|
and we seem to push them all. I want to scratch out my own eyes when I stop to consider that there are folks who can't comprehend that there is no downside to allowing gay marriage. I want to scream when people can't step out of their own comfortable shoes to imagine a situation where abortion might be the only answer. I want to cry when I think that people in this country don't understand the importance of the separation of church and state when we're in a world where governments do horrid, disgraceful things in the name of gods.
Of course, this is where the "but" comes into play.
Imagine for a moment that you have a room filled with 10 white men, the very group that gave Bush his victory. Now, two of them are dead set against gay marriage, so they walk out of the room when you mention that issue. Three more want abortion banned, and they leave when you talk about the health of the mother. Two are from the bible belt and want prayer in schools and the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse, so they walk out when you say that God has no place in government.
Now you're in a room with three guys. Hell, if they are on your side on all three of these key wedge issues, you probably don't even need to say another word. They're liberal-minded folks like you and me. They're our base, and they don't need any convincing.
The problem is that you're still going to lose 7-3. You've already lost the election. Kerry's aim was to tell the other seven guys that they should ignore the wedge issues and vote for him because of what he would do in other areas.
There's some logic to that. Health care for all Americans should trump a person's pro-life stance. The desire for having a good-paying job should be more important than any belief that gay marriage is immoral. The logic says that people should look at the issues and pick the democrats because they offer hope and promise.
Logic would tell you that might work, but at least four of the seven guys are going to refuse to change their perspectives. Most likely, two of them won't even listen. The best you can do is a split.
Therein lies the problem for the democratic party. I believe strongly in many of the liberal causes, but the other side has built a huge lead by tapping into those voters who are willing to vote based upon a single wedge issue. Therefore, the more issues that the democratic party adopts, the more people who will be turned off. When you take a hard chance on an issue, you're going to lose the complete opportunity to attrach some votes. If you keep the focus on health care, you're going to have all 10 guys listening. When you start delving into wedge issues, however, people will start turning around and walking away.
It's almost a no-win situation. That Gore and Kerry were able to nearly pull off victories is astounding. It speaks well to the great ideas and the wide-reaching sense of hope they were able to bring to their respective campaigns. But they're never going to change that Republican fundamentalist's mind. It's why we hate them so much. They're so thick-headed they don't see the forest for the trees. Our anger only widens the divide, and our offer of a handshake bridges none of the gaps they perceive. We might have the best ideas for health care that the world has ever known, but we're still baby killers. We're still atheists. We're still the devil.
They're never going to vote for us as long as we allow the Republican party and the media to define our party based upon wedge issues. The media hammers home that gay marriage is the greatest issue facing this country. But, if a gay couple has health insurance and a good income, that's not the case. Somewhere, there is a child starving, and that MUST take precedence.
We need to simplify our perspective to strengthen our base. Let gay marriage be an issue that we argue as a nation and not as a politicized and partisanized matter. We need to be more inclusive by being less inclusive. Gay marriage and abortion should not be the basis of a campaign. It didnt' work for Alan Keyes in Illinois, and it isn't working, generally, as the perceived focus of the democratic party. We do not need to champion everything in our efforts to gain votes. Sure, we can discuss these issues in Congress and we can fight a ban on abortion and we can fight a constitutional amendment on banning gay marriage, but we can't fight at all if we don't get into office.
John Kerry tried like hell to appeal to people by saying, 'I know you don't believe abortion should be legal, but you should still vote for me, and I'll tell you why." That didn't work. We have to drop to our knees and tell the voters that we're willing to bend a bit, that we're willing to reconsider issues based upon what our electorate believes is right. Kerry didn't do that, and that's why he seemed arrogant to a lot of people. It's why I seem arrogant to a lot of people who think I'm dead wrong about my liberal views on social and economic issues. Hell, I'm an atheist with strong dislike of religion. I'm pacifist who would never vote for a war. I recognize that I turn people off when I begin to talk politics. I know that I need to be more inclusive. I understand why someone might not be able to finish a meal after thinking about an aborted fetus. I realize why people put their faith in religion. It's a damned difficult world out there.
I also know that it's in my soul to make this a better world, and so I am willing to take a step to the right or at least separate my party a bit from the far, far left. Democrats are pissed off today, and I know why. The middle class American hoping for a little help with their health insurance premiums just got shafted because the Republican Party painted the democrats as a bunch of sexual deviants. We know that gay men wanting to live in happy unions aren't deviants any more than the real Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, but we shouldn't even be debating that. We should stay loyal to the moderates of our party. That is the majority of our party, and it has always been that way.
I don't want to break the far left off from our party, but it's worth considering that the Republican Party isn't inviting Alan Keyes to speak at its RNC Convention. He needs the Republican Party, and the far left needs the centrists—the base—of the democratic party. That's fine. I'm far left, and I'm willing to allow that it's better for me to have some of my needs met by being inclusive and welcoming people with differing views than it is to have George W. Bush in office, a man whose views are in opposition to mine nearly across the board.
We don't necessarily need to move to the right, but we need to redefine our image. It was the same thing that we said four years ago, but I see very little difference. The democratic party is still defined by wedge issues where it sides with the far left rather than with key issues that directly affect all Americans.
The Republican Party catered to the fundamentalists, but it also identified itself by saying it is the party that will ensure safety and freedom. They pledged to fight terrorists and keep people safe and put more money into people's pockets. The wedge issues feed them many voters, but it's not the face that they're trying to give their party. We know they're conniving buttheads ready to throw out Roe v Wade, but that's not why the independents and the undecideds and the moderats vote for them. They vote for them because they see the democrats as the party that caters to the far, far left.
It's why people were telling me they didn't think Kerry would have gone to Afghanistan. The image they see of all democrats is of the most radical leftists. People think everyone is picketing the WTO, and they don't even know what the initials stand for. But they know that the media reported that the police were needed to break up the crowds. They don't know the issues. They only know what is perceived to be the far left nature of the party.
I'm about as far to the left as you can go, but I realize that others aren't, and it's time that we let the younger generation know who we are. We need to educate people about what this party has meant to our country. We need to give this party a new face. If it means telling a reporter that gay marriage is not a political issue to be decided by laws but an issue to be decided by the courts, then that's what we do. And we leave it alone until we can come together as a nation and a party and make those decisions based upon an open discussion of what the majority wants.
The reality is that we know that the courts will side with us iand make gay marriage a human rights issue. But we can't do it if we can't get into office. And we can't hope to continue gaining votes if we cater to the interests of the far, far left against the wishes of the moderates whose vote we need most.
Democrats need to focus and keep it simple. Sure, we have our beliefs, but those beliefs should not be the rock upon which our house is built. We must passionately and openly talk about the realities of our larger goals. At the end of the day, we're the party of the people. We represent the woman struggling to go to college and raise two children. We represent the old fella who lost his factory job and had to go to work for a multi-national corporation as a cashier. We represent the kid in the ghetto who can't get help from his parents on filling out college applications and financial aid applications because they're not even literate.
I was in this forum a few months ago, and I was booted because of a comment I made against gay marriage. I think it's a fundamental human right issue, but I noted that it should not be the single issue defining our party. I vocally explained my anger for that issue taking center stage. Moments later, I was banned and silenced. I sent an e-mail to the forum administrators and heard nothing. I was so ticked that I nearly voted for Bush just in protest of the narrow-minded perspective of the person who banned me from this room. I mean, this is the party that supports free speech, isn't it? And it almost cost Kerry a vote.
I'm sure I was viewed as being insensitive to gays and lesbians, and it might have seemed that way. The reality, though, was that I was trying to focus on issues that appeal to a broader part of the country. You see, I know that people are just as biased against homosexuality as they were against minorities. We're living in the 1920s in terms of our tolerance for gays and lesbians. Most people just think they are sick and perverted. They need to be educated, and we can do that. But we can't do that until we're in a position to lead this country, and that requires us to say, 'Hey, we know what you stand for, but we need to get into office first. So sit tight and let us focus on the larger issues that this country faces. Then we can have that discourse about gay rights. We can't let the other side use you to define our party. Our party must be about something much larger.'
We can't be dividers any longer. We must be uniters. We must be the light that shines the way for all Americans. Let's follow the path our forefathers blazed and march into a better tomorrow. Only when we rise again to prominence can democrats even begin to fix the ills of this country.
Are you with me?
Of course you are.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
Now let's march.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
