Main Points on the Political Continuum

[GoodWitch58]

I was shortening it a bit, but yes, this is what I meant. The social conservative movement started organizing after Roe. A number of political action groups which today are quite influential in the republican party got their start in response to the Roe ruling.

I am not disagreeing with that. In fact, I do agree since it is what happened.

What I was trying to say is that Roe v Wade is a convenient issue to use to move people to the right way of thinking, so that other issues can be realized.

The citizens who follow because of that extremely emotional issue, can be led (by the Party--or portion of the Party operatives--or in many cases, the ministers in their churches)) into other areas--because they equate the two.

It's like the people I know who say, I am a Christian so I am a Republican...as if there were no Christians who are affiliated with another party or perhaps no party at all. ..and no non-Christians who are Republicans!

The interweaving of religious affiliation with political affiliation is what I was addressing. And, according to the history I have studied, it got its start when the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1965, and the southern democrats aligned themselves with the Republican Party.

 

[30ashopper]

"Family Values" comes to mind.

Yep!

I am not disagreeing with that. In fact, I do agree since it is what happened.

What I was trying to say is that Roe v Wade is a convenient issue to use to move people to the right way of thinking, so that other issues can be realized.

The citizens who follow because of that extremely emotional issue, can be led (by the Party--or portion of the Party operatives--or in many cases, the ministers in their churches)) into other areas--because they equate the two.

It's like the people I know who say, I am a Christian so I am a Republican...as if there were no Christians who are affiliated with another party or perhaps no party at all. ..and no non-Christians who are Republicans!

The interweaving of religious affiliation with political affiliation is what I was addressing. And, according to the history I have studied, it got its start when the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1965, and the southern democrats aligned themselves with the Republican Party.

Yes but I don't think you would have seen strong national grass roots growth in this area without Roe. People (a lot of people) took that ruling as a direct attack on something they held very sacred. Had the SCOTUS not injected the federal government into the debate, I don't think we'd have the political divide we have today. It would have stayed local. The ruling itself independent of the subject matter enfuriated a lot of people. It split the country ideologically.

 

[idlewind]

I am not disagreeing with that. In fact, I do agree since it is what happened.

What I was trying to say is that Roe v Wade is a convenient issue to use to move people to the right way of thinking, so that other issues can be realized.

The citizens who follow because of that extremely emotional issue, can be led (by the Party--or portion of the Party operatives--or in many cases, the ministers in their churches)) into other areas--because they equate the two.

It's like the people I know who say, I am a Christian so I am a Republican...as if there were no Christians who are affiliated with another party or perhaps no party at all. ..and no non-Christians who are Republicans!

The interweaving of religious affiliation with political affiliation is what I was addressing. And, according to the history I have studied, it got its start when the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1965, and the southern democrats aligned themselves with the Republican Party.

The other part of the equation is the organizing of the civil rights movement around the black churches who have remained faithful to the Democrats.

 

[GoodWitch58]

The other part of the equation is the organizing of the civil rights movement around the black churches who have remained faithful to the Democrats.

I agree. And, so we end up with an interesting context where the use of Roe V Wade becomes the giant wedge issue which has worked to divide the communities for years.

 

[GoodWitch58]

Yep!



Yes but I don't think you would have seen strong national grass roots growth in this area without Roe. People (a lot of people) took that ruling as a direct attack on something they held very sacred. Had the SCOTUS not injected the federal government into the debate, I don't think we'd have the political divide we have today. It would have stayed local. The ruling itself independent of the subject matter enfuriated a lot of people. It split the country ideologically.

Perhaps.

I'm just saying that the Republican Party operatives took the issue and turned it into a very successful wedge between people...it was easy because almost everyone does have a very strong emotional reaction to the ruling..and the Rs have used it relentlessly to push their agenda--while everyday people think the leadership of the party really cares about it..

 

[LuciferSam]

Which quadrant do you live in?

I'm somewhere around 4 o'clock. 4:20 we'll say.

 

[idlewind]

Perhaps.

I'm just saying that the Republican Party operatives took the issue and turned it into a very successful wedge between people...it was easy because almost everyone does have a very strong emotional reaction to the ruling..and the Rs have used it relentlessly to push their agenda--while everyday people think the leadership of the party really cares about it..

The Democrats are equally guilty. For example, everytime a Republican utters the words reform social security the Dems start their mailouts and drumbeating. The result is no one is willing to touch one of the major pieces in our fiscal nightmare. 50 years from now I would imagine our grandchildren will view our failure to fix social security as the worst failure of our time.

 

[Linda]

The Democrats are equally guilty. For example, everytime a Republican utters the words reform social security the Dems start their mailouts and drumbeating. The result is no one is willing to touch one of the major pieces in our fiscal nightmare. 50 years from now I would imagine our grandchildren will view our failure to fix social security as the worst failure of our time.

[/RIGHT]

I suspect that we will know what right of center looks like when both the democrats and republicans oppose something. It will take political courage from our corrupt politicians to get out of this fiscal mess. IMO this is a good start - note how both sides oppose this plan - Right Wing Nut House ? PAUL RYAN’S LONELY VOICE

In addition to the fiscal side, I think that right of center is socially moderate (forget running on family values and leave the abortion issue alone) and wants a strong national defense.

 

[GoodWitch58]

The Democrats are equally guilty. For example, everytime a Republican utters the words reform social security the Dems start their mailouts and drumbeating. The result is no one is willing to touch one of the major pieces in our fiscal nightmare. 50 years from now I would imagine our grandchildren will view our failure to fix social security as the worst failure of our time.

I am not disagreeing that each party has made a contribution to the situation.

The main difference I am seeing is that in the case of Social Security that you bring up, most of the members of the Democratic Party sincerely agree with the position the Party leaders take.

In the case of Family Values or Roe v Wade, it is primarily used as a wedge issue; while many people who are members of the Republican Party believe in strong family values and have strong, valid, sincere beliefs about choice and abortion...most of the political operatives and the leadership of the Party do not-- but, they have chosen to use it because it works for them...there is a hypocritical element to the campaigns. There is a "win at all costs" theme running through their campaigns...it is about power and control and whatever it takes to get there.
The Democrats are also about power and control, but have not been as hypocritical in their grasp for power according to the research I have done. Some of the members of the Party would say to the detriment of the Party and its members--especially about Health Care.

(Obviously, I am biased because I am a Democrat, but I like to think I can also be objective about the processes most of the time)

I am not saying that this kind of thing does not happen in both major parties. just look at John Edwards--but, that is an individual case--not a whole party position. In the last 20 years I have found it curious that so many poor, white southerners have voted with the Republican Party for policies and positions that actually have harmed them! so, I began to look for an explanation for it.

It is interesting to me to delve into the campaign strategies and decisions and see what really has occurred.

I just wish more people were better informed about how things work and why. So many get turned off by politics and feel they want no part of the entire process, but there is no way to avoid politics in our society, and if we leave it to the political operatives and the party leaders, then we all suffer IMO.

I had a conversation with Florida's former Senator Bob Graham recently. He has established the Graham Center for Civic Education at the University of Florida with the goal of educating students from grade school to college and people everywhere about citizenship. After 38 years as a public servant he knows a thing or two about how government works and should work and each citizens' role in that process. He is attempting to bring Civics Education back to the classroom.

I recommend his latest book to anyone who wants to learn more, or wants the students to know more about what responsibilities we as American citizens have for our government and some ways that we can affect outcomes of political movements.

America - The Owners Manual by Bob Graham with Chris Hand.

(Note to Andy--My former boss is a Harvard man, so beware )

 

[Andy A]

Caution noted. My intent was not to knock Ivy League schools only, it was to point out that you could attend a "second rate" or as Bob so succinctly and elitistly put it, "public university" and still be well known and succeed in life. (Back to the original thread content)