greybeta | We can work together

Current Mood: determined

We can work together

Allow me to thank zoethe for inspiring this post. I consider myself a moderate Republican and a social conservative.

The hot topic of choice that has been beat to death has been why the Democrats failed to win an election that they should have won and how they got blindsided by the evangelical vote. In hindsight, it becomes clear why Bush pounded the social issues. They actually mattered more than the economy or Social Security or Iraq.

We owe it all to a college dropout masterminding the Republican strategy.

It has been said that Kerry had more “presidential” qualities, and his plans supposedly made more sense than Bush. After the first debate, I bought into the thinking that Kerry was going to win. But my thinking changed after the third debate, the one where Kerry was supposed to clean up on domestic issues.

As I saw it then, Kerry wasn’t resonating with America. Support of Kerry boiled down to one argument: Change. People desperate for change labored long and hard to bring out the vote in record numbers.

That change will inevitably come in four years.

Shortly after Kerry’s concession, Democrats became saddened and raged at the same time. The two biggest complaints I saw were:
1. Oh my God, I’m surrounded by homophobes
2. Not only that, but I’m living next to a bunch of God-fearing bigots

Curious, I began to question them. I'm proud to say that I found people willing to discuss controversial ideas in a civil manner. I really did learn a lot, and I thank everyone for being patient with me.

As we all have been told, the Left’s current rhetorical strategy on social issues alienates moderates.

For one thing, I noticed that the Left has fallen out of touch with the moderate evangelicals. The Bible or Jesus without fail has the Left conjuring up the image of Jerry Falwell. Arguments that say “God said so” aren't reasonable for the Left. And the Far Left forbids someone to have faith in an incoherent book written by mere men.

As far as I know, Christians would say God’s purpose for their life would be to be more like Jesus everyday. Their life purpose would be to know God and make Him known. Their core beliefs are Jesus is the only way to heaven, Bible is the absolute Truth, and how they behave matters. And the key to making this all work is to have faith in God.

So when a Christian enters an argument, he or she will often use Scripture to back up their claims. Of course, this is usually followed by people attempting to disprove the Bible. That approach doesn’t work because Christians have accepted God’s Word as part of their faith. Calling such a belief bigotry will surely convince Christians to change their views.

So it can be said that reason alone shall not suffice. Yet, it seems that liberals must have the superiority of argument. They can have that if they’re willing to give up the votes of the more centrist Christians.

Liberals have to realize that people can think liberalism is wrong and those same people can still work toward liberal ideals.

Just because I don’t approve of a homosexual lifestyle doesn’t exclude me from supporting civil unions. Yes, there was a time when I couldn’t fathom why homosexuals should ever have the right to be married. But, through discussing that issue with some of my more patient liberal friends, I’ve changed my mind (or flipflopped, as some might say).

Look, I’m going to take the idea that homosexuality is wrong to my deathbed. Nobody is going to change that. But I can become convinced that denying hospital visitation and inheritance rights to homosexuals goes against the ideas of Christianity.

There’s always going to be bigots. There’s also always going to be hope.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thank you for writing this. It's good to know that dialogue can have an impact. Mind if I link to it?

Mrs. Ferrett, I don't mind at all. I should be thanking you for helping me expand my horizons.

Very much appreciated your post (found you through zoethe).
It's crazy though - I have family in Fort Smith, and I was born in Tulsa. Whoaaa. My dad even taught there for a few years. Do you mind if I friend you?

I think you make a lot of really good points, and I'm so reassured that there are actually rational people out there, because it does begin to feel like it doesn't matter how passionate I am for women's rights or for total equality of everyone everywhere, that nobody is going to change their minds just because I have all these reasons.

Something I've been examining since the election is that somehow, there's this huge divide in America, where part of the population is inclined to help others before themselves (welfare), to allow others the freedoms they don't need for themselves (gay marriage), and to protect the options of others that they don't intend to require for themselves (abortion). It never occurs to me to believe otherwise. I'm glad to see that "thinking otherwise" can occur to people such as yourself with a different background and a difference basis for your beliefs (I'm not religious, and I'm a down-to-the-ground feminist)

I've always regarded flip-flopping, as Kerry said, as a means of seeing complexities.

What a coincidence...I notice you're from Ithaca, and right now my plan is to get into the Southeast Asian Studies program at Cornell in their graduate history program.

I don't mind me friending you if you don't me friending you ;).

There is a divide in America, and often my pessimism says that it can never be bridged. But I'll try my best to understand it.

The reason we bring up Jerry Falwell is because Jerry Falwell and his ilk, including George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, etc, are the ones that are in power.

Look, my friend didn't lose custody of her child this year because she is Christian. She lost custody of her child this year because she is not, and the judge so stated (that she is incapable of being a fit parent), because she is not Christian.

You may feel whatever you like about stem-cell research, homosexuality, non-evangelicals, and what-have-you...but when you vote for the ones who want to deny people the right to exist, you have no right to complain that "I'm not like that".

Because no matter how reasoned you are...you vote for the unreasonable ones...and by doing so you put them in power.

You're right. It doesn't mean how reasoned I am with the type of judges in your friend's case.

But one thing I learned in civics class is that we are the government, and we put people in power. Saying "I didn't vote for [insert politician of choice here]", and thereby absolving yourself of blame, doesn't change things.

Let me be frank. Your type of argument isn't going to convince people like me and may even cause them to harden against you. By stating that I put unreasonable in power you're saying that I'm unreasonable.

That's exactly the type of argument that the Left needs to get out of. The Left needs to stop saying "Damn it, all we've got is bigots around here!" and say "Dang it, how do I reach people?"

Yes, there are plenty of hardline conservatives in churches these days. And the hardline conservatives will always be more vocal than the moderates. You're never going to get far with the hardliners, but the moderates can be convinced (and I know quite a few people in my Baptist Student Union who did vote for Kerry).

Basically, what I'm saying is that the Left to quit worrying about people's beliefs and start getting their ideas across. I really do believe both the Left and Right get caught up in what they believe rather than what they can do. Because, it's easier to get caught up in emotions than to get caught up in logic.

Just a note...you forgot that the electronic voting machines were built and run by Diebold, and that the same said company donated about a bizillionty dollars to Bush' campaign.

How is THAT allowable???

Money talks. Which is the problem with any political system based on capitalism.

amen

I forgot nothing. I'm just so sick and damned tired of arguing that point with people who won't bother to acknowledge it that I'm not even bothering to argue it with the ones that might acknowledge it.

You and me both, honey.

But, before you shout too loudly from the rooftops that Diebold is evil, keep in mind that they build and maintain most of the ATM's in the US. :)

You know, if diebold went out of business over this voter fraud, i'd be an idiot to tell you I wouldn't be inconvenienced, especially as I'm on a 24/7 schedule that frequently prohibits me from going to the bank. I'd also be an idiot to tell you I'd shed a FUCKING TEAR because I wouldn't, because they deserve it.

The ONLY MACHINE THEY MANUFACTURE THAT DOESN'T PROVIDE A PAPER TRAIL IS voting machines.

I got to know Diebold very well when I was working at a bank, and I have a friend who has worked for them (on ATM's...just an honest Joe trying to make a living) and I have been convinced for YEARS that they were crooked.

You should have seen what they charged us at the bank if we ran out of receipt tape on a three day weekend!!!

Why....because there wasn't a paper-trail???

Now...just think about the abject absurdity of this entire discussion for a moment, hm?

I don't know where you live, but I live in Texas. I have, for the last about four years, written an average of three letters a week to my government representatives. Almost without fail, the responses I get back (when they bother to reply at all), come in a very condescending, pat-the-ignorant-idiot-on-the-head type response that amounts to little more than "now now you stupid little liberal, you just don't worry your pretty little head about all this complicated government stuff, and let us godly folk run the country as the Bible dictated it best".
Right now I'm in Oklahoma, one of the most conservative states in the Union. But that's beside the point. Yes, writing letters is one effective way of letting the government know that there are dissident opinions out there. But that's all you are if you're by yourself. In our American system, you effect change by gathering votes. Say you get ten thousand signatures of registered voters on an issue you want to get across to a state senator. If that senator is a true politician, then he or she won't be foolish enough to discard ten thousand votes. Of course, this is a lot of work. But effecting change takes work.

I'm not trying to absolve myself of blame, but on CNN *today* there is a story that in addition to the 300 or so votes Bush recieved in a particular precinct in Ohio, there were an ADDITIONAL NEARLY 4000 VOTES GRANTED TO HIM. The entire precinct only *had* 638 votes! How in the hell did he get 4000+ votes in a precinct that didn't even have 4000 *people*??? Answer, he didn't...because they used the electronic voting machines, that I protested, that thousands of OTHER people protested, that organizations legally protested, that they were sued to keep from using because of their inaccuracies...and the lawsuits were thrown out of court, by Republican judges.
I'm just as perturbed about this as I was about the hanging chads in 2000. I was highly suspicious of electronic voting when it first got introduced. But our system is the way it is, even if it's not perfect.

As I said, I live in Texas, and I'm surrounded by these people...the absolute *worst* "Christianity" has to offer. I have seen a woman fire her housekeeper, a single woman with a disabled daughter, and no other means of income, for not being Christian./ With my own eyes.
Yes, there are people who claim to be Christian who aren't Christians. But you've got to look past those people because they aren't representative of the whole.

The reality of the matter is, these people fully believe that they are the most persecuted people on the planet. And they take the reality and distort that to their own views, George W. Bush included...or perhaps, especially.
People do have distorted views of their world. But it makes me laugh to read "Kerry supporters were living in the real world." Or to use hindsight to criticize our decision in Iraq. I'm fully aware that we went into Iraq for the oil, not for "humane" reasons or any other crap that the Bush administration spins. But what liberals have to realize is that Kerry failed to capitalize on that when he said, "Knowing what I know now, I still would have voted for the war in Iraq." Did the President mislead us, or was the President misled? I really don't have the answer to that question, but I've heard that things aren't always what they seem.

Now, while I will grant you that the left, especially here in Dallas, did a piss-poor job of reaching out to people, if you tell me I can't absolve myself of responsibility for the "elected" officials, even though I worked very hard this past two years to get them out of office, you damned sure can't absolve yourself if you voted for them.
I'm not absolving myself of what's going to happen in the next four years. But it seems to me that we're in agreement here: the Left needs to change how it reaches out to people.

"In our American system, you effect change by gathering votes. Say you get ten thousand signatures of registered voters on an issue you want to get across to a state senator. If that senator is a true politician, then he or she won't be foolish enough to discard ten thousand votes."

I'm not so sure about Kay Bailey Hutchinson; she seems to do whatever her preacher tells her to, but you bring up a good point. I've participated in some petition-drives over the last four years but had quite frankly forgotten about them, and don't honestly know what came of them. Friday (two days ago) I finally stopped crying hysterically as I'd done since Election Night, and started to think about what I'm going to do. What I'm going to do is start going to the DFA meetings and try to change how we're doing this, becuase this isn't working.

Honestly, though, I'm quite terrified that what *appeared* to be the popular vote was not, in fact, representative of the popular vote.

"Yes, there are people who claim to be Christian who aren't Christians. But you've got to look past those people because they aren't representative of the whole."

I am aware that they aren't "real" Christians. However, the "real" Christians vote them into office...often times *because* "they are Christians". Dude. George W. Bush honestly thinks he has a mandate from God to do everything he does and that he's never made any mistakes. Any Joe on the street preaching that gets diagnosed as psychotic delusional and medicated.

It makes me laugh to read "Kerry supporters were living in the real world." Or to use hindsight to criticize our decision in Iraq. I'm fully aware that we went into Iraq for the oil, not for "humane" reasons or any other crap that the Bush administration spins. But what liberals have to realize is that Kerry failed to capitalize on that when he said, "Knowing what I know now, I still would have voted for the war in Iraq." Did the President mislead us, or was the President misled? I really don't have the answer to that question, but I've heard that things aren't always what they seem.

I'm not using any hindsight to criticise the war in Iraq, I was against this one from the word go, and I joined the Army due to Desert Storm in the first place!. In a lot of ways, Kerry supporters were (and Bush supporters were not) living in the real world, though, to be honest, that's a stupid argument. Bush supporters, by and large, believe what he says, even when what he says is utterly devoid of any facts. Kerry supporters...or rather, people who don't support Bush, because quite honestly I don't LIKE Kerry and think he's got the personality of a wet dishcloth, are, by and large, far more aware of those facts. Bush supporters, in the main, don't even want to hear it.

Even assuming "Kerry won" (what with all the reports of the thousands of votes and the exit polls and what have you), I *still* think Kerry's campaign was ineffective, so we're in agreement there, but you won't ever convince me that Bush was misled about Iraq as ON THE EVENING OF 11 SEP 2001, he was screaming like a fucking madman at his advisors to find a connection to Iraq/Hussein, make one, or else.

" it seems to me that we're in agreement here: the Left needs to change how it reaches out to people."

I had somewhat assumed that it was only a Texas thing, but reading this entire thread has made me realize it was more nationwide.

Honestly, though, I'm quite terrified that what *appeared* to be the popular vote was not, in fact, representative of the popular vote.
My roommate and I had a discussion about making voting mandatory. He believes that if everyone had voted, Kerry would have won because then people would have actually done their homework on the candidates. It's an interesting theory.

That's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it's true. Too many people already take whatever factually devoid garbage is spoon fed to them by their churches/friends/neighbors/maniac on the street.

I don't know that requiring more uninformed voting is a good thing. Quite honestly, at this point, I'm far more for being required to pass a current events test. Of course, that would render Marbles McMumblemouth...and the vast majority of his supporters, ineligible to vote, though I'm not so certain that's a bad thing.

I'm fully aware that we went into Iraq for the oil, not for "humane" reasons or any other crap that the Bush administration spins.

And yet you voted for him? That, to me, is the most baffling thing I have heard from conservatives. You know that your president LIED to the American public, and continues to LIE about it, and that is okay with you? And not just any lie, mind you...but one that is taking lives every day.

We're already in Iraq. And from my research on the Vietnam War, I think it's more important to focus on what we're going to do there. I really don't think Bush or Kerry had an adequate grasp of the situation, but I think Bush understood more that we're sure as heck not going to get international support now.

By voting for Bush, who is costing us precious American lives overseas and at home, I do condone his actions. Yet, I don't have a straight answer for you. Instead, I recommend that you watch "The Fog of War", a documentary on Robert McNamara (the Secretary of Defense under JFK and LBJ). Then we can discuss McNamara's point about "necessary evil", which I think is applicable to this case.

I just went back,

greybeta and re-read what you are responding to...and I have to apologize. I feel like it came out far more venemous than I intended. I mean, the sentiment I won't apologize for...but it could have been read as very biting, which is not now I feel about you.

Let's have a deal...whenever we get into our Conservative/Liberal conversations, be they in my journal or yours, I will tell you if I am being a bitch, or ticked off. Other than that...assume I mean it the good way. :)

I don't agree with you, but I can understand it, which is what I LIKE so much about you.

I assumed you were emphasizing that the president lied to us and people are dying out there. Ferrett-sensei always taught me to use italics or bold to emphasize something, cause using caps indicates you're screaming.

I take things said on the Internet with a grain of salt. It goes down much better that way ;).

Strange, most people say they can't understand me. Then again, I tend to mumble rather than speak clearly in real life.

I like having these debates with you, because you never talk to me like I am an idiot for my beliefs, you always seem to be at least willing to listen with an open mind, and you explain what you believe without seeming like you think I am worthless if I don't automatically agree with you.

"Yes, there are people who claim to be Christian who aren't Christians. But you've got to look past those people because they aren't representative of the whole."

This is an example of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

You can read about it here:
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/n/no/no_true_scotsman.html

I never thought about that...

"She lost custody of her child this year because she is not, and the judge so stated (that she is incapable of being a fit parent), because she is not Christian."

I must say... that is truly abhorrent. All the more terrifying, too, because I know how real it is... the same thing nearly happened to one of my loved ones.

I don't know what to do with myself when humanity behaves in such a manner.

Yes, there was a time when I couldn’t fathom why homosexuals should ever have the right to be married. But, through discussing that issue with some of my more patient liberal friends, I’ve changed my mind (or flipflopped, as some might say).

I hope that I fall into the catagory of "your more patient liberal friends", per our conversation in my journal. :) I tried to be patient...I hope I succeeded.

And I very much appreciate hearing your side of it.

Don't worry, you're going to have be a lot more patient with me ;).

*hugs* Thanks for this awsome post.

You're welcome ;).

I'm glad to hear that Zoethe's post was inspiring. And I'm glad to hear that you were able to look beyond your personal religious beliefs and see that the laws in this country have to protect ALL of the citizens, and not just the ones in the majority. Legislating morality is always sticky business.

It's a strange concept to wrap one's head around - we have to have separate standards for our laws and for our religion. Which is why even though you may be morally opposed to abortion, you can still recognize that until there are better health care options for women in America and until the social conditions that lead to epidemic proportions of unplanned pregnancies are cured, there is still a legal need for safe and affordable abortion in America. You may be morally opposed to homosexuality, but still recognize that two people who love each other should not be driven apart by laws that make it impossible for them to care for each other in medical emergencies or in their old age. You may feel that God gave Man dominion over the earth, but still recognize that policies that damage our environment harm our children's future, and our own. And you be personally opposed to the use of fetal stem cells, but understand that millions of lives can be saved by allowing responsible medical use of those cells in research.

I think what bothers me, and many of my "liberal" friends, is that I DON'T have a problem with your religious beliefs. I don't think that they are trivial, or unimportant. But I don't want your religious beliefs imposed on me through the law we have to share - any more than you want my religious beliefs imposed on you. (How about outlawing the eating of meat in America! Egads!) I think that if we could recognize that public laws need to have a rationale that doesn't come from religious dogma, and allow law to be law and religion to be religion, having civil (ha! great pun!) discussion on the issues would be easier.

See comment below on how to attack conservative Christianity where it hurts...use the Bible against them. Mostly because any right-wing Christian is taught to tune out attacks against the Bible (I should know).

Nice piece, enjoyed reading it. there is much in the bible that could be used to persuede people to back the more liberal policies. In my country (the Netherlands) almost all our famous liberties and our Healthcare was instituted by Christians parties in goverment.

Christians who oppose certain things because of their feelings will not be swayed by arguments but you should engage them were their objections are in there belief. I myself am not a christian but use the bible sometimes to get my point across and found that that works better then just giving factial arguments and statistics.

The Left should not fear the bible because it is the biggest asset they could have. No other thing has such clear examples of helping those who are weaker or have erred and tells people to do the right thing. the left should be overjoyed that there is such a document which has so many thing in common with their viewpoints.

Nice piece, enjoyed reading it. there is much in the bible that could be used to persuede people to back the more liberal policies.
Agreed.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

We can work together

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject