Asymmetrical Information

Speaking purely anecdotally, I haven't seen social conservatives get more moderate over gay rights in the south. I have family members who are literally beginning to froth at the mouth over all these gay people who are "taking over the country"... let me tell you, there's nothing more frightening than being trapped in a room full of frightened protestants talking about gay rights.

If it doesn't seem like it to you coastal types, and it doesn't seem like it to us southern types, where does it seem like it? And how are we getting more pro-life? Respectfully: how do you know?

Interesting stuff. From a liberal Dem point of view, I think you're right about the multiplicity of diverse interest groups and its impact on the Democrat ability to hold together a coalition. I'm not sure I'd agree that it pulls the party to the left, though; personally I feel I've been watching a centering drift for a while. Witness the DLC and "Democrats" like Lieberman, for example. They've made space enough to the left for a fairly sizable green party presence the last few years.

But the Republicans are suffering a bit more fractionation than you admit. Libertarians don't get along perfectly well with either group you list. And Neocons are a whole new ballgame, tending to be pro-business like an economic conservative, but less concerned with deficit spending unlike an econotimc conservative.

Not quite the diverse landscape the Dems have, but not trivially simple either.

You've given me some interesting food for thought.

"... doorknob hit them on the ass..."

"...celebrate gay wedding ceremonies next to the creche in the town square..."

"...sucking chest wound of the budget..."

Your writing seems to be getting more...colorful.

I also agree that Jane has made a few good points, though I don't know how anyone can concluded that the Dems are further to the left than the Reps are to the right (even marginally).

But I do have to say that multiplicity of the Democratic party is a traditional trait, and not a new one. Remember Will Rogers's famous line?

The Democratic party has over the last hundred years managed to juggle segregationists, integrationists, internationalists, protectionists, feminists, white populists, etc. Still, the Democratic party always seems to either win a national majority or just barely lose it (I'm talking popular votes). Today the Democratic party is, as a result of Clinton's embrace of free trade and George Bush's abandonment of fiscal discipline, both the party of trade unions and the party of fiscal discipline and free trade. As such, I expect that Jane's prediction of the Democratic Party's implosion is greatly exaggerated.

Shouldn't a 'Left - Right' continum run from Totalitarians (typically communists and fascists, both of whom have sucessfully industrialized murder with the only practical difference being the fascists allow you to own the property they control), Socialists, Democrats, Republicans,Libertatians,Anarchists? On the far left you have the community run amok, on the far right the individual amok (simple thuggery)?

Bob Casey didn't get to speak at the 92 convention because he refused to endorse Clinton, NOT because he was pro-life. Pro-life politicians in fact have spoken at Democratic conventions, most notably David Bonior, who also was selected to the second ranking leadership position among House Democrats. That doesn't sound like much of a litmus test to me.

Also, Democrats have a much wider array of views on the gun control issue than Republicans do. As they do on the Iraq war.

In general, I see no evidence that this supposed profusion of litmus tests and interest groups leads to a lack of ideological flexibility on the part of Democrats. If anything, it's the other way around. After all, Clinton was willing to take on the base of his party on issues like NAFTA and welfare reform. Can anyone name a Republican of the last twenty years willing to risk taking on his base?

P.S.
There are no true fiscal conservatives left in the Republican party anymore. Fiscal conservatices care about deficits. The Republicans of today cut taxes, but do nothing serious about cutting spending.

Couldn't you say that the foaming-at-the-mouth interest groups under the Democratic tent are more visible now, and the similarly foaming interest groups under the Republican tent less so? The counterpart of the fervent NARAL member -- being the fervent Operation Rescue member -- seems to have lost political power since the early- to mid-1990s. It seems to me that the truly hard-core evangelical Christians have retreated somewhat, politically (would John Ashcroft count as an exception?) and evangelical Christians who don't embrace gay rights, abortion, divorce, &c., but aren't fanatical about any of those positions, still feel, for now, reasonably comfortable under Bush. But I wouldn't go so far as to say the hard-core foamers are no longer an issue for the Republicans; the political and cultural atmosphere may change again.

I'm with Ewin, by the way. Would-be Republicans may be watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy in Atlanta or Charlotte but definitely not in Dawsonville or, for that matter, Mitford.

I am genuinely amazed that anyone could seriously dispute Jane's point that Dems are farther left than the GOP is to the right.

Anyone who has attended gatherings of both parties' hard core partisans would immediately understand how accurate Jane is.

RC, that wasn't what the Democrats I knew at the time thought, including some who are sufficiently keyed in to Democratic backroom politics to have a good idea of why he was kept off the stage. As for gun control, that's just weird; there are plenty of Republican congressman and even Senators who are pro-gun-control.

There are lots of Republican politicians who take on their base in various places, but the two examples you cite from Clinton just prove my point: welfare reform and NAFTA could be done because the interest groups that opposed them were not enough, by themselves, to swing the election -- and because there was a Republican congress. The measure would never have gotten through a Democratic house. Moreover, by that same logic, Bush is "taking on" his base with steel tariffs, which are IMHO a spectacularly bad idea, but also outside the traditional Republican hunting grounds.

Jessica/Ewin:
I wasn't trying to say that the Republican base had embraced the cause of gay rights with abandon, but they certainly haven't moved to the right on the issue, because there wasn't really very far to go without advocating the death penalty for sodomy. I'd say that in the heavily Republican small town my mother hails from, there's more tolerance for homosexuality happening elsewhere, tempered by a feeling that people from the city are, as always, trying to tell them how to live. Support for things like sodomy laws is waning. That doesn't mean they've become liberal, but they've become less conservative on the issue.

I certainly wasn't arguing that the Republicans have no radicals. But they've got their radicals on a leash. NARAL, on the other hand, gets to have all nine contestants parading in front of it to see who can promise to be the most liberal on abortion. You don't see Republican presidential candidates staging major campaign events with Operation Rescue.

Nor was I trying to argue that the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives have no differences; merely that they also have significant areas of agreement. The major area of agreement among Democrats these days is that each interest group deserves to have money spent on it. But the kind of horse trading that supports that will be undercut by rising pensions costs, and as the funding for new programs dries up, the other rifts are becoming ever more apparent.

If it doesn't seem like it to you coastal types, and it doesn't seem like it to us southern types, where does it seem like it?

It's just plain wrong to suggest that Southern social conservatives have not, on average, grown more accepting of gays. Sure, there are still a fair number of moonbats raving about gays "taking over the country", but even in core Bible Belt cities like Memphis the sense of outrage over the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual sodomy was muted. A generation ago you would have had no problem whatsoever finding a large majority of Southerners in complete agreement that homosexuals should be locked up. Today it's a more passive sort of bigotry.

Where are these legendary "fiscal conservative" Republicans? Because we could sure use some down here on Earth.
--G

As long as the Republican Party in California remains the White People's Party, with adamantine support for "English Only" laws, dropping bi-lingual education and ESL, and anti-immigrant law enforcement as a party goal, minorities, who are very close to constituting a majority out here on the Left Coast, will have no alternative but to vote Democratic.
This is not a matter of ideology, for many Hispanics are very socially conservative, but rather a matter of blatant and unapologetic racism. I have personally been harassed by the police when "crackdowns" come right before election time and listened time and time again to white politicians promise that "keeping down the bad element", code words for bashing Latinos and Blacks, will be a priority for Bill Simon or Pete Wilson. We many not agree with Democratic policies all the time but why should we put political power in the hands of those who hate us because of the color of our skin? - Jaime Rodriguez Montalvo

In the US we form our governing coalitions in the primarys where the europeans form theirs after the general elections. This is why our major parties are seemingly contridictory coalitions, the winner takes all method of elections leads to this type of thing.

Now this is of course predicated on the fact that about 1/3 of the people bother to vote, mostly because the majority dont see their intrests being represented in the "big tents" of Rep vs Dem politics. So they tune out.

This does lead to a potential empowerment of the minor parties in this country, with such a large number of people not voting due to indeferance, the minor party with the best platfrom to appeal to these people can kick some serious butt in local races and perhaps at the federal level to boot. All they need to do is get that message to the people who dont pay attention to politics.

Good Luck

Jaime,

I have no idea what the color of your skin is, but, assuming for the moment that you are Latino, it's probably about the shade that all those bigoted white Californians are trying to achieve via hours on the beach.

The immediate result of dropping bilingual education was that the test scores of immigrant children whose first language wasn't English shot up. That is, except in the districts that kept bilingual education, where there was no improvement. Make of that what you will. But bilingual ed. wasn't "dropped"; it was continued wherever parents wanted it continued in sufficient numbers.

As for "anti-immigrant law enforcement as a party goal," I can only assume you mean "anti-illegal-immigrant law enforcement." No Republican I've heard of claims that laws should be enforced selectively against legal immigrants. But, yes, a lot of people do think that people who are not in the country legally ought not to be here.

Jane, the Casey thing is a myth which has unfortunately become accepted as fact, even by many Democrats. Bob Casey refused to endorse Clinton (as he later refused to endorse other Democrats in his state, simply because they were pro-choice), and refused to accept anything but a prime time speaking slot. The Democrats had already told Jerry Brown he wouldn’t be able to speak unless he endorsed Clinton, and held Casey to the same standard. Casey then went to the press and claimed it was because of his pro-life views.

On NAFTA and welfare reform, Clinton was able to win the Democratic primaries even though he supported them, so clearly they don’t count as litmus tests. And NAFTA was actually passed in ‘93 by a Democratic congress (albeit with Republican support).

On steel tariffs (which we agree on the substance of), Bush is just going against his stated principles in order to gain votes. He’s not risking the support of any domestic constituency by supporting them. Thus he’s not taking on his base.

I think maybe your view of Democrats is unduly influenced by being in Manhattan, where Democratic politics is much more driven by interest groups than in the country as a whole.

RC,

Out here in "Flyover Country" the Dems and Reps are as bad as she describes, it's not just East Coast.

Jamie,

I can't help but take serious offense at your suggestion that the positions you oppose (e.g., immigrants should be in compliance with relevant laws, and should learn English) is the same as racism.

I just can't get past my anger that you would suggest that I am racist.

When my great-grandmother came from Mexico she did it legally (as a refugee from the revolution). She learned English and found employment as a Spanish teacher and supported twin boys along from infancy onwards, raising them to speak perfect English and Spanish. She never needed public assistance, even though her husband died while her twins were babes-in-arms. As I understand it, she sought and obtained citizenship, and embraced her adopted home.

I expect today's immigrants to behave much the same way--to obey the law and to assimilate. That you should impute racist motives to me for doing so demonstrates the abyssal depth of your ignorance. Get a grip, and then explain to me why I should have to obey the law, but a foreign citizen needn't bother paying income taxes or complying with visa laws, why my (legal immigrant) in-laws should have struggled to learn English, but someone who crosses the border under cover of night should have everything provided in his native tounge at taxpayer expense, and why anyone who enjoys the spectacular privilege of living in this country should not be expected to embrace its cultural and political norms (which are, after all, what make people want to live here) with gusto.

The great Mario weighed in on this very subject, and since that day, July 16, 1984, the Democrats are 3-2 in Presidental election popular votes. It's not a perfect record, but nothing that Jane nor Daniel Drezner should be overly worried about -- the Dems aren't really having too hard of a time supporting their candidates:

"We should not, we should not be embarrassed or dismayed or chagrined if the process of unifying is difficult, even wrenching at times. Remember that, unlike any other party, we embrace men and women of every color, every creed, every orientation, every economic class. In our family are gathered everyone from the abject poor of Essex County in New York, to the enlightened affluent of the gold coasts at both ends of the nation. And in between is the heart of our constituency. The middle class -- the people not rich enough to be worry-free, but not poor enough to be on welfare. The middle class, those people who work for a living because they have to, not because some psychiatrist told them it was a convenient way to fill the interval between birth and eternity. White collar and blue collar. Young professionals. Men and women in small business desperate for the capital and contracts that they need to prove their worth.

We speak for the minorities who have not yet entered the mainstream. We speak for ethnics who want to add their culture to the magnificent mosaic that is America. We speak, we speak for women who are indignant that this nation refuses to etch into its governmental commandments the simple rule "thou shalt not sin against equality," a rule so simple -- I was going to say, and I perhaps dare not but I will, it's a commandment so simple it can be spelled in three letters -- E.R.A.!

We speak for young people demanding an education and a future. We speak for senior citizens who are terrorized by the idea that their only security - their Social Security - is being threatened. We speak for millions of reasoning people fighting to preserve our environment from greed and from stupidity. And we speak for reasonable people who are fighting to preserve our very existence from a macho intransigence that refuses to make intelligent attempts to discuss the possibility of nuclear holocaust with our enemy. They refuse. They refuse, because they believe we can pile missiles so high that they will pierce the clouds and the sight of them will frighten our enemies into submission.

Now we're proud of this diversity as Democrats. We're grateful for it. We don't have to manufacture it the way the Republicans will next month in Dallas, by propping up mannequin delegates on the convention floor. But while we're proud of this diversity as Democrats, we pay a price for it. The different people that we represent have different points of view. And sometimes they compete and even debate, and even argue. That's what our primaries were all about. But now the primaries are over and it is time when we pick our candidates and our platform here to lock arms and move into this campaign together. If you need any more inspiration to put some small part of your own differences aside to create this consensus, all you need to do is to reflect on what the Republican policy of divide and cajole has done to this land..."

And NAFTA was actually passed in ‘93 by a Democratic congress (albeit with Republican support).

True enough that it was a Democratic House, RC. The vote as seen on C-Span was instructive, however. Save for some principled Democrats, it was a climbing Republican total that put the measure over the top, after which the remaining Dems cast the "nays" they could take home to wave at their constituencies.

As another WASP Californian, let me just ditto Rob Lyman here. I'm sick unto death of people of any race or color insisting that because I support anti-illegal-immigration laws and oppose bilingual education that I am therefore racist. Racism means that someone feels that members of one or more races other than their own are inherently inferior. Period. The constant attempts to expand that definition are mendacious; cynical; and morally, politically, and intellectually bankrupt. Since only a trivially small fraction of my blood is Native American, I, like the vast majority of Americans, am descended from immigrants, and I'm not talking about my blue-blood ancestors who came over on the Mayflower; I'm talking about my grandparents. They promptly settled down, learned English well enough that grandpa could preach every Sunday in German, Finnish, and English because the folks in his town spoke all of those, and set about the business of being Americans. And no, it wasn't always fun being German in America: ask any German immigrant from, oh, say, 1941-1945.

So please try to remember: just because I'm white doesn't mean that my family knows nothing about the minority experience in America. And if I say things like "Becoming a legal citizen works" and "English education works," it's because it worked for my forebears and I believe it will work for modern immigrants, too. By contrast, insisting on tax support for illegal immigrants, public services provided in Spanish, and public school to be taught in Spanish seems to me to be the absolute height of racism, maintaining separation for the sake of separation and because America is worth taking charity from but not really joining.

Fiscal conservatives???

First off, Bush did not win the popularity contest, called the presidential elections, in 2000. He came in well behind Gore. But not in Florida. Where the votes were manipulated.

Do you really think the Jews voted for a Nazi, then?

And, coming up to a big vote in California, do you think Schwartzenegger, whose Terminator filmed bombed this July; do you really think it wasn't just a flash in the pan? That he'd actually win on October 7th.

What if the republicans get to face the music?

What if it is NOW obvious Bush lied to Israel about being 'security conscious?' Isn't the Rice roadmap all about fooling Israel? And, telling the Saudis that the WHite House will continue doing the bidding of those who paid to put Bush in office?

You thought there was no price to pay?

You thought the story kids are told about The Boy Who Cried Wolf (and at least the president, who reads kiddy books, should have been familiar with that one) ... didn't take the story's outcome seriously?

How come this summer all those posed photographs of Bush now look like retread stuff out of Reagan? Worked once, sure. But, when did a Bush ever get Reagan's Teflon?

You think because Bush runs around the Oval Office with prayer circles, that Jesus is gonna help him? Once before, Jimmah Carter bragged that he talked to Jesus 9 times a day. (Bringing Mort Sahl to comment that if this didn't piss God off, nothing would.) Since when did anyone ever get their prayer's answered this way?

Want my bet? I think God is steady as she goes, watching Sharon's ass. And, Israel's. And, I think Bush is a BIG FAT LIAR. So, today, noticing his polls slipping, he again came out with words about terrorism not succeeding in the Mideast. Really? Did he call Rice and Powell and tell them to both shoves socks in their mouths?

Honestly folks, when Rove had the best chance to see his guy elected, he failed. Rehnquist pushed this dog into office. And, just you wait for the people who really vote to get heard. It will be the first honest voice you'll hear since Bush got into office.

Oh, and I don't think the republican party has to order balloons yet for a victory party on october 8th. So far there are 2 hurdles. One, is that Davis isn't recalled. And, the other, since a judge ruled you're allowed to vote FOR another candidate even if you're against the recall ... is that Bustamante heads into the governor's mansion.

You think it will pay the republicans to go to court after that? Bush is a putz. And, this putz is about to get circumcised. BIG TIME.

What a maroon. What a liar. What a missed opportunity he took ... taking Tony Baloney Blair's roadmap and thinking he'd pull a fast one on Sharon. On Israel. And, on America.

Maybe, Bush will give prayer circles a bad name? Well, that would be a good thing! Maybe, in desperation, the Bush Family will have to turn over Ken Lay (to get a collateral damage shot at Davis!) ... Maybe, the Bush Family just discovered the costs of stealing American assets. I sure hope so. Can't wait to vote on October 7th. Right here in California. Be envious. Everyone else has to wait till March 2004. (Will the republicans allow Bush to write them all out as failures; or will McCain be given the shot he had deserved in 2000?)

Paul,

> Since only a trivially small fraction of my blood is Native American

Actually, they're immigrants, too.

Yeah. What Carol said.

Carol and Ara,
Is that why you think the Democrats did so well in the 2002 Congressional races?

The Democrats also have to figure out what to do with Al Sharpton. They need a significant black turnout, but they don't need a significant moderate turn-off.

The Republicans have important splits, but they are ideological. I think that the libertarian differences with the neoconservatives are more significant than Jane suggests. It's not just social issues. The big-spending conservative that Bush has become is hard for a libertarian to swallow.

But I think I'd rather have the Republicans' ideological differences to deal with than the Democrats' interest group demands to manage.

In the interest of bringing the discussion back to where we started please tell us, Carol, could you tell us which interest group you foam for?

Carol Herman wrote:

First off, Bush did not win the popularity contest, called the presidential elections, in 2000. He came in well behind Gore. But not in Florida. Where the votes were manipulated.

I agree that there was an attempt to illegally count votes for Gore which were not legal votes under Florida election law. However since Presidential elections are determined by who wins the most electoral votes, that Gore may have won by wider margins in LA and Manhattan to give him a larger national popular vote really isn't relevant.

Do you really think the Jews voted for a Nazi, then?

I have no idea what this means since we don't have any members of the National Socialist Workers Party running in American elections although the Greens are probably the next closest thing. ;)

And, coming up to a big vote in California, do you think Schwartzenegger, whose Terminator filmed bombed this July; do you really think it wasn't just a flash in the pan? That he'd actually win on October 7th.

While I didn't care for the third installment of the Terminator series myself (it lacked the warmth and humor of the second and tension and suspense of the first), my understanding is that the movie did fairly well. Even if that weren't the case, what of it? Schwartzenegger and Bustamante really are the only two major contenders for the recall election and right now it's too close to call to predict which one will win. It seems quite likely that Schwartzenegger could become the next governor of California which would have dramatic reprecussions on the 2004 presidential race.

Arnold Kling wrote

The Democrats also have to figure out what to do with Al Sharpton. They need a significant black turnout, but they don't need a significant moderate turn-off.

To that Democrats really have only themselves to blame. For decades they’ve cultivated a relationship with the professional race-baiters (Sharpton, Jackson, NAACP, et al) to deliver the so-called “black vote” (as if black citizens are a monolithic hive mind that all have the same views and interests) and unfortunately for them the kind of rhetoric and policies (e.g. racial preferences and setasides, police bashing, etc.) necessary to appease the PRB’s doesn’t play too well with the nonracist white majority of citizens. I think they’ve been able to get away with it so long because many whites still feel guilty over what other whites did with regards to segregation but that unearned guilt is dying and fewer people are willing to let their kids be denied a shot at a college education based on merit just to appease the quota-mongers who’ve been passing themselves off as “civil rights” activists for the last thirty years.

Also Sharpton’s anti-Semitism doesn’t seem to be playing well with a number of Jewish contributors who seem to be looking at Bush more favorably and seem to be recognizing that Xtian anti-Semitism is more of European thing than an American one.

The Republicans have important splits, but they are ideological. I think that the libertarian differences with the neoconservatives are more significant than Jane suggests. It's not just social issues. The big-spending conservative that Bush has become is hard for a libertarian to swallow.

But I think I'd rather have the Republicans' ideological differences to deal with than the Democrats' interest group demands to manage.

While I don’t necessarily agree that there is an inherent conflict between being a social conservative and a libertarian (e.g. NRO supports drug relegalization and we have Libertarians for Life), I do agree that a lot of Republicans especially many conservatives are upset with Bush for continuing the federal takeover of education, the prescription drug entitlement, waffling on guns, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the orgy of federal. That being said, he seems to have high regard on much of his foreign policy actions (but certainly not all of them) and the other side is frankly much worse on both areas. The Democratic candidates have to appease a base who is still protesting the Vietnam War and is even less likely to cut spending than Republicans – which makes their faux concern over the deficits rather comical in an ironic sort of way.

Oops that should be "orgy of federal spending" not "orgy of federal" which is an entirely different matter and not necessarily as objectionable. ;)

I'd like to commend Carol on her style, and encourage all with similar thoughts to emulate her.

She began, "First off, Bush did not win the popularity contest, called the presidential elections, in 2000. He came in well behind Gore. But not in Florida. Where the votes were manipulated."

This concise paragraph allowed me to skip the entire remainder of her post. I respectfully request that others who support illogical conspiracy theories begin all posts with similar warnings.

Thank you in advance.

Seems to me that it is always the case that the party out of power comes across as shrill and dis-jointed. When Clinton was in office the Right seemed defined by its more "colorful" voices and now we appear to be having the same thing from the Left. It is easier to remain calm about public policy (even when it seems inimical to your "core" beliefs) when it is your guy in the White House. Had Al Gore won and gone on a public spending binge to revive the economy the Right would be apoplectic.... as the Left is now (it just does not ring as truthful in one's ears)

"The Republicans of today cut taxes, but do nothing serious about cutting spending."

Quite the opposite. They increase spending. They just want to spend it on different people than the Democrats do.

Who was it that got the mohair subsidy reinstated? Bug-killer DeLay

Garth wrote:

Seems to me that it is always the case that the party out of power comes across as shrill and dis-jointed. When Clinton was in office the Right seemed defined by its more "colorful" voices and now we appear to be having the same thing from the Left. It is easier to remain calm about public policy (even when it seems inimical to your "core" beliefs) when it is your guy in the White House.

I don’t agree that the there is quite the symmetry between the two situations as Garth seems to imply. When Clinton was in office, the Republicans to their credit rallied their base around a set of policies - the Contract with America – which gave them something to be for (whether you agree or disagree with each of the ten planks) rather than just being “anti-Clinton.” In contrast, we’ve seen nothing similar from the Democrats to articulate what they stand for

As a progressive Democrat, I couldn't agree with you more that we have our problems, but I don't agree with your analysis and the causes. The Republican party has its tensions, especially between the Libertarian wing and the Christian Right. I would also agree with those who have already said that the Democrats are no further left than the Republicans are to the right.

The problem for the Democrats is that we are see ourselves as nothing but that collection of interest groups sitting around a bargaining table negotiating for our piece of the pie. It's a model of politics that no longer works. The Republicans started to play what I call "worldview politics" in the 70's and, as a result, are held together by how they see the world (but beware that libertarian/Christian Right split).

mj:

"This concise paragraph allowed me to skip the entire remainder of her post. "

Me too. Thank goodness - it was a long one!

The Dems have turned their party into a three legged stool. The lawyers and teachers for money, blue collar unions for GOTV efforts and minorities for the winning votes on the margin. This is the hierarchy of importance for the Dems right now.

They will take care of money interests first, GOTV interests next and minority concerns so long as they don't conflict with the first two. The Reps don't need to recruit minorities into their party to win elections, they can use school choice as a wedge to deflate the black vote that Dems need to win national elections. Without that third leg, there is no way that they can stay as a dominant party on the national stage. And I don't think that they can supplement the black vote with the hispanic vote. There is such animosity between those two groups that the current discord in the party would look sane by comparison.

The Dems could still put up significant fights on the state level and maintain safe House seats in redistricting, but on the national scene it could get ugly. That doesn't mean that the Reps would have a cakewalk. Never underestimate the right's capacity to splinter. The only reason we have held together so long is the seige mentality we have employed. Once the right starts to think it is winning, or is becoming dominant it will splinter into groups similar to what the Dems have. The right doesn't have fewer problems or issues than the Dems, we are just willing to settle for half and quarter loaves more often because we were in the wilderness for so long. We had the Presidency, but state and national legistatures were controlled by the Dems for how many decades? Neither party has accepted its new role as either a reversal of the previous status quo, or an equalizing of the two party's relative strength. The Dems still want to act like they hold significant power in the legislature, while Reps are terrified of being slapped around by powerful Dems. Or that's what it looks like to me.

the Democratic party always seems to either win a national majority or just barely lose it (I'm talking popular votes).

Well, except that the Democrats have won a majority of the popular vote in a presidential election only twice since FDR died -- once (1964) against Goldwater after the Kennedy assassination, and once (1976) after Watergate. By contrast, the GOP reached the 50% barrier in 1952, 1956, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988. While it's true that neither party has captured a popular majority since George H.W., the historical trend doesn't favor the Dems' ability to elect a president with a strong foundation of popular support.

Carol,

The 2000 presidential election results were, by all reputable sources, very close:

George W. Bush, Republican 50,456,169
Al Gore, Democrat 50,996,116
Ralph Nader, Green 2,695,696

The difference between Bush and Gore is about .5% of the votes cast. There is no way in which Bush can be described as having "[came] in well behind Gore."

This is what coming in well behind looks like
1972
Richard M. Nixon, Republican 47,167,319
George McGovern, Democrat 29,168,509

1984
Ronald Reagan, Republican 53,428,357
Walter F. Mondale, Democrat 36,930,923

1996
William J. Clinton, Democrat 47,401,185
Robert Dole, Republican 39,197,469

Note there is no official count of the popular vote. These statistics are computed by adding the results from the 50 states, each of which will often publish a first count and then an updated total (with absentee ballots, contested ballots, etc. computed.) As a result, different sources will give slightly different popular vote totals. These are from Grolier's on-line encylclopedia.

As mj noted, anyone who can give a clear mistatement of an well-know, undisputed fact from the recent past(i.e. that the 2000 popular vote count was very close) in the first paragraph of their post makes skipping her post very easy.

Allen Brill wrote:

As a progressive Democrat, I couldn't agree with you more that we have our problems, but I don't agree with your analysis and the causes. The Republican party has its tensions, especially between the Libertarian wing and the Christian Right.

Really and what is the evidence of this “tension” and (if it exists) that it is of any real significance?

I would also agree with those who have already said that the Democrats are no further left than the Republicans are to the right.

Actually the Democrats are quite a bit further to the Left then Republicans are to the Right. Democrats are still talking about sticking us with the same lousy socialized medical system they have in other nations (which don’t have nearly the level of innovation we do in the United States), are trying to appease a base that is still stuck protesting the Vietnam War, and has yet to find any serious positions on foreign policy or most domestic issues. In contrast, the Republicans have pretty much taken a middle-of-the-road approach to most domestic issues which is unfortunate since it has prevented them from making any structural changes to the federal government (like devolving power to the States or dismantling any of the Nanny State apparatus) and have (even more unfortunately) demonstrated an unwillingness to abandon worthless international institutions such as the United Nations. In matters of War and Peace – Bush is more of a multilateralist than Clinton, a fact that seems to escape his detractors who would rather promote the fiction that the United States has acted “unilaterally” in the War on Islamofascism.

The problem for the Democrats is that we are see ourselves as nothing but that collection of interest groups sitting around a bargaining table negotiating for our piece of the pie. It's a model of politics that no longer works.

That’s a pretty accurate portrayal of the Democratic Party. Other than wealth redistribution and encouraging ethnic hatred, they don’t stand for much.

The Republicans started to play what I call "worldview politics" in the 70's and, as a result, are held together by how they see the world (but beware that libertarian/Christian Right split).

What “split”? On most social issues the positions of social conservatives and libertarians are either (a) pretty much the same (e.g. guns, freedom of association, opposition to quotas), (b) the conservatives have become more libertarians than liberals (e.g. freedom of speech on college campuses), (c) the issues are negated by federalism, or (d) there are people whose views fit on either “side” of the “split” (e.g. Libertarians for Life, National Review, etc.).

Much as I’m sure Democrats would love to believe there will be a split in the GOP over social issues, it seems that they are pretty much doomed to disappointment. On the other hand, I think it’s funny that since Clinton the social Leftists have pretty much have to resign themselves to knowing that the Democratic Party will probably never be able to field a presidential candidate who is anti-gun and anti-capital punishment.

Perhaps someone could explain how the use of the them "Xtian" is not a leading indicator that the user is a bigot? I know it's cute and all, but can you point to any Christian group that uses the term with pride? Not to say it won't happen, after all, the derogatory term "Mormon" has become an acceptable way to refer to memebers of the LDS (Latter Day Saints) church.

I bring this up because it demonstrates the casual demonization and dehumanization so characteristic of the Left and Democrats when they refer to groups with which they disagree. Can you imagine a conservative using terms like no longer acceptable terms like "Negroes" or "wetback" or "muhhamedan" or "Sodomite" and expecting their comments taken seriously? (Or, just try and use "bum" for "homeless person" and see what happens...)

Random off-topic question for Raoul: Mormon is a derogatory term?? I know many many people who are devout members of the LDS who refer to themselves as Mormons. I mean, what on earth SHOULD we call them?

Raoul Ortega wrote:

Perhaps someone could explain how the use of the them "Xtian" is not a leading indicator that the user is a bigot?

Since you’re the one making the charge actually the burden is on you to prove that it is, not on me to prove that it isn’t.

I first saw the term “Xtian” used for “Christian” (the “X” denoting the Cross obviously) on an old use-net forum and have been using it for short-hand ever since. I have no idea why anyone would consider it an unacceptable form of short-hand especially since anyone who bothered to read my post would clearly know that it wasn’t used in a bigoted manner.

Go peddle your phony outrage elsewhere, the days in which you could silence someone with whom you disagree merely with a false accusation bigotry are over and done with.

First, let me remind those white Californians Rob Lyman and Paul Snively that the AMERICANS invaded US. My families were migrating within the Spanish Empire from Asturrias and Aragon to the Spanish colonial Mexican jurisdiction of Alta California in 1801 and 1809 respectively. We didn't come to the United States, it came to us via the Mexican War and we have been adapting ever since.

Secondly, in California, as a fifth-generation American citizen, solely because of my physical appearance (you know, one of "those Mexicans") and because "someone feels that members of one or more races other than their own are inherently inferior", to quote Paul with whom I agree on that point, I have been deported to Mexico twice (each time Immigration officers claimed my valid California driver's license was a forgery without even radioing in for a check), held in custody as a criminal suspect at least twenty times, and been stopped and rousted by police and sheriff's deputies who knows how many hundred times over the last thirty-five years.

This has been solely based on my appearance, as law enforcement officers have admitted to me many times. In case you haven't noticed, Anglo-appearing people are not stopped and ask to prove their lack of criminal intent as are blacks and Latinos in California.

Law enforcement in California readily admits that it takes it agenda from the elected politicians. So when Republicans talk about dealing harshly with illegals, as they regularly do, we know that we citizens are getting the same boot on our necks. I am not advocating breaking the immigration laws or any other laws but rather explaining the fact that all us "Mexicans" get blows from the same hammer, regardless of our status.

Over the last few years, as an over-40 businessman, I have been the subject of such dismissive taunts from police as "Throw the beaner into the wagon" and "Shut up, taco bender, if I want your opinion I'll scrape it off my shoe." Since I normally wear nice clothes and, at least in my opinion, look as differently clothed from a poor campesino as does Andy Griffith from Fifty Cent, IT HAS TO BE MY PHYSICAL (skin and hair) APPEARANCE, yes? Could this be racism, guys and gals?

Does that mean that electing Democrats will stop all that? No, and it hasn't in the past. But at least Democrats give lip service and occasional real service to equality and human rights for all citizens in California. Laugh if you will, but on the street the first time things got better for a while in my lifetime was with Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. Things got a lot worse under Pete Wilson, for instance, especially "the roundups". We may not be geniuses but we know who the Rs are talking about when they advocate "tough" stances on illegal immigrants. Us.

Everyone in my family speaks both English and Spanish, some better in Spanish, some better in English, sometimes in simultaneous Spanglish as well. We see the Republicans in California being against Spanish as being against Mexican culture and Mexicans personally. Sorry, but it is personal and we tend to take it that way. Rob, if your ancestors came to America to be homogenized, great. We came here to Alta California to make a better life in a Spanish/Catholic environment. Times change and, boy, so have we. Our expectations have changed radically and some of my relatives have emigrated to Mexico and back to Spain. And sometimes I'm not sure those of us in California succeeded in that better life. (Spain looks pretty good these days but that's another story). I have no idea, Rob, what "embracing its [America's] political and cultural norms" means unless it means that the Mexican-American political and cultural norms are not as good as(inferior to?)Real Americans' ones like yours. In a large part of Los Angeles that I'm familiar with, we ARE the political and cultural norm and we have embraced ourselves quite well.

In short, the Democrats at least talk a much better game than the Republicans and as long as the daily grinding of immigrant-bashing goes on, it will be very difficult for Republicans to get Latino votes here. - Jaime

Jaime wrote:

First, let me remind those white Californians Rob Lyman and Paul Snively that the AMERICANS invaded US. My families were migrating within the Spanish Empire from Asturrias and Aragon to the Spanish colonial Mexican jurisdiction of Alta California in 1801 and 1809 respectively. We didn't come to the United States, it came to us via the Mexican War and we have been adapting ever since

You know I have participated in a number of internet discussions in which people have (rhetorically) refought the War Between the States and both World Wars, but this is first time I’ve seen someone try and refight the Mexican War.

Besides, everyone knows the Mexicans fired the first shot . . .;)

Thorley Winston:

Carol: Do you really think the Jews voted for a Nazi, then?

I have no idea what this means since we don't have any members of the National Socialist Workers Party running in American elections although the Greens are probably the next closest thing. ;)

She's slamming Pat Buchanan.

I first saw the term “Xtian” used for “Christian” (the “X” denoting the Cross obviously) on an old use-net forum and have been using it for short-hand ever since. I have no idea why anyone would consider it an unacceptable form of short-hand especially since anyone who bothered to read my post would clearly know that it wasn’t used in a bigoted manner.

Actually the 'X' comes from the Greek letter 'chi' -- it's an abreviation for 'christos'. And, while you clearly were not expressing an antiChristian attitude, my own experience is that it is a fairly good marker of such folk. Apparently some of them just can't bring themselves to say the word.

Jaime, respectfully, I'd just like to point out that you do NOT speak for me or my family. I'm first generation non-immigrant, don't necessarily dress well, and have lived in the Los Angeles area my entire life. I've not ONCE experienced any of the various things you describe. My mother is a naturalized citizen, my father is a resident alien, and NEITHER of them has had the anything approaching the same experience (save for my father, somewhat, before he gained resident status and was here illegally.)

You know what the fun part is? My father (the resident alien, remember) is a staunch Reaganite. My mother votes Democratic. NEITHER OF THEM allowed me to be put into a bilingual classroom after my 2nd grade experience, where I was being held back by the bilingual teaching.

Personally, I can't stand the nannying which the Dems try to enforce on those of us who speak Spanish at home. We're in a country where English is the primary language. Unless you're willing to stay in the lower income areas where only knowing Spanish and a smattering of English is acceptable, learn the language and quit being a victim.

Bill Woods wrote:

She's slamming Pat Buchanan.

Actually the 'X' comes from the Greek letter 'chi' -- it's an abreviation for 'christos'. And, while you clearly were not expressing an antiChristian attitude, my own experience is that it is a fairly good marker of such folk. Apparently some of them just can't bring themselves to say the word.

"First, let me remind those white Californians Rob Lyman and Paul Snively . . . ."

In the proud tradition of Identity Politics, Jamie names skin tone and continues its racist tradition in the name of progressive politics. No good has ever come from "othering."

He certainly has every right to be outraged at the way he's been treated by the police. That problem must be addressed, whichever party is in power, but that does not negate the problem of illegal immigration which, the liberal journalist Roberto Suro has claimed, hurts legal immigrants most.

Also, many of the Mexican workers here are not assimilating (which is always a struggle for the immigrant, not the host, no matter how unfair that is for all peoples that have come here). Because of the Libertarian Right (corporations do not wrong) and Multi-cult Labor Left (group rights/not individual rights), illegals will continue to pour into this country: this is a bi-partisan failure and will ultimately hurt Mexicans who settle here as their numbers grow into an enclave of unassimilated and bitter under-class workers.

Salvador claims:

"Unless you're [Jaime] willing to stay in the lower income areas where only knowing Spanish and a smattering of English is acceptable, learn the language and quit being a victim."

It is obvious Jaime is educated. Read his English. He is also a businessman and dresses well.

Where I part company with him is his anti-Anglo hatred, which I'm sure he'd justify in a heartbeat. To be so disaffected and bitter while lashing out with the word "white" to mean something derogatory is where he and his lefty politics will fail.

"while you clearly were not expressing an antiChristian attitude, my own experience is that it is a fairly good marker of such folk. Apparently some of them just can't bring themselves to say the word."

Hey Bill, are you one of those people who rails against the use of the term "Xmas"?

To Jane: Excellent Post and comments! Grover Norquist wrote on the coalition forming tendencies of the two parties a few years ago and reached the same conclusion as you. Basically that the "leave me alone" factions have fewer conflicts than the "include me in" one's do. Too bad he couldn't follow his own advice and leave the muslim hate groups out of our "big tent".

For Jaime- you should be extraordinarily pleased and excited with a unapologetic member of the KKK like Mecha as the lead Democrat in our state gubernatorial election. Surprised you didn't mention this. Such a shame that all those original native Americans, "anglos" from Ireland/Italy/Eastern Europe/Russia etc., post 1840 immigrants from Mexico, all immigrants from C America/S America, immigrants from China/Phillipines/Japan/etc., and all the permutations since have had the temerity to live on the land your apparent forefathers held as land grants from the king of Spain. Anyways, I'm afraid I got enough "Chicano power" during my childhood in LA public schools, so I think I'll decline your offer to absolve the rest of us from administering the Southwest US. I do find it interesting that you, Jaime, alone among the hundreds of brown, Mexican-Americans, that I know, or the millions of similarly brown legal residents living in our state, have had the misfortune of arbitrarily being shipped south of the border.

For some symmetrical information, 30 year or 60 year 'cycles' may exist, let me point out the great earth shaking elections have been 72 years beginning with Washington's first 1788 (actually it was delayed months into 1789)
72 yrs. later: 1860 Lincoln
72 yrs. later: 1932 FD Roosevelt.

72 yrs. more and its 2004, and the next major realignment or recognition of it at the elections is underway. It's the 1860 election that's most closely analogous:

a Republican faces profound national division, with clear moral policy (although already in office unlike these others below), versus a fractured Democrat establishment in power forever resting on its laurels with nothing but the expectation of being a natural ruling party, and with no where to go and nothing to say except it's not Bush (read Lincoln, also not the buffoon the Dems made him out to be.)

Although it is GW Bush who's in office at the time, it is clear that Bill Clinton was the tag end of the Roosevelt period, as clueless Hoover was to Lincoln and that Republican revolution, and the indifferent James Buchanan was to the Founding Fathers, and the Virginia dynasty of Jefferson, et al.

Ask yourself, if there were no illegal immigrant problem in California, would you have been rounded up?

Clearly those cops that deported you made mistakes for which they should pay. But also clear to me is that you have some bitterness over the fact that California is now part of the United States (I agree, 150 years is not enough time to get used to the fact, but I think you need to get over it), and that you seem to think its perfectly ok for illegals to come here with full citizen rights but without full citizen responsibilities.

And I don't know why anyone is left who is against proven to work English immersion, and for never ever worked Bilingual education. Unless it is your intent to stifle the education of recent immigrants?

I should have been more clear. My comments regarding learning the language applies to recent immigrants, not directly to Jaime. My comment regarding not claiming victim status does, as it does not add anything constructive to the debate.

As for the land issues... my forefathers lost a war they started (with probable incitement from Texas.) Get over it.

Mormon is a derogatory term?? I know many many people who are devout members of the LDS who refer to themselves as Mormons. I mean, what on earth SHOULD we call them?

"Mormon" is fine in reference to people, although I think it did start out as a derogatory term, much like "Christian" did, IIRC. What we try to steer people away from is calling it the "Mormon Church." It's technically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the correct short name is "The Church of Jesus Christ." We probably wouldn't be so sensitive about it if we hadn't had to work so hard to counter anti-Mormon propaganda claiming we're not a Christian church. I told someone once I was a Mormon, and she asked in all sincerity, "But are you a Christian Mormon?" It was like telling someone I was a Washingtonian and getting asked if I was an American Washingtonian.

Sorry to be off-topic. We now return you to your regularly scheduled partisan bashing.

I was under the impression that Mormon was the name of the prophet who wrote the texts that Joseph Smith found. Hence the whole Book of Mormon, Mormon Church, Mormons, etc.

Anyway, here's an interesting page on the topic: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mormon

At any rate, I shall continue to refer to the church as LDS and the followers as Mormons.

Yes, Mormon compiled most of the text, so the book's named after him. It's the leap from there to calling us "Mormons" that I don't think was made originally by members of the Church. I could be wrong about that. Anyway, it's not like we have any better short name to suggest. "Mormon" is just fine.

Just a little Mormon/Mexican-America history for Jaime and the Mormon enthusiasts. Went through the new LDS temple (their 125th!) in Redlands where I picked up a few more bits of history. In 1851, 500 Mormons (including members of the "Mormon battalion" which walked from Missouri to California), along with some African American families and a few regular protestants, bought Spanish land grant that is now city of San Bernardino & Redlands. Unfortunately for Jaime's self-image, the Mormons apparently got along quite well with the local spanish before returning to Utah to contribute to Brigham Young's harem and help fight the feds in the "Utah war". Anyways, my own great, great, anglo grandfather was born about this time while his mother was treking through Wyoming with the Martin handcart co (some 100 of whom perished in the snow), thus helping to cause Jaime that much further oppression in future years.

Jane-
This is an excellent discussion as always. The titanic struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats to push over the narrowly divided electorate is fascinating and I have learned much from all the wisdom and ideas thrown around here and in your many good posts. Thank you.

Lloyd-
To be deported from your own country when you are a native-born citizen is real embarrasing, so most Hispanic people I know wouldn't admit that, especially to a Gringo, without serious prodding. I got deported once in Brownsville, Texas, to Matamoros and it took me three days to get back. My mother was frantic, by the way.

The informal lunch poll in our office in San Diego (5 anglos, 2 blacks, 7 hispanics) shows that five of the seven Hispanics, all citizens, two naturalized, have been deported at least once and none of the blacks or anglos. Two of the Hispanics were deported twice when already naturalized citizens.

Jaime-
Get over it, amigo. If you look like a Mexican some people are going treat you like a criminal and that's just the way it is. Be grateful you aren't being mistaken for an Arab. It does no good to dwell on the injustices of the past.

Salvador-
My Great Uncle, an immigrant from Aguascalientes, always put Reagan signs in his yard and greatly admired the Great Communicator. As regards interactions with the police, you've been lucky so far. Don't drive around in Kearney Mesa or West Hollywood residential neighborhoods if you want to keep your record unblemished. Count your blessings. You are completely correct in that you are only a victim if you allow yourself to be one.

Good things to all, - Luis

Luis,

I am flabbergasted by your deportation tales; I would have thought that at minimum law enforcement would try to ascertain the home country before deporting anyone. What did they do to your coworkers? Just bus them to Tijuana under the assumption that they were all Mexican nationals? Jesus.

That said . . . Jaime (who sounds like he's been through the mill himself) seems to say that his ancestors are all from Spain. In other words, he probably looks just like any white European from somewhere around the Mediterranean. Judging visually, he might be a Spanish tourist, an Italian businessman . . .

There is a lot of vile hatred of Mexican immigrants in California. I live in San Rafael (where the fire trucks are lettered in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese), and I see it all the time. If you want a primer in California racism, you can come to the San Rafael Transit Center (the bus depot) on a Saturday morning, and watch the attitude of the white passengers going to San Francisco for fun towards the Latino day workers going to a well-known pickup point in Mill Valley to work. (But for a complete picture you also need to go to a fast-food restaurant in the Mission District of SF and sit for an hour, and see exactly how the mostly-black customers treat the mostly-Latino staff. Racists are not all white.)

Re. "Xian"--I knew some Lubavitcher Hasidim who would write "Xmas"/"Xian" instead of "Christmas"/"Christian", because they regarded "Christ" as the name of a false god, and avoided saying it in keeping with Ps. 16:3, "The sorrows of those will increase who run after other gods. I will not pour out their libations of blood or take up their names on my lips."

Just a random datum.

Katherine thusly: 'Yes, Mormon compiled most of the text, so the book's named after him. It's the leap from there to calling us "Mormons" that I don't think was made originally by members of the Church.'

...but, hey, it beats all those "Star Trek IV" jokes, right? ;-)

If memory serves, "Christian" was originally a mildly derogatory term ("little Christ") used by the people of Antioch [Acts 11:26] to describe the adherents of the new religion, who until then had called it just "the Way".

But they needed a name, and "Christian" was as good as anything...

Jaime wrote:

"First, let me remind those white Californians Rob Lyman and Paul Snively that the AMERICANS invaded US. My families were migrating within the Spanish Empire from Asturrias and Aragon to the Spanish colonial Mexican jurisdiction of Alta California in 1801 and 1809 respectively. We didn't come to the United States, it came to us via the Mexican War and we have been adapting ever since."

Spanish Empire! Interesting. This term notes the process by which (to paraphrase you) the Inca or the Maya 'didn't come to Peru or Mexico, it came to them via the Spanish invasion.'

I think, Jaime, your analysis would be more complete if you touched briefly on the depradations of Pizzaro, Cortez, and, of course, the complete destruction of the great Maya library by Fr. Diego De Landa. And just for good measure, lets hear a little about the "Castillian" attitude toward indigenous southern peoples, and those of mixed blood.

Look first to your own skeletons.

Luis (above) is right...'It does no good to dwell on the injustices of the past.' dwelling makes it grow and spread, as we see. Where we go from here is what's important.

Yes, it's really quite an unfortunate acronym. :) Mormons believe the name of the Church came through revelation; too bad the Lord didn't give us a convenient nickname like "Methodist" or "Catholic" while he was at it. We ended up with "Mormon" by default, and it doesn't really describe us. "Christian," on the other hand, is quite apt; "little Christ" is exactly what Christians are trying to become...

"There is a lot of vile hatred of Mexican immigrants in California. I live in San Rafael (where the fire trucks are lettered in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese), and I see it all the time."

Fire trucks lettered in English and Spanish and Vietnamese? Sounds multi-cultural to me. How insensitive and racist is California if it caters to other languages?

"If you want a primer in California racism, you can come to the San Rafael Transit Center (the bus depot) on a Saturday morning, and watch the attitude of the white passengers going to San Francisco for fun towards the Latino day workers going to a well-known pickup point in Mill Valley to work."

Oh please! They'd get that in Mexico itself. Only it would be class prejudice there. One is no worse than the other. Eventually Americans learn not to be afraid of the "other." Remember how the "white" Irish were treated. Yet no reform takes place in Mexico itself.

Racism? Look the world over. America isn't the only place where it exists. It's one of the few, however, where the society, painfully, deals with it and comes out better in the long run.

Take away the racist "primer" from Lefties and all they've got "left" is Castro's Cuba where the marjority of political prisoners have dark skin.

Donnel,

I agree with you almost entirely. Americans have tried unusually hard (by world standards) to accommodate people of all races and backgrounds and languages — and California must have the wildest mix of peoples outside New York. But you misunderstand my point about the attitude to Latinos here. It isn't "fear of the other." It's pure, venomous contempt.

The day workers crowd the buses on Saturdays in Marin. (I mean crowd, as in "you cannot put any more people in here whatever you do," as in "the bus drivers all know how to say 'Por favor mueven se para atrás,'" [if that is incorrect Spanish, I apologize; I'm quoting from memory here, and my own high school Spanish is hopelessly contaminated with Italian by now], &c.) It makes it hard to get a bus if you are just trying to go to SF to shop or whatever. But these folks are going to work, and it drives me nuts to see people whose urgent errand is a visit to Macy's treating them like vermin. The same goes for the fast-food workers. They aren't "feared"; why would they be? They're spat on, metaphorically and sometimes literally, because they are poor and they are working hard.

Re: Xtians

Well, you know hiw it is, Bill. Us Secular Humanists say or write His name & our tounges catch fire... ;-) (On the other hand, it does make for a nifty bar trick when some cute young thing needs her cigarette lit.)

I disagree about the country becoming more prolife. If anything, the prolifers are becoming more shrill.

Also, the republican party is more aimed at the interests of the wealthy. Which leaves the democrats the party of, well, everyone else. Focusing on one interest group lets the republicans appear less fractured.

Peter:

> I disagree about the country becoming more prolife

That's fine, Jane was referring to the USA.

Peter,

If "the republican party is more aimed at the interests of the wealthy," it is surely at least a little curious that the poorest states (measured by per capita income) tend overwhelmingly to vote Republican in national elections, while the richest states tend overwhelmingly to vote Democratic. Sit down with a chart of the states in order of per capita income and the results of the last couple election cycles sometime. It's instructive.

Jaime says, 'First, let me remind those white Californians Rob Lyman and Paul Snively that the AMERICANS invaded US.'

Brings to mind an old joke. A Texan at a bar listens to a Mexican go on and on about how horrible the U.S. is. Finally, he says, "Hey, why are you always so down on America, anyway?"

The Mexican angrily replies, "You stole half our country! And not only that, you stole the half with all the paved roads!"

...

Jaime, your family has been in this country for a hundred and fifty years now, or thereabouts. Isn't it about time you got over it?

Boo:
'Hey Bill, are you one of those people who rails against the use of the term "Xmas"?'

No, I rather like it. I did once hear a woman say she used it to avoid using a religious term like "Christmas". I explained that the terms were equivalent, and suggested that if she wanted a secular/pagan term she use "Yule" or "Yuletide". Dunno what she's saying now.

Jamie,

Point #1: you don’t know my skin color, my state of residence, or my political affiliation. Stop making unwarranted assumptions. It’s offensive. But putting that aside…

I'm genuinely appalled that a US citizen such as yourself has been subject to that kind of treatment at the hand of law enforcement. Were I a lawyer (I will be in 2006), I would consider seriously representing you for free.

I should point out that I know Mexican immigrants who haven't experienced anything remotely like what you have; it makes me wonder why you should be subject to such treatment when others similarly situated as to their physical appearance aren't.

The notion that being anti-bilingual education is anti-Spanish is absurd. English proficiency is an immensely powerful economic tool for people all over the world; lack of English is a serious handicap. I oppose bilingual education because it ghettoizes the children of immigrants, segregates them from their classmates, and, by preventing them from learning English, significantly impairs their ability to compete in the market. If bilingual education worked, I’d support it; it doesn’t, so I don’t. I don’t care what language you and your family speak at home, what food you eat, what religion you are, what holidays you celebrate, what clothes you wear, etc. None of that is any of my business.

I DO expect immigrants and their children to learn English so that they can participate in the political process fully, and I consider the demand (which you haven’t made, but which is common enough) for government services, ballots, etc. etc. in the native languages of immigrants to be a fundamental breach of an immigrant’s duty to their adopted home. It would be ridiculous for me to move to China and demand that the Chinese government provide everything for me in English; if I want to live in China so badly, I have an obligation to learn Chinese, obey Chinese law, and adapt myself to Chinese customs, at least in public. This is no less true of immigrants to the United States. Yet many left-leaning thinkers (perhaps including you, perhaps not) seem to think that, instead of immigrants adapting themselves to a new home, the US and its residents should alter themselves to accommodate anyone who can sneak across the border. No one thinks that is true of China, oddly enough.

No value judgment is necessary when it comes to social and political customs. I am not declaring American culture superior to Mexican, or any other culture or political system. On the contrary, it is the immigrants themselves who are declaring, by the action of immigration, that one country is superior to another. And, if their adopted home is magnanimous enough to permit them to remain—and here I refer obviously to legal immigrants—then they have an obligation to adapt themselves in some measure to their new home. If they do not wish to make the sacrifice, then they should not expect to reap the reward. If any individual considers Mexico or Spain or China or Zimbabwe superior to the United States, the solution is for that individual to move to one of those countries, rather than trying to fundamentally alter the US to resemble the country from whose apparently inferior conditions they fled.

Jamie, your attitude (“we” do this or that, “you” do something else) is exactly the sort of aggressive ethnic separatism which I find profoundly disturbing. It does not differ in principle (though it certainly differs in effect) from Jim Crow. Granted, it probably flows from your mistreatment at the hands of the police; but you certainly shouldn’t go declaring me a racist just because someone who might or might not have a similar skin tone once abused you. To do so is simple racism (“All those Republican crackers are alike”). In any case, American-born children of Japanese immigrants suffered far worse—and still proved their patriotism in the best way possible. It should be possible for you to see past law-enforcement racism to the many positive aspects of life in the US—because you obviously believe that life here, under whatever racist oppression you experience, is better than life in Mexico or wherever you might wish to be ruled by “one of your own.”

I am not suggesting that police racism is acceptable, or that it is a fair trade-off in exchange for the superior job market in LA. I’m just saying that some loud-mouth moron with a badge doesn’t somehow speak for all principled conservatives, and it is amazing to me that you could think that he does.

The answer to the anti-gay rights crowd is the story of Jesus and the Centurion.

Centurions used boy slaves for sex.

Why did Jesus praise the Centurion?

A. Where are you getting your information on the sexual practices of centurions?

B. If it were proven that centurions used boy slaves for sex, where is proof that this particular one did?

C. If it were proven that this particular one did, how does Jesus' praise of the centurion's faith be taken as praise of whatever sins the centurion may or may not have committed? Jesus spent his time ministering to sinners.

D. If it were proven that the relevant NT passages indeed describe Jesus praising someone who used boy slaves for sex, both supporters and opponents of gay rights would either denounce Christianity or argue that this passage of the Bible is flawed and that Jesus would have done no such thing.

How again does this story have anything to do with the gay rights debate?

(And why am I feeding trolls? sheesh...)

Re: San Rafael - Marin County is probably the worst in the Bay Area for class contempt, and I think that in some part, the anti-mexican prejudice of Marinites is really class contempt. Most BMW-driving Marinites would be similarly aghast at a bus or store full of white construction workers, though they may think twice before showing it, as white construction workers are much less likley to take that crap non-violently.

San Rafael is also the only place where I've heard anti-mexican slurs shared with strangers. An old lady was in line in front of me at a drugstore or something, and was ranting on about how terrible it was that there were all these Mexicans about, and how terrible the Mexicans were. I managed to restrain myself from beating her up, but I did tell her that I was of Mexican descent, and proceeded to tell her in obscene detail exactly what I thought of her.

Jaime wrote:

My families were migrating within the Spanish Empire from Asturrias and Aragon to the Spanish colonial Mexican jurisdiction of Alta California in 1801 and 1809 respectively. We didn't come to the United States, it came to us via the Mexican War and we have been adapting ever since.

I'm sure all the American Indian tribes could say the same about the Spanish. (and everybody else). Its actually funny now to see people arguing about which imperial power 'was right'.

ha.

I think Peter, while not stating his opinion very artfully, was more or less correct.

The GOP has its special interests that demand money and services, the steel companies, agricultural companies (ADM), oil companies, etc etc. They are just more skilled at getting favors without being labeled as welfare. Billions more are spent supporting corporations than are spent on welfare for the poor.

As much as he's called a RINO, Arnold Schwarzenneger summed up the Republican philosophy. He pledged not to take money from special interests, and then when called on it, said that his donors weren't special interests, they were corporations.

(And why am I feeding trolls? sheesh...)

Katherine... you da best!

Anthony,

Yes, it is mainly class contempt, I think. Of course, there isn't a white equivalent of the Latino day-laborer setup, but if a Saturday bus were crowded with 50 or so men off to work on a construction site, and they were all white, I bet there'd be the same hostility. Only they'd have to come up with something other than "Go back to Mexico!" to mutter.

San Rafael is unlike the rest of Marin in that there is a large, pretty well segregated lower-class Latino community here (the "Canal District"). These are the people who tend the lawns and feed the babies and make the buses on Saturdays really crowded. In Marin they are passionately resented. I think, myself, that it's because the people paying them know that they ought to be doing most of this work themselves.

I find it interesting that while the post talks about Dem candidates promising NARAL how liberal they can be, there is no mention of Bush going speaking at Bob Jones U back when he is campaigning.

Also, I've been looking at the steel tariff thing as an attempt to push a wedge in between the unions and the alternative globalization folks, especially in a shaky state.

::shrug::

"Mormon" is fine in reference to people, although I think it did start out as a derogatory term, much like "Christian" did, IIRC. What we try to steer people away from is calling it the "Mormon Church." It's technically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the correct short name is "The Church of Jesus Christ." We probably wouldn't be so sensitive about it if we hadn't had to work so hard to counter anti-Mormon propaganda claiming we're not a Christian church. I told someone once I was a Mormon, and she asked in all sincerity, "But are you a Christian Mormon?" It was like telling someone I was a Washingtonian and getting asked if I was an American Washingtonian.

Anti-Mormon propaganda? Maybe you should research carefully what claims Jesus Christ made in the biblical New Testament record -- and what claims your Book of Mormon makes about Him -- and see how far you get with that assertion, rather than accepting it at face-value from your clergy.

For starters, Jesus claimed to be the only-begotten Son of the Father, stated on another occasion that "I and my Father are one," and promises eternal life to His followers in which their blessing will be to be eternally in His presence. God is presented as an eternal, infinite being. Satan is presented as a fallen angel who rebelled against God his creator. Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, has held that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, that God became God rather than being an eternal entity, and that we strive to likewise achieve god-hood. The relationship of Christ to God is altered and His importance as the only means of access is altered to instead accommodate the teachings of Smith and others.

Additionally, the book of Revelation opens as a direct revelation of Jesus Christ from the state of the seven churches in Asia then through the condition of eternity, and closes with an explicit warning against adding or subtracting from the words of that prophecy. Years later, Joseph Smith arrives on the scene and makes exactly those kinds of additions and subtractions.

Now, believe what you will, if you choose to cast your lot with Mormon doctrine, so be it. But it does not require "propaganda" to dissociate so-called Mormon/LDS teaching from so-called Christianity, as nobody who has made an attempt to flesh out Christian and Mormon doctrine would possibly confuse the two. They are not even remotely related understandings of the Person and work of Christ. This doesn't mean that the Christian churches haven't had a share in confusing the issue -- they have done so to a shameful degree, I will acknowledge -- but they do have some minimum consistencies in thought that are not shared by LDS.

OTOH, when possible, certain parts of the LDS leadership are more than happy to try and minimize these differences as a means for getting LDS doctrine into the doors of Christian churches.

Michelle - they'd be muttering "go back to Arkansas". Which they would never say about their hero, Bill Clinton.

"There are priceless blunders, such as predicting that the 2002 election was going to be a turning point in consolidating the new Democratic reign . . . er . . . never mind."

That actually isn't in the book:

"They also argued that the midterm 2002 elections were unlikely to reflect the trends discussed in their book:

[T]he terrorist assault on the United States—and the Bush administration's successful prosecution of the war in Afghanistan—cast Bush and the Republicans in a far more favorable light. … [A] continuing public preoccupation with national security will certainly benefit the Republicans (and generally incumbents) in November 2002 and at least mitigate whatever gains the Democrats might have expected from a recession occurring during the Bush presidency."

Wow, anony-mouse, I'm disappointed to see you're one of those who deny Mormons' Christianity. I've always respected your comments here. You must not think too highly of me, though, if you think I don't read or understand my own religious texts.

I already feel like I've hijacked Jane's thread, so I don't want to debate the matter here. Let me just point out for the record that Mormons believe everything you say in that second paragraph we don't believe. My real e-mail address is sisina6 at yahoo, if anyone actually wants to continue this conversation.

I do take back the term "propaganda," if you feel it's too strong. I apologize if I've offended. I don't need it to describe what I meant anymore; your post is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Anyone still reading this thread can make up their own mind what to call it.

'Wow, anony-mouse, I'm disappointed to see you're one of those who deny Mormons' Christianity.'

I guess I'm another one, then. To me, being a Christian means (int. al.) believing in the Trinity more or less as understood by the Council of Nicea.

I don't mean any disrespect, but the Mormon conception of God is far more different from that of (Nicean) Christians than, say, the Jewish or Muslim conception of God is. I don't think there's any useful definition of "Christian" which encompasses both Mormons and (e.g.) Catholics and Baptists, that doesn't encompass just about everyone else on earth. (Except, of course, for "Christian: (n) Someone who calls himself a 'Christian'." Which is a socially useful definition, but not a theologically useful one...)

the Mormon conception of God is far more different from that of (Nicean) Christians than, say, the Jewish or Muslim conception of God is

But Andrew, it honestly isn't. The only words in the Nicene Creed we differ with are "of one substance." That's it. You know all that stuff in the Bible about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being one? We believe all that. We just think the way in which they're one is not described by the word "homoousius." So what am I to call myself, if not Christian?

Not to mention that I've never understood why Nicea should define Christianity. Were there no Christians before Nicea? The apostles? Christ himself?

I don't think there's any useful definition of "Christian" which encompasses both Mormons and (e.g.) Catholics and Baptists, that doesn't encompass just about everyone else on earth.

Well, how about Webster? "1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". If it's good enough for Jesus, it's enough for me. But like I said, we always run into this. I never have understood it. But there it is. I'd be interested to know what non-Christians think of this whole debate.

the Mormon conception of God is far more different from that of (Nicean) Christians than, say, the Jewish or Muslim conception of God is

But Andrew, it honestly isn't. The only words in the Nicene Creed we differ with are "of one substance." That's it. You know all that stuff in the Bible about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being one? We believe all that. We just think the way in which they're one is not described by the word "homoousius." So what am I to call myself, if not Christian?

Not to mention that I've never understood why Nicea should define Christianity. Were there no Christians before Nicea? The apostles? Christ himself?

I don't think there's any useful definition of "Christian" which encompasses both Mormons and (e.g.) Catholics and Baptists, that doesn't encompass just about everyone else on earth.

Well, how about Webster? "1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". If it's good enough for Jesus, it's enough for me. But like I said, we always run into this. I never have understood it. But there it is. I'd be interested to know what non-Christians think of this whole debate.

Hm, I always wondered how people managed to double-post. Now I've done it myself and I still don't know...

We Unitarians have also been described as non-Nicean Christians. Though come to think about it, many modern Unitarians wouldn't decribe themselves as Christian.

"Unitarianism: Belief in (at most) one god."

I have no idea if any of this interests Jane Galt[*], but what the heck...

Me: 'the Mormon conception of God is far more different from that of (Nicean) Christians than, say, the Jewish or Muslim conception of God is...'

Katherine: 'But Andrew, it honestly isn't. The only words in the Nicene Creed we differ with are "of one substance." That's it.'

...which would mean, then, that the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three entirely distinct entities--that is, tritheism.

But I've been told that Mormons believe that God the Father was once a human, and became God over the course of time--and that humans, likewise, can become gods, beings on the same order as the Father. ("As we are, He once was; as He is, we may become.") Was I misled? Because if this is what Mormons believe, then Mormons don't count as "theists" at all, in the Abrahamic sense--they don't believe in a God who is distinct from creation.

Me: 'I don't think there's any useful definition of "Christian" which encompasses both Mormons and (e.g.) Catholics and Baptists, that doesn't encompass just about everyone else on earth.'

Katherine: 'Well, how about Webster? "1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". '

By that definition, Muslims are Christians (they believe Jesus was a prophet, and say they follow his true teachings by following Muhammed), as are many Hindus (who believe Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu), Baha'i, and a good number of atheists (there are many who believe that Jesus's important teachings were about, say, social justice, not all this religion stuff).

I suppose that's a useful definition up to a point. But for my part, I do need to be able to draw some distinction between "people in my religion" and "people out of it". (For example, I'm not allowed to marry outside my religion.) If I used a definition of "Christian" as broad as you suggest, I'd just need to come up with another, narrower word for people who actually share my belief system within reasonably broad tolerances--say, "Nicene Christian", or "Follower of the Way", or "Nazarene" or something.

[*] Who is Jane Galt?

Postscript: Katherine wrote, 'So what am I to call myself, if not Christian?'

Well, I don't mind if you call yourself a Christian. I just don't happen to agree-not, that is, if "Christian" has a narrow enough meaning to be useful.

For that matter, as I understood it, the early LDS said that they were Christians--and we (the existing churches of the day) aren't. And I have no objection to that, either. They thought (as I think) that their religion was different enough from ours that it was silly to try to call both by the same name. They thought (as I think) that both religions cannot be the true Evangel. They thought, naturally, that they had the true Evangel and we didn't, and that they were thus appropriately called "Christians" and we weren't. I think the converse, and thus I think that they were mistaken on that point. But I am not offended by their opinion of me, and trust they won't be offended by mine of them.

But I've been told that Mormons believe that God the Father was once a human

There's a pretty decent discussion of this, among several Mormons and other Christians, at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints (last discussion on the page).

By that definition, Muslims are Christians (they believe Jesus was a prophet, and say they follow his true teachings by following Muhammed)

Not what I meant. Mormons worship Jesus as the Savior and the Son of God, exactly the same way you do. To me, that's implicit in "professes belief." You can't believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and not worship him as God. A non-Christian can admire them or condone them, or even believe in a few of them, but not believe in all of them.

I'd just need to come up with another, narrower word for people who actually share my belief system within reasonably broad tolerances--say, "Nicene Christian", or "Follower of the Way", or "Nazarene" or something.

"Nicene Christian" would be accurate, I suppose, although I would like to believe I'm a "Follower of the Way." I have to admit I'm curious about what religion would allow one to marry a Catholic, a Baptist, or a Greek Orthodox, but not a Mormon. Seems like the Catholic-Baptist chasm is at least as wide as the Baptist-Mormon one (and that's pretty wide, at least as far as the Baptists are concerned).

Which sums up my point: the divide between Mormons and other Christians is a lot wider seen from your side than from mine. I don't see myself as "tritheist"; I certainly don't worship three gods. But you do see me as tritheist. I believe I'm trying to be a disciple of Christ; you don't. Baptists think we're going to hell; we think they're going to heaven. It's very perplexing for us.

For that matter, as I understood it, the early LDS said that they were Christians--and we (the existing churches of the day) aren't. And I have no objection to that, either.

No, because you don't think they were Christian, so you don't figure they had a good grasp on what Christianity is. We do think you're Christian and understand what Christianity is. So it comes as a slap in the face every time someone we respect as Christian informs us that we're not.

'You can't believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and not worship him as God. A non-Christian can admire them or condone them, or even believe in a few of them, but not believe in all of them.'

Then you've abandoned the dictionary definition of "Christian", which was your whole basis of argument.

If "Christian" means (as per the dictionary) anyone who claims to be following the teachings of Jesus, then that includes Muslims (who believe that Jesus never taught that he was God).

If "Christian" means "someone who follows what Mormons regard as the teachings of Jesus", then I shrug and reject your definition.

'I have to admit I'm curious about what religion would allow one to marry a Catholic, a Baptist, or a Greek Orthodox, but not a Mormon.'

I'm Eastern Orthodox. And we regard Baptists and Catholics (by and large) as Christians, but not Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Frankly, I'd be happy to define "Christian" as "those who consider themselves disciples of Christ." Since you need for theological reasons a definition that excludes some of those people, we're unlikely to come to an agreement. Which is why one doesn't discuss religion in mixed company; you and I would have driven everyone else at a party out of the room by now.

Jaime, Luis:
I am appalled at the idea of citizens being deported to a foreign country this way, even if it is one that's fairly close and convenient to get back from.

Question: should we institute national ID to put a stop to such things?

Jaime:
"In case you haven't noticed, Anglo-appearing people are not stopped and ask to prove their lack of criminal intent as are blacks and Latinos in California."

Uh, I used to be, and you can't get any more Anglo looking than I.

"I'd be interested to know what non-Christians think of this whole debate."

Non-Christian here. My understanding of LDSers tracks with Andrew's.

As you were...

Gahhhghh...every time I come to this blog (as I infrequently do, mostly through references on others) I find a posting that just floors me. There is a truly surreal quality to watching an intelligent person just *not see* stuff that is outside a the narrow scope of the Complacent Republican Libertarian ideology. The Republican party is *full* of interest groups. Every business interest is an interest group, to start with. How is it possible to not see massive interest group influences in Republican defense, trade, energy, and agriculture policies? I mean, I know you read the paper, right?

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is not in the number of interest groups in each party, it's in party discipline. The Republicans are better at keeping conflicts out of the public eye and hushing up the payoffs that are made. (By the way, this often involves being a lot more shameless about making the payoffs when they happen).

And another whopper in that post....the Democrats in general elections, and definitely in governing, are far less leftist than Republicans are rightist. Over the past few decades the Republicans have been much more successful in moving the public agenda to the right than the Democrats have been in moving it to the left.

Comments are Closed.