We can work together

[greybeta]

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.

Comments

[ladydiana.livejournal.com]

"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.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

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.

[ladydiana.livejournal.com]

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.