatism? I would imagine that if you asked 10 people off the street you'd get a wide range of definitions for both. Some people associate Conservatism with "values", interestingly enough 22% of people in this last election said that "Moral Values" mattered most to them in who they voted for(source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel
As I'm already in the middle of a massive tangent from the main point of this post I'll continue with one more thing even more off topic. I understand the objections to abortion, it comes down to the debate over when life begins. I completely understand someone feeling passionately about something that they consider murder. But I don't quite understand why people are so up and arms over gay marriage. There is the idea that it takes away from the sanctity of marriage but in the grand scheme of things why is this issue more volatile than say the death penalty. I can understand homosexuals being passionate about the right to marry. From my point of view its the idea of the sanctity of marriage vs. the legal rights of a minority population. In that comparison the rights of a minority win out over a vague idea that somehow 2 people of the same sex marrying destroys marriage.
Ok I lied I'm actually going to take a second massive tangent from the subject of this post, but hey its my journal so I'll do as I damn well please. I think that the religious right has the perception that the Democrats are a bunch of Godless heathens (like me, yes I am an atheist) but thats not true at all, in fact one of the ideas for "revitalizing" the Democratic party is to make it more clear that Democrats don't like abortion but they feel that concessions need to me made in certain circumstances.
Step 3: "Don't get mad, come up with better ideas"
Apparently Matt has a case of selective hearing, this is something I notice with extremists of both parties they tend not to even listen to the opposing candidate. He apparently thinks that Bush won because he had better ideas, I think both candidates had good ideas but they appealed to different people. Believe it or not Matt, Kerry did suggest plans for Social Security, terrorism, homeland security, and tax reform. (I'm sure I'm missing some but its 3am give me a break) I especially liked this quote from the article, "John Kerry on the other hand, never elaborated his plans except for 'bringing our allies to the table.'" Just because Bush never used diplomacy doesn't mean it's dead. I know thats a word we havn't heard for the past 4 years so lets say it together Di-plo-ma-cy (in case you're still having trouble try this link: http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/2/D0240
Step 4: "Bill's time is over. It's time to let go."
Whats wrong with Bill? (I was tempted to leave this as my only response to step 4 but i just cant resist)
I think the Democrats strategy with bringing Clinton around is simple, it makes people identify the Democrats with the relative bliss we experienced under President Clinton's tenure. By relative bliss I mean, no major wars, a strong economy, a national surplus instead of a debt, ya there was that one sex scandal thing but lets not dwell on that, at least not for the span of this post, once I'm done feel free to dwell as much as you like. Just for reference at the time I thought Clinton should have been impeached for perjuring himself, not the sex, who cares about the sex thats something between him and his wife. But in retrospect there are a lot worse things than perjury.
Step 5: "Conservatism wins, every time it's tried."
I'm just curious what your basing this on? I'd like to go back to my question from before, what makes Liberalism better or worse than Conservatism. Thats all i have to say about the main theme if this step, but now I'd like to address some of the statements made in the text of this step.
First: "Conservatives understand there is evil out there in the world, and we don't trust the United Nations to deal with it."
I really want to address this whole idea of terrorists as evil. I didn't really grasp the significance of it until I was watching a documentary about the presidency and religion. What does it mean for something to be evil, it doesn't mean its really bad which is what i assumed when i heard Bush talking about terrorism after Sept. 11th, it means a product of the devil. So apparently we weren't attacked by Osama Bin Laden we were in fact attacked by the Devil, so why aren't we invading hell? Ok that was a bad joke but it does point out that when Bush says Osama Bin Laden is evil, that means that he is a servant of the Devil, and that has a real significance to me. I don't think Osama Bin Laden is evil, he's definitely not a good guy, but not evil. For example Bin Laden has a large family, I would assume that he is good to his children, I doubt if someone saw him interacting with his children they wouldn't say he's being evil to them, brainwashing maybe but not being evil.
Second: "The American people are way smarter than Liberals give us credit. (In some cases, they think we're all sheep.)"
I've always thought it was the other way around Republicans see the people as sheep. I've always seen the Democratic Party as the party of the people, the party that helps out the little guy. I guess I'm just wondering what you referring to with this, some examples please.
Step 6: "Pessimism sucks. Ditch the 'doom and gloom.'"
This is the political world Matt, whichever party is out of power snipes at the one that is. Thats the way it always has been. Can you honestly tell me that Republicans were optimists with Clinton's policies? One statement from this section that caught my attention was this, "The war on terror is working." Which war on terror are you watching Matt? The one thing that amazes me is that somehow Bush manages to take credit for there not being any terrorist attacks after Sept. 11th with out taking credit for Sept. 11th itself. I really don't know how he managed that but I think its kind of incredible, and not in a good way. It's not that Democrats are pessimists it's that they see the Administration and the world as we all do through the screen of their own views, thats the same reason Republicans see the world as a better place today than before Bush was in office. Maybe we all should do our best to be more objective, not judge any person or policy before all the facts are in. I always endeavor to do this but I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I fail.
Step 7: "Get away from Hollywood" (hang on tight kiddies it's almost over)
The first line of this step reads "Actually, I can be more specific than that, and in five words: Get away from Michael Moore. In this country we have a thing called free speech, the Democrats cant control what Michael Moore has to say any more than the Republicans can. Free speech is why I can write this and you all (I'm hoping more than one person made it this far through my tangled mess of ideas and criticism) can read it, its also the same reason Matt Lytle could write his article in the first place. As far as I know none of the Democratic candidates for president used Michael Moore or his film in any way, but the Republicans had no problem attacking him.
Ok I'm aaaaalmost done now, just a few more final comments. Thank you to anyone who read this whole thing, and I'd appreciate any comments you have. As far as Matt's assessment that his article would draw torrents of negative feedback, I'd just like to say that I am not a democrat, I'm registered as an Independent, although I did vote for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. I have no affiliation with the UNO Campus Democrats in fact I have yet to attend a meeting but i do intend to. I hope no one will take my statements on this blog and attempt to generalize them as the views of any political party.
"Unless they change now, or at very least admit what I suggested in Step 1, then, let's just say the Democratic Party will be over."
Ok Matt, I admit that you suggested Step 1.
</rant>
