[e_blazer1]

Perhaps "extremes" was the wrong choice of words. In my view, it seems that the Democratic Party has a more fragmented support base than do the Republicans. I also think it's comprised of a greater number of single issue voters. Women's rights, union workers, gay rights, greenies, blacks...that's a bunch of folks with some widely ranging special interests and it makes it hard to craft a platform that doesn't risk losing one element or another of the support base. The Republicans get to sing their usual mantra of lower taxes, blah, blah, blah and the choir joins in (no "ultra-conservative religious" implications intended).

BTW, I do find the use of that term (ultra-conservative religious voters) to be telling. There was a time not that long ago when folks who attended church regularly, believed in the Bible, and tried to live their lives accordingly were viewed as mainstream America. Now, more and more frequently they're portrayed as fringy nutballs. The fact is that the core of this country is still pretty religious, especially in the middle part of the country. That reality makes for a tough walk for the Democrats because there's no way to satisfy some important elements of their party without risking running afoul of even mainstream Christians. That's why, IMO, even with the horrible Bush mess as a millstone around the Republicans necks, I think this will shake out as a very close race in November.

[mook]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Perhaps "extremes" was the wrong choice of words. In my view, it seems that the Democratic Party has a more fragmented support base than do the Republicans. I also think it's comprised of a greater number of single issue voters. Women's rights, union workers, gay rights, greenies, blacks...that's a bunch of folks with some widely ranging special interests and it makes it hard to craft a platform that doesn't risk losing one element or another of the support base. The Republicans get to sing their usual mantra of lower taxes, blah, blah, blah and the choir joins in (no "ultra-conservative religious" implications intended).

you are right to some extent, although Republicans aren't quite as unified as you portray them. there are three groups that have had an alliance since Reagan. that alliance is falling apart:

religious conservatives: much more concerned with abortion, gays and poverty. they're sort of like blacks in the Democratic party. they get pandered to every four years, and then get small bones thrown to them because there's not enough national enthusiasm for their agenda. the major benefit they've received for their decades of loyalty have been growing power on the supreme court. the court hasn't really delivered the goods, though. abortions are still legal. gays are still gay (and becoming more socially acceptable). it seems to me the biggest opportunity for them to make an actual difference is in fighting poverty, and Bush's truly impressive achievements in Africa are the best example of tangible positive change.

unfortunately for economic conservatives, fighting poverty means raising taxes. economic conservatives were much happier with the "Mike Huckabee crowd" back when it only worried about inexpensive problems like gay marriage and Terry Schiavo.

military/foreign policy conservatives: this group feels we should build a bigger and bigger military and aggressively use it to cure the world's ills. doing so isn't cheap (a fundamental conflict with economic conservatives), as our $3 trillion wars point out. and doing so can be a distraction from curing social ills and isn't exactly "turning the other cheek" (a conflict with religious conservatives).

economic conservatives: this is the "government isn't the solution. government is the problem." crowd. do what you want, just cut my taxes, cut regulations and spend less money. but sometimes regulations protect God's green earth (increasingly upsetting religious conservatives) and their lean philosophy seems in direct contradiction of military conservatives (George Will cringed when Dick Cheney famously said that deficits don't matter).

Bush's failure as a president, and the subsequent demoralization of the Republican party, hasn't just been about the wars or his incompetence. the Republicans have been carefully balancing these three pillars for a long time with promises that when they finally rested control, they'd all be satisfied.

the worst thing that could happen to the party was success. when Republicans finally had complete control each pillar was disappointed in how little attention they got relative to the other two. (except perhaps the military conservatives, who were disappointed in how incompetent the administration was in using the military.)

footnote: obviously, not every Republican fits into the three buckets I describe. many have leanings in two or even all three of these areas. just like many Jewish Democrats don't really have a problem with gay marriage. but there are fundamental conflicts in the three outlooks on government, and I don't see them being ironed out in the next few years.

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

The fact is that the core of this country is still pretty religious, especially in the middle part of the country. That reality makes for a tough walk for the Democrats because there's no way to satisfy some important elements of their party without risking running afoul of even mainstream Christians.

I think that's a misconception, that Democrats will have a problem appealing to their base and to mainstream Christians. You are implying that ALL Christians are lumped into "ultra-conservative," but that's not the case. The Christian Right type of Christians are quite ultra-conservative, but are hardly the mainstream of Christianity in this country. There's a huge number of Christians who are much more moderate and compatible with the Democratic party.

Here's a good article, in my opinion, about the significant amount of Christian voters that would be perfectly willing to vote Democrat:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Comments like that explain why so many of us liberals who also happen to be evangelicals have stayed in the closet for so long. It is hard to overcome decades of suspicion, much of it richly earned by leaders of the religious right who used faith in the cause of a political power grab and in the name of intolerance and fear. But the lingering misconceptions are also painful reminders of the price people like myself have paid for staying silent while others claimed a monopoly on faith. And the country has paid, too.

That thought seems to have been on Sen. Barack Obama's mind last month, at the end of a presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C. "There have been times," Obama said, "when our Democratic Party did not reach out as aggressively as we could to evangelicals because the assumption was, well, they don't agree with us on choice, or they don't agree with us on gay rights, and so we just shouldn't show up. . . . And that means that people have a very right-wing perspective in terms of what faith means and of defining our faith."

Amen. Democrats weren't just passive nonactors who stood by helplessly while the GOP claimed Christ for itself. Instead of pushing back against conservatives' insistence that Democrats aren't religious, the party beat a hasty retreat, ceding the high ground in the competition for religious Christian voters and discussions of morality. The religious divide in U.S. politics that emerged -- call it the God gap -- represented as much a failure by Democrats as it did an achievement by Republicans.

The first religious bloc that professional Democrats wrote off was the evangelicals, despite the fact that fully 40 percent of born-again Christians describe themselves as politically moderate. Then party officials started to steer clear of Catholic voters, spooked by their opposition to abortion. Michael Dukakis's 1988 campaign was the first in Democratic history to turn down all invitations to appear at Catholic venues.

...

But now, after 30 years in the wilderness, the Democratic Party is being reborn. The "Come to Jesus" moment was Sen. John F. Kerry's loss in 2004. Catholic Democrats, shocked at the idea that it might be impossible for one of them to ever again win the White House, banded together to push back against their church and their party. Religious liberals, angered at being left out of the definition of "values voters," finally rose from their slumber. Kerry himself called on his colleagues to get over their discomfort with matters of faith.

Most important, led by the two main contenders for the party's 2008 nomination, religious Democrats are publicly reclaiming their faith.

[STOMP]

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

Strange . . . I thought Hillary was still in this thing. If she is, I hope she keeps on going. If she can't win, then she step aside.

Her winning the majority of the popular vote or the delegates is about as likely as the Blazers hosting the 1st round of this year's playoffs. I could see the super delegates deciding a split between those two votes, but it seems impossible to believe that a calculated political party with hopes of winning the presidency would risk alienating voters/derailing their momentum by voting against the clearly expressed will of the voters.

She has lost and so I agree that she should concede... I'm stating to question her motives. Is she so full of herself that she can't see the writing on the walls? Whats driving her campaign at this point? She can't win without him falling on his face in some spectacular manner (worse then Gary Hart). This worthy candidate has beaten her and the party is experiencing a rejuvenation in the wake of George, yet yet she's slinging mud at the future Democrat nomination for the President daily. It's just odd.

STOMP

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by Minstrel

I think that's a misconception, that Democrats will have a problem appealing to their base and to mainstream Christians. You are implying that ALL Christians are lumped into "ultra-conservative," but that's not the case. The Christian Right type of Christians are quite ultra-conservative, but are hardly the mainstream of Christianity in this country. There's a huge number of Christians who are much more moderate and compatible with the Democratic party.

I never implied any such thing and, in fact, know it to be true that Christians come in all types of political flavors. What I said was that the Democratic Party has difficulty in crafting a platform that satisfies certain segments of its support base without alienating others. There are huge numbers of Catholics who are registered Democrats and who certainly are not "ultra-conservative". However, there's no denying that a party platform that relates to much of the support base on gay marriage and abortion rights is going to give some Catholics problems because such positions run afoul of the Church's teachings on these subjects. A party platform that would appeal to those with strong environmental interests may turn off union voters if it's perceived that stronger regulations may cost union jobs. While the Republicans certainly have their factions (and a lot of the ultra-conservatives are really having a tough time accepting McCain) my sense is that there's not as big of a divide on core Republican positions.

I guess November will tell the tale.

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

However, there's no denying that a party platform that relates to much of the support base on gay marriage and abortion rights is going to give some Catholics problems because such positions run afoul of the Church's teachings on these subjects.

Yes, that's the standard wisdom, that says Democrats will have problems attracting votes from mainstream Christians (Catholics among them). The article I linked suggested that that's not as true as people believe...that there are a large number of them who will disagree on abortion and are not so invested against gay marriage and will still vote for Democrats.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

I never implied any such thing and, in fact, know it to be true that Christians come in all types of political flavors. What I said was that the Democratic Party has difficulty in crafting a platform that satisfies certain segments of its support base without alienating others. There are huge numbers of Catholics who are registered Democrats and who certainly are not "ultra-conservative". However, there's no denying that a party platform that relates to much of the support base on gay marriage and abortion rights is going to give some Catholics problems because such positions run afoul of the Church's teachings on these subjects. A party platform that would appeal to those with strong environmental interests may turn off union voters if it's perceived that stronger regulations may cost union jobs. While the Republicans certainly have their factions (and a lot of the ultra-conservatives are really having a tough time accepting McCain) my sense is that there's not as big of a divide on core Republican positions.

I guess November will tell the tale.

E Blazer, you're obviously correct that Democrats in recent years have struggled not to lose votes from religious voters on the basis of issues like abortion and tolerance of gays. But what's interesting to me is that those particular issues have become the litmus test for religious values in politics. You may recall that the Pope condemned the Iraq War outright before it began. Yet Catholic voters who vote Republican are not made to feel that they are violating their faith. The key point of the teachings of Jesus Christ (at least as I read the Bible) is to care for the poor and disadvantaged. Yet Christian voters who vote for Republicans who support policies that benefit the privileged at the expense of the disadvantaged are not made to feel that their politics are violating their faith.

It seems to me that the politics and policies of both major parties are, in different ways, incompatible with Christian teachings. The fact that Democrats are constantly on the defensive about this, while Republicans are virtually never challenged on this point, seems to me to be much more a matter of skillful political maneuvering on the part of Republicans than a matter of inherent irreligiosity of one part over the other.

Stepping Razor

[e_blazer1]

Stepping Razor (I love that name, BTW), you're obviously correct that both parties have supported issues that should give any good Christian pause (note that I'm registered independent so I can dodge this particular bullet to some degree), but that's not my point. The point is that, for better or worse (and I believe it's worse) gay rights and abortion are for many people deal-breakers for political support on either side of the issue. For the Democratic Party this is simply a huge problem because they have supporters who are torn both ways on these issues. Republicans can always take the position on policies that seem to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor that such policies end up benefitting all of society as the rich invest dollars in the companies and capital goods that provide jobs and make the economy run. You may not agree with that argument, but it's certainly a reasonable response that rings true with many people. Similarly with the Iraq War, there are many different ways that issue can be presented that would allow a person of faith to feel okay about supporting it (ending Saddam's reign of terror, avoiding a bloodbath of civil war by pulling out, etc.). There's just not much way to spin yes/no issues like abortion or gay marriage. Personally, I think it's sad that these issues are used to political advantage by both parties, but to deny that they are a huge problem for the Democrats is to play ostrich.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by Minstrel

Yes, that's the standard wisdom, that says Democrats will have problems attracting votes from mainstream Christians (Catholics among them). The article I linked suggested that that's not as true as people believe...that there are a large number of them who will disagree on abortion and are not so invested against gay marriage and will still vote for Democrats.

Obviously, people of faith make personal decisions that go against religious conventions all the time. There'd be a lot more babies in Catholic families in this country if everybody accepted the church's teachings on birth control. There's no doubt that there are many people who reject the traditional teachings on abortion and gay marriage, or who choose to take the position that God grants everyone free will to do as they wish and that government shouldn't legislate moral decisions (my own view). Regardless of that, to pretend that these issues don't give a political advantage to the Republicans is to ignore eight years of George Bush.

[mook]

Originally Posted by Stepping Razor

It seems to me that the politics and policies of both major parties are, in different ways, incompatible with Christian teachings. The fact that Democrats are constantly on the defensive about this, while Republicans are virtually never challenged on this point, seems to me to be much more a matter of skillful political maneuvering on the part of Republicans than a matter of inherent irreligiosity of one part over the other.

Stepping Razor

the reason why gays and abortion are such tough issues for Democrats among christians is because in both cases they've taken shortcuts through the judicial process. Roe v Wade has been a disaster for Democrats.

rather than relying on judicial fiat, Democrats should just rely on, well, democracy. abortion isn't a controversy in most other democratic republics because they've hashed it out in public debate and come to a conclusion. we let 9 supreme court justices do it for us, and it's never satisfied.

the irony is that 60+% of america is sympathetic to pro-choice. if Roe v Wade were struck down, I doubt there'd be more than a few states who could accumulate the votes to outlaw abortion.

in such a scenario, Pro-Life christians would still be upset about abortions, but at least they'd have to come to terms with the fact that we're a Pro-Choice country because that's the way most of us want it. there wouldn't be this bitterness over "liberal judicial activists". they'd have to finally realize that it's not about changing judges, it's about changing people's minds.

gay marriage is another "activist judge" issue. even though I'm liberal, I'm frankly glad Republicans have won the battle through ballots. (sorry, crandc.) it's deflated an issue that probably cost Dems the presidency in 2004.

time and demographics are the greatest allies of gay rights. in another decade or so, the people who favor gay rights will outnumber those who don't, and this issue will resolve itself in the voting booth. it saddens me that a lot gays have to suffer in the meantime, but it'd depress me much more to see Republicans win elections in the interim on this issue.

the real lesson here for both parties is that deciding fundamental issues like abortion or gay rights through courts decides nothing. it makes the winning side complacent and the losing side incredibly energized. it's also the great consolation I feel when I look at our current supreme court and see so many conservative judges. after 28 years of dominating conservative philosophy, we're due for a new liberal era in American politics. a conservative supreme court could be an important engine for that change.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Stepping Razor (I love that name, BTW), you're obviously correct that both parties have supported issues that should give any good Christian pause (note that I'm registered independent so I can dodge this particular bullet to some degree), but that's not my point. The point is that, for better or worse (and I believe it's worse) gay rights and abortion are for many people deal-breakers for political support on either side of the issue. For the Democratic Party this is simply a huge problem because they have supporters who are torn both ways on these issues. Republicans can always take the position on policies that seem to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor that such policies end up benefitting all of society as the rich invest dollars in the companies and capital goods that provide jobs and make the economy run. You may not agree with that argument, but it's certainly a reasonable response that rings true with many people. Similarly with the Iraq War, there are many different ways that issue can be presented that would allow a person of faith to feel okay about supporting it (ending Saddam's reign of terror, avoiding a bloodbath of civil war by pulling out, etc.). There's just not much way to spin yes/no issues like abortion or gay marriage. Personally, I think it's sad that these issues are used to political advantage by both parties, but to deny that they are a huge problem for the Democrats is to play ostrich.

You're totally correct about the current political environment. The Dems do have a religion problem, and you're right, it's mainly tied up in issues of sex and sexuality (birth control, abortion, gays).

I guess the thing that I would like people to question a bit more is *why* those issues, rather than others, have become the most salient markers of religion in politics -- "deal-breakers for political support," as you say. From my reading of the Bible, it seems *to me* that these issues are absolutely peripheral to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The idea that the most important message of the Gospels is to stop abortions and hate on gays is, well, preposterous.... but for political Christianity in modern America (which I distinguish from apolitical Christianity) gays and abortion are where it's at. It seems -- again, *to me* -- that the fact that these particular issues have become the litmus test for religiosity in politics has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus or even the historical legacy of the major churches, and everything to do with skillful politicking by conservatives who *want* to use religion as a wedge issue. And have done, very successfully, for 30 years or so now.

Remember, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest evangelical church -- initially *supported* Roe v Wade. The decision to rally the faithful in a crusade against abortionists was not some kind of *natural* or self-evident response to an unholy Supreme Court decision; it was a *political* decision that was self-consciously made to underwrite the rise to secular power of a small sub-set of the evangelical leadership (the "Moral Majority") in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

So, long story short, you're right, the issues of abortion and gays are vexed ones for Democrats. But in my opinion, those issues have the salience they do for secular reasons -- they help a particular faction in American life gain and maintain power -- rather than religious ones. To me the real tragedy of the last 30 years has been the corruption and perversion of American churches, which have entered into an unholy alliance with the Republican Party in the mutual pursuit of power, and distorted their teachings of the gospel accordingly. "Gain the world and lose your soul" and all that...

Stepping Razor