Matt Yglesias is reporting live from the Dems "Come Home, America" conference (oh, whatever), and he delivers this shocker:
[According to former Kerry pollster Diane Feldman], when you ask if America is "the greatest country in the world" most voters say that it is. When you ask if Democrats believe that America is the greatest country, most voters say that they do not.
I think it's clear that this perception creates some electoral problems.
Really? From Jeanne Kirkpatrick's "San Francisco Democrats" who "Blame America First", past Michael Dukakis's angst about pledging allegiance to the flag, and right up to Kerry and Clark whining about their right to wear the flag in their lapels, I would say that yes, it has been a bit of a problem.
And in related news, I expect some future pollster will discover that Dems also have a bit of a problem explaining how it is that they are deeply religious but never let it affect their public policy positions. The suspense is brutal, as the reality based commuity slowly confronts reality.
UPDATE: The Sunday Times Book Review takes a look at the history of American history, and shines a light on the Dem dilemma. I have a longer excerpt below, but this captures the spirit of the typical post-60's academic history department:
Yet what story, exactly, did the multiculturalists want to tell? Could all those detailed local and ethnic studies be synthesized into a grand narrative? Unfortunately, the answer was yes. There was a unifying vision, but it was simplistic. Since the victims and losers were good, it followed that the winners were bad. From the point of view of downtrodden blacks, America was racist; from the point of view of oppressed workers, it was exploitative; from the point of view of conquered Hispanics and Indians, it was imperialistic. There was much to condemn in American history, little or nothing to praise. Perhaps it was inevitable that multiculturalism curdled into political correctness.
More below.
In any event, the work of these historians was drastically undermined by the upheavals of the 60's and early 70's -- the Kennedy assassination and the other political murders, the Vietnam War, the urban riots, the student revolts, Watergate and the kulturkampf of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. As division and conflict consumed the country, the emphasis on American unity seemed misguided.... It was the blacks against the bigots, the doves against the hawks, the Beatles against Rodgers and Hammerstein. For historians, too, the choice was easy: for the neglected minorities and against the dominant dead white males.
As postwar seamlessness faded in the 1960's, a school of multicultural historians emerged to take the place of the consensus historians. This school has been subjected to a lot of criticism of late, but in fact it brought forth a golden age of social history. Blacks, American Indians, immigrants, women and gays had been ignored in the national narrative, or, more precisely, treated as passive objects rather than active subjects. The Civil War may have been fought over slavery, but the slaves were rarely heard from. Who knew anything about the Indians at Custer's Last Stand? The immigrants' story was told not through their own cultures but through their assimilation into the mainstream. But now, the neglected and powerless were gaining their authentic voices.
New studies increased our knowledge, enlarging and transforming the picture of America, even when the multiculturalists worked in very restricted areas. Judith A. Carney's ''Black Rice: The African Origins of Rice Cultivation in the Americas,'' for example, describes how the South Carolina rice industry was built not only on slave labor but on the agricultural and technological knowledge brought over by the Africans. The book has not found many readers outside the academy, but it nonetheless changes our understanding of the black contribution to American life.
...
Yet what story, exactly, did the multiculturalists want to tell? Could all those detailed local and ethnic studies be synthesized into a grand narrative? Unfortunately, the answer was yes. There was a unifying vision, but it was simplistic. Since the victims and losers were good, it followed that the winners were bad. From the point of view of downtrodden blacks, America was racist; from the point of view of oppressed workers, it was exploitative; from the point of view of conquered Hispanics and Indians, it was imperialistic. There was much to condemn in American history, little or nothing to praise. Perhaps it was inevitable that multiculturalism curdled into political correctness.
Exhibit A, Howard Zinn's ''People's History of the United States,'' has sold more than a million copies. From the start, Zinn declared that his perspective was that of the underdog. In ''a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people . . . not to be on the side of the executioners.'' Whereas the Europeans who arrived in the New World were genocidal predators, the Indians who were already there believed in sharing and hospitality (never mind the profound cultural differences that existed among them), and raped Africa was a continent overflowing with kindness and communalism (never mind the profound cultural differences that existed there). American history was a story of cruel domination by the wealthy and privileged. The founding fathers ''created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times,'' Zinn stated. The Civil War was a conflict of elites, and World War II was fought not to stop fascism but to extend America's empire. The United States and the Soviet Union both sought to control their oppressed populations, ''each country with its own techniques.'' The Vietnam War was a clash between organized modern technology and organized human beings, ''and the human beings won.'' We have traveled a long way from the sophisticated ironies of the consensus historians.
A reaction against distortions and exaggerations of this kind was sure to come. Battered by political correctness, basking in Reaganesque optimism and victory in the cold war, the country in the 1980's and 90's was ready for a reaffirmation of its fundamental values. After all, democracy was spreading around the world and history itself (treated as a conflict of ideologies) was declared at an end. One of the first historians to take heart from the cold war's conclusion and to see the value of re-examining the formative years of the republic was the early-American scholar Joseph J. Ellis. In ''Founding Brothers'' he wrote: ''all alternative forms of political organization appear to be fighting a futile rearguard action against the liberal institutions and ideas first established in the United States.''
Ellis was a major figure in the new school of founding fathers historians that emerged in the 1990's. But as an academic, he was exceptional. Most were amateur and freelance historians, since the universities had become hostile to the kind of ''great man'' history they were interested in doing...
Yet another reason the Dems would benefit from a bit more political diversity on campus.
The suspense is brutal, as the reality based commuity slowly confronts reality.
In point of fact, 98% of Bush's DNA is the same as that of a chimp. Round up and that lefty claim of 'Bush = Chimp' is looking pretty reality-based.
Yessiree ...
pretty reality-based indeed.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | June 03, 2005 at 05:48 PM
At least Matthew himself gets it: "Indeed, it's a particularly serious kind of electoral problem because my guess is that the perception is probably correct."
Posted by: Al | June 03, 2005 at 06:54 PM
"When you ask if Democrats believe that America is the greatest country, most voters say that they do not."
Hmm, which country do they think IS the greatest one?
The answer to that one is probably more fascinating and revealing than their answer to the first question.
On the other hand, I'm sure much of this discontent is just Bush hatred. Take out Bush, the numbers go up.
E.g., "Democrats, do you support saving puppy dogs from being eaten alive by rabid crocodiles?"
Yes, 90%, No 8%, No opinion 2%.
"Democrats, do you support Bush's plan to save puppy dogs from being eaten by rabid crocodiles?
Yes, 20%, No 78%, No Opinion 2%
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 03, 2005 at 07:11 PM
Well, the left has always had an appreciation for the utopian future we would experience, if we were smart enough to elect them. They're just having trouble getting their message out, as they keep telling us. The greatest country is the one they'll create, as soon as they're in charge!
The nonsensical "reality-based" phrase came from some lefty, IIRC. Another distortion of language and usage in an effort to conform the debate favorably in their direction. Turns out to be a pointed target to unmercifully poke fun at, as TM's concluding sentence does so well!
Posted by: Forbes | June 03, 2005 at 08:15 PM
Yglesias didn't phrase this quite as clearly as he might have. When I first read it, I thought the poll was asking Democrats what they think about America. On closer inspection, I believe the poll was actually asking voters at large what they think the Democrats think about America.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | June 03, 2005 at 08:56 PM
98% of Bush's DNA is the same as that of a chimp.
OK, pretty funny. But that remaining 2% sets him apart from a lot of us.
Yglesias didn't phrase this quite as clearly as he might have. When I first read it...
I think Matt threw that post up to remind the rest of us that he is human - it was so cryptic that even I could have written it.
That said, I was independently leaning towards Paul's conclusion - the poll did not claim that a majority of Dems do not think America is the greatest country; the poll claimed that a majority of folks in the street think that the typical Dem does not think America is the greatest country.
That is still a communications and image problem for the Dems, obviously. And I bet that, if asked, plenty of Dems would not pick America as the greatest country, but I base that on the reaction in his comments section.
Put another way - did Theresa and John do a great job of convincing folks that America was their first choice and guiding light? Hah!
Posted by: TM | June 03, 2005 at 10:37 PM
So do any polls exist that tell us how many people think the USA is "the greatest country in the world", and helpfully also tells us how the respondents identified themselves in terms of party preference?
Posted by: Fredrik Nyman | June 03, 2005 at 11:59 PM
"98% of Bush's DNA is the same as that of a chimp."
So since Democrats are not creationists, we can assume their relationship is much closer?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | June 04, 2005 at 12:32 AM
Speaking only for my bad self, perhaps the issue isn't that Dems think less of America, but rather are suspicious of the idea that there is a "greatest" country out there.
Certainly, the vast majority of Americans lack the requisite knowledge to make such a determination. They haven't been overseas, are unfamiliar with the basic info about other countries, etc.
I guess it's safe to say that Democrats are probably less receptive to reflexive chauvinism and blind nationalism than Republicans.
Which does hurt them in elections.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | June 04, 2005 at 04:18 AM
I read that post when it first went up and then got busy with something else. When I got back to the thread I was amazed to see at that time (there were about 25 comments) most replies took it as an opportunity to argue that the US is indeed not the greatest country in the world.
In other words, they completely missed the point. I for one understood exactly what Yglesias was talking about, but maybe I just spent more time thinking about it.
To paraphrase; 'The majority of the US electorate believe Democrats dislike the US.'
THAT's what the poll said - if what Yglesias posted was true. Yglesias' point, that this is a problem for Dems, is indeed a 'well duh...' moment, and to add impact one can simply read the comments from the Dems in the thread.
Posted by: Dwilkers | June 04, 2005 at 07:28 AM
He's slighgt wrong about this: "I think it's clear that this perception creates some electoral problems."
If he were more interested in accuracy, he might have said:
"It's clear that this observation creates some electoral problems."
Posted by: Bostonian | June 04, 2005 at 09:29 AM
Hmmm.
"Speaking only for my bad self, perhaps the issue isn't that Dems think less of America, but rather are suspicious of the idea that there is a "greatest" country out there."
Speaking as an AmerAsian immigrant from South Korea let me tell you, America is the greatest country in the world.
Posted by: ed | June 04, 2005 at 10:34 AM
Paul Z: "On closer inspection, I believe the poll was actually asking voters at large what they think the Democrats think about America."
Absolutely correct, but I didn't get it until I read Paul's comment. Good thing I didn't embarass myself by writing a blog post about the incorrect meaning of the quote.
Posted by: Half Sigma | June 04, 2005 at 10:45 AM
To clarify the my previous comment, I didn't mean to imply that the author of this blog embarrassed himself.
I meant that I was all set to write a blog post explaining the motivations of liberals (who make up the core of the Democratic party), but then I discovered the quote didn't mean what I fight thought it meant, thus ruining what would have been an insightful post.
Posted by: Half Sigma | June 04, 2005 at 10:48 AM
What makes it worse is that the perception is: 1) based on actual observation of the behavior of Democratic activists and the statements of Democratic front men, and 2) therefore too resilient for any PR campaign or reframing of "the message" to overcome.
However, if you're going to wait for Democratic activists and mouthpieces to start acting and talking as if they really do love America, don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto | June 04, 2005 at 10:48 AM
Francis: "the perception is: 1) based on actual observation of the behavior of Democratic activists and the statements of Democratic front men"
I agree with this. The core liberal who control the Democratic Party's message hate inequality, and they see the U.S. as the world's most economically and culturally successful country as being a source of inequality. It's not FAIR that we are rich while the world is poor.
Certain convervative pundits (like Rush Limbaugh) have done a good job of publicizing the notion that "liberals hate America," which is true in the sense that their goal it to bring America down to the level of the rest of the world.
Posted by: Half Sigma | June 04, 2005 at 10:58 AM
Michael Medved uses the phrase, 'Greatest country on God's green earth' regularly. And regularly he is challenged by callers on it. When he presses them to say what country is better, they usually say, 'Europe'.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | June 04, 2005 at 12:05 PM
Considering how vague and subjective the question is, it realy amiunt to asking, "Is the glass half empty, or half full?"
Or put another way, based on my casual experience listening to sports talk radio, I could probably find fans in ten different cities that think there team is the "greatest" - Yankee fans talk about 26 World Championships, Mets fans talk about Pedro, excitment, and this season, Braves fans talk about thirteen straight NL East titles - the reasons are there, if you want to close your eyes and look for them.
Or, if you don't want to see them there is a party for you, too. That's one of the many things that makes America great.
Posted by: TM | June 04, 2005 at 03:29 PM
"Certainly, the vast majority of Americans lack the requisite knowledge to make such a determination."
I'm sure the continual denigrating of the typical American as being an ill-informed simpleton isn't helping Democrats, either.
Posted by: Gerry | June 04, 2005 at 06:34 PM
Yglesias is worrying too much, if the Dems took the we dislike America mantra and mixed it with Yglesias's http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/04/estate_tax.html> "f**k the small businessman" rant, I think you have the makings of a winning party platform.
Posted by: Ripclawe | June 04, 2005 at 07:39 PM
Geezus, Yglesias actually did say, "F** the small businessman."
I know it's a cliche by now, but I'm too lazy to think of anything original: to wit, the Left looks for heretics, the Right looks for converts.
Not entirely true, of course. The Right certainly goes after its Gallileos too. Just seems they spend less time and energy doing so.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 04, 2005 at 08:11 PM
"I'm sure the continual denigrating of the typical American as being an ill-informed simpleton isn't helping Democrats, either."
To be clearer and fairer, the same can be said of the typical Canadian, Brit, Belgian, etc etc.
I think we need a Field of 64 Tournament.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | June 05, 2005 at 01:42 AM
"To be clearer and fairer, the same can be said of the typical Canadian, Brit, Belgian, etc etc."
And if the typical Canadian, Brit, Belgian, etc. were trying to persuade Americans to vote for them, it'd be baffling (and stunningly counterproductive) behavior. Since they're not, it's merely rude. The amusing thing is that a group of supposedly bright and educated people continue a course of acton that even dim, uneducated hicks can quickly recognize as stupidly self-defeating.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 05, 2005 at 06:47 AM
Hmmmm.
What a party platform. Americans are idiots, Christians are Theocrat Taliban bastards and screw the small businessman.
Is there another segment of the American population that liberals would like to deeply insult? I dunno. All I can imagine is the entire audience at the next Democratic Presidential convention singing "I'm so Ronry" a la Kim Jong Il from "Team America: World Police".
Or perhaps Cruz Bustamante or Sen. Robert Byrd using the "N" word *again* in front of an african-American audience.
sheesh.
Posted by: ed | June 05, 2005 at 07:39 AM
I've never been directly involved in any political campaigns (other than covering a few during my wasted youth as a reporter) but I don't think the "Mom's a Slut and Apple Pie is Poison" approach will work for the Dems in 2008.
Although I have to admit, it's novel. Make a helluva bumpersticker, that's for sure.
Maybe Lakoff needs to focus group test it first.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 05, 2005 at 11:30 AM
"And in related news, I expect some future pollster will discover that Dems also have a bit of a problem explaining how it is that they are deeply religious but never let it affect their public policy positions. The suspense is brutal, as the reality based commuity slowly confronts reality."
Oh, I don't know...
1. opposing unnecessary wars seems to be derived from religion -- of course, i'm only citing people like Pope John Paul II & MLK here (as in the following examples), so what I do in the face of thoughtful theologists like Pat Robertson & Chuck "Mark Felt sent me to jail!" Colson.
2. Helping the poor.
3. Opposing the death penalty.
Posted by: Jeff | June 05, 2005 at 11:34 AM
I agree with Jeff, the histrionics of Democrats is quite reflective of a religious mentality, whereas the Republican emphasis on the free market, aggressive defense, and small federal government (well, in theory) would seem antithetical to the beliefs of many Sunday School types. I lived in Minnesota for a few years and can attest that strident, overbearing liberalism and censorious, puritantical religiosity go together hand in glove (particularly the sadomasochistic, self-denying strain of Christianity).
Each party is self-conflicted about its relationship to religion. There would be fewer internal contradictions if the Democrats absorbed the religious hysterics, but for a variety of reasons that will not happen anytime soon. Meanwhile the city-based Democrats continue to nominate politicians who insist they just fell off a haystack a few minutes ago. It's a strange world, isn't it?
Posted by: Udolpho | June 05, 2005 at 12:10 PM
Better that puppy dogs be eaten alive by rabid crocodiles than that any should be blended into nutritive smoothies...
Posted by: triticale | June 05, 2005 at 12:45 PM
Hmmm.
"3. Opposing the death penalty."
Despising Christmas.
:)
Posted by: ed | June 05, 2005 at 01:09 PM
1. Of course we might tend to disagree on which wars are "unnecessary". I seem to recall that the first war with Iraq to remove them from Kuwait was "unnecessary" to the majority of the democrats in congress. Not sure whether Cosovo was "unnecessary" - no, wait, that was the one that republicans branded "unnecessary" but the democrats liked. Did we all agree that Afghanistan was "necessary". Of course it was definitely going to become a quagmire so probably "unnecessary."
2. "Helping the poor" is good. Of course we might tend to disagree on how to go about that - exactly. Some might suggest confiscating and transferring income from the "wealthy" (we might have to talk about the definition there) while others might suggest that creating jobs and economic opportunity would be a better long term solution. Of course we shouldn't trade with poor countries because we only make them poorer and besides, Oxfam would object.
3. The death penalty. Now there's an interesting discussion. Actually, I'm not all that enamored of the death penalty myself. In fact, I'll gladly replace the death penalty for life in prison without possibility of parole. While we're on the subject of state-sanctioned death, perhaps we should eliminate the 90-95% of elective abortions that don't involve rape or incest. I'd be more than happy to see Roe v. Wade overturned to allow the people in the states to settle the issue democratically. I think you could quote John Paul II here also, just for the sake of consistency, of course.
Of course as a "Sunday School type" Taliban extremist theologue, censorious puritantical religious right wing fanatic nut I probably shouldn't be expressing my opinions in the public arena - separation of church and state, you know.
Posted by: Harry Arthur | June 05, 2005 at 01:15 PM
Oh, I don't know...
Jeff, you're a sly one, but you haven't foxed the (tired) Old Grey Fox today.
I am not saying that the Democrats *cannot* incorporate a relgious appeal into their message; I am just saying that so far, they have failed spectacularly in connecting with voters on this theme.
And the militant secularists that rise up in force in the comments at Atrios and DKos are no help, either.
Posted by: TM | June 05, 2005 at 01:17 PM
TM:
"And the militant secularists that rise up in force in the comments at Atrios and DKos are no help, either."
But will those militant secularists rise up if someone uses theological doctrine or teachings to support liberal/left policies? E.g., "We have a Christian/biblical obligation to have a national health care policy?" Or "affordable living wage"?
I don't see them raising much fuss. Particularly in the "redistributive justice" sphere.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 05, 2005 at 01:33 PM
"so what I do in the face of thoughtful theologists like Pat Robertson & Chuck "Mark Felt sent me to jail!" Colson."
Probably the same thing I do in the face of thoughtful anti-war banners like “We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot Their Officers”--grit my teeth. He also doesn't seem to be basing his war opposition on religion:
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 05, 2005 at 01:34 PM
"Mom's a Slut and Apple Pie is Poison"
I really like that! Did you think of it yourself? I look forward to using it in the future!
Posted by: Campesino | June 05, 2005 at 03:02 PM
"I really like that! Did you think of it yourself? I look forward to using it in the future!"
Thanks. Although to be honest it's not at the top of my list of lifetime accomplishments.
Thank, er, God (keeping with the theme of the post).
It's trademarked.
And you owe me $32 for that first use. All subsequent uses are $22. I give group discounts.
I take Paypal.
Actually, my mom is/was a Marine. How about a "Mom's a Marine and You Better Damned Well Eat that Apple Pie!" slogan? That'd be for the Pat Buchanan/David Duke ticket.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 05, 2005 at 03:20 PM
I certainly hope the official Democratic response turns out to be the one suggested by Geek: that they couldn't possibly bring themselves to utter so meaningless a formula as "America is the greatest country in the world". To hear this plea from the same people who gave us the Bridge to the 21st Century-- well, you try to top that for comedy.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | June 05, 2005 at 04:04 PM
Yglesias' observation, far from being an essential insight into the nature of Dems, is far more likely to be a reflection of the out-of-power party. Similar poll in, say '66--what do you think the results are?
Far more interesting was the news from that Pew political typologies piece you posted on a few weeks back that found that "disadvantaged Democrats" were pessimistic and cynical about their outlooks while their poorer, GOP kin ("Pro-government Conservatives") were upbeat. I'd argue that based on GOP policies, the DD's are a lot more in touch with reality, but from a political strategy perspective, that's beside the point.
Posted by: Jeff | June 05, 2005 at 09:18 PM
"Is far more likely to be a reflection of the out-of-power party. Similar poll in, say '66--what do you think the results are?"
That's a fair question.
My guess: Probably similar, with those on the Right in 1966 'dissing the country, although perhaps for different qualitative reasons.
It seems to me that the Left's dominance in America during that period was much more extensive than the Right's control today. After all, the Left not only controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, but also large swathes of American culture, from the news media to Hollywood, from academia to even many mainline churches (albeit to a lesser extent).
So the Right in the 60s was *really* in the wilderness but, paradoxically, had the advantage of having to evolve in and among liberal/left controlled institutions. Today, the Left can retreat to their own controlled fiefdoms to lick their wounds (mixing terribly my metaphors) but not really having to question itself. The Right didn't want to question where it went wrong either - no movement really does. But because the Right had nowhere to retreat and isolate itself, it was forced to answer those difficult questions.
This is a real problem for the liberal/left today. Where do they go to re-examine themselves? What sources can they return to to find attractive policies. It's more than packaging or the right codewords or catchy phrases.
Second: It also seems to me that Democrats (and, of course, I'm greatly generalizing) conflate the country and the government. For many, the two are synonymous; or even one. As Clinton observed in a SOTU address, "You cannot both love your country and also hate your government." [well, certainly the liberal/left would disagree with that argument today].
I think the Right, for the most part, understands that America is more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the New Deal programs or WIC programs or any other state action. The Left on the other hand tends to view America, certainly in modern times, as measured through state action, through policies that promote social justice or racial equality or a fairer nation. If the government is not enacting policies to achieve such goals, then the country is on the wrong path.
So, sure Republicans in the 1960s would give low marks to America but for different reasons.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 05, 2005 at 10:34 PM
"'disadvantaged Democrats' were pessimistic and cynical about their outlooks while their poorer, GOP kin ('Pro-government Conservatives') were upbeat. I'd argue that based on GOP policies, the DD's are a lot more in touch with reality..."
Of course some of us might tend to disagree about the reality thing. Often the real problem with pessimism and cynicism is that they become self-fulfilling prophecies. I believe I'll stick with "upbeat" myself.
Posted by: Harry Arthur | June 06, 2005 at 12:51 AM
SMG, sorry, it's incorrect to say "my mom is/was a Marine". Once a Marine, always a Marine - there is no "was". Maybe that's what you meant by "is/was". So, seriously, is your mother a Marine or was that just her parenting style? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Excellent observations IMHO. I'd suggest that the right, because it was largely marginalized in the larger culture, actually had to develop cogent arguments and analysis for its (our) beliefs and to be able to express them logically. On the other hand, the left, because it largely owned the larger culture, has let its cognitive abilities atrophy to the point that the predominant leftist argument now is a pie in the face or an ad hominem tirade. It isn't that we disagree with Bush or his policies and can actually logically explain why, it's that he's a chimp, he's a dummy, he's Hitler, and I hate him ('cause he won) so he must be not only wrong, but evil.
Sometimes we just need to agree to disagree, agreeably.
Posted by: Harry Arthur | June 06, 2005 at 01:11 AM
"And in related news, I expect some future pollster will discover that Dems also have a bit of a problem explaining how it is that they are deeply religious but never let it affect their public policy positions. The suspense is brutal, as the reality based community slowly confronts reality."
The point here isn't that the liberals don't have at least some beliefs that are derived/compatible with religion (though conservatives might disagree on how to implement the "cures"). It's that many liberals have denigrated conservative Christian beliefs-in effect saying that if a conservative Christians beliefs on abortion or gay marriage, for example, are derived from Christianity then that person should be excluded from being a judge, and a conservative Christian politicians Christian beliefs shouldn't be considered when making or voting on laws.
However, there are liberal Christians, and some of them state that helping the poor, and beliefs against the war and death penalty are Christian beliefs.
So......If conservative Christians shouldn't let their Christian beliefs affect their public policy positions (per liberals) how can liberal Christians explain how it is that their Christian beliefs don't effect their public policy positions.
Posted by: Sue | June 06, 2005 at 01:54 AM
Sue, it's the mainstream thing. You know, the mainstream, the one that runs through France. (Sorry, stole that from Ann Coulter).
Posted by: Harry Arthur | June 06, 2005 at 02:08 AM
Actually, very nearly all of Bush's DNA is identical with Hitler's. Therefore Bush == Hitler. QED. Or not.
Posted by: Zev Sero | June 06, 2005 at 03:34 AM
Gee folks, the last time I read the New Testament, the state (or the “nation”, in this context) as well as the “small businessman”, was beside the point. Lessee …..
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s , render unto God what is Gods.”
“Blessed are the ……. [Outsider]”
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
I don’t think Christ would have held an RNC membership card (or a DNC one, for that matter). Seems that I recall his death was partly caused by the threat he represented to the established order of his day. Do you really think he would have joined the Chamber of Commerce or the Rotary Club? What were those chances of a rich man entering the Kingdom?
“Separation of Church and State” limits the government – not the citizens. It does not mean that governmental officials cannot have religious views or that voters should not take their religious views into the voting booth – it simply means that the government should not establish or favor one set of religious views by giving it a priority position over any other set of religious views. The government is and should not be opposed to religion – it should be neutral – except where a citizen’s rights to exercise his or her religion are being threatened. At that point, it should intervene to preserve the right of free exercise. That, my friends, is pro-religion – not anti.
As to loving this country, it is precisely because I love
Posted by: TexasToast | June 06, 2005 at 09:31 AM
Harry:
Yes, you're absolutely right: once a Marine always a Marine. And she WAS a Marine where she met my Dad (also a Marine), who we lost this past October.
That's why I used the ugly is/was phrasing.
She's (obviously) retired but you still don't want to mess with her. Remember how your Mom would warn you after you were acting up, "Just wait young man until your Father gets home!"?. My Dad would scare us by saying, "Just wait until your Mom gets home."
Aiyee, run for it.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 06, 2005 at 09:50 AM
The problem hardcore multiculturalists are going to have is that if you start from the premise that every culture must be evaluated only in its own terms, you're wandering in a wilderness that forces you to make no judgments at all. Most people practicing a form of multiculturalism, ISTM, are only adopting half of its tenets: all non-American cultures must be internally evaluated, but American culture and values are to be evaluated as if from the outside. Very Einsteinian. But no rationale is given for why "mainstream American culture" is judged against a different standard - beyond the lame one of its dominance, which, to listen to its detractors, occurred either as randomly as where bread mold first takes hold (a butterfly flaps its wings in Singapore - Maori culture achieves supremacy) or solely through murder and pillage - never because those exposed to it liked it.
So Democrats have trapped themselves in their own rhetoric; they can't say "America is great" without finishing the sentence, "but of course no more great than any other culture, each of which serves its followers in uniquely appropriate fashion." This mealy-mouthedness in the name of inoffensiveness leads to the perception that Dems dislike America, which I doubt is really true.
A question about the '60s: Someone who remembers adult conversation back then, would it be accurate to say that conservatives in that era were vocal in their "love of country" but equally vocal in their conviction that "their" country had been hijacked by inimical or destructive interests?
Posted by: Jamie | June 06, 2005 at 11:22 AM
Jamie: A short answer to your question:
A question about the '60s: Someone who remembers adult conversation back then, would it be accurate to say that conservatives in that era were vocal in their "love of country" but equally vocal in their conviction that "their" country had been hijacked by inimical or destructive interests?
Consider: It was the conservatives who drove around with bumper stickers saying "AMERICA: Love it or leave it!" My recollection is that by about 1968, when I got to be old enough to first start taking notice of world events (age of 9), anti-Americanism was already well established among the Left. The aforementioned bumper-stickered conservatives were widely considered yahoos by "polite" society. The Left had already done a good job of branding them by that time.
Posted by: Cousin Dave | June 06, 2005 at 06:31 PM
And you owe me $32 for that first use. All subsequent uses are $22. I give group discounts.
SteveMG -
Put $32 on my account
Posted by: Campesino | June 06, 2005 at 08:41 PM
Cousin Dave, I was just out of high school in 1968 and I remember distinctly the left being very proud to display the flag of North Viet Nam in virtually every anti-war demonstration and on virtually every college campus. It wasn't that they were just anti-war, that would have been fine with me, it was that they actively supported victory by our enemies even over our own troops.
Posted by: Harry Arthur | June 07, 2005 at 10:00 AM
Just another datapoint, but when Clinton was re-elected, I seem to recall that you could find people on FR who were just as out there wrt partisanship and incumbent-hating as anyone you can find on DU today... but I don't remember even the wildest posters on FR badmouthing the country as such, or threatening to move elsewhere. (Let alone such threats by people who weren't FR crazies.) Whereas such sentiments are thick on the ground today at DU. We all can name various celebrities who threatened to leave the country if Bush was re-elected, and I don't remember any celebrities making that threat in 1996.
It could be that I'm forgetful, but I think there's a difference there over and above what party's in office. From what I remember of the 60s and 70s, as well, when the right was wandering in the wilderness, they were always patriotic. They'd snarl and sneer at some of their fellow Americans, but never at America itself.
Posted by: jaed | June 07, 2005 at 08:06 PM
jaed, I think you cracked the code.
Posted by: Harry Arthur | June 08, 2005 at 09:27 AM