I think I'll pick up where the comments left off...I found it interesting that when DSG asked if there were any true conservatives left, gina responded that she was pro-life, and did that count. Barry Goldwater was used (by DSG?) as an example, which is a great starting point. In fact, if you haven't already, you really should see "Mr. Conservative" which is a documentary about Barry Goldwater by his granddaughter CC Goldwater. I always thought that he was some whack-a-doodle extremist, and while there were definitely elements of that about him, he would be considered a moderate Republican nowadays. When I speak of Republicans, true Republicans, I'm talking small government/fiscally conservative folks. The GOP has been hijacked by neo-cons, who bear as much resemblance to Republicans as Communists do to Democrats (take my word for it, they're worlds apart). It is my opinion that, since Ronald Reagan's presidency, the main item on the neo-con agenda has been the systematic dismantling of Government. They tell us Government doesn't work, staff it with inept or ineffectual employees, thereby ensuring it fails - and, voila! - Government doesn't work! They do not want to Protect, Defend, and Preserve the Constitution, they want to re-write it, taking the power away from We The People, and giving it to a select few, creating an aristocracy the likes of which we revolted against over 230 years ago.
Now, how does gina's response regarding being pro-life fit into this discussion? There are very many issues facing us in our personal and political lives. Some parties are supposedly stronger in some aspects than others - national security, education, health care, foreign relations, the economy, etc. For those of us in California, we can see this dichotomy in our own Gov. Schwarzenegger - he is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, which is how he has come to anger and please both parties, in turn. Now, I feel I can have a reasoned discussion with a true Republican, but the neo-cons have the major shortcoming of most true believers - there are no facts, only doctrine and dogma. That's not to say that neo-cons aren't welcome here, but they have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us - polite, courteous, and perhaps 40% less snark than post #1.
What do you think are the major challenges facing our nation today? Where do you think common ground can be found between the two parties on those issues? Should we start healing the rift where we're presently closest, or should we try to force the other around to our way of thinking? Or, should we just give up, thereby ensuring the failure of the great experiment - The United States of America?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I think the common ground is this.
Everyone's willing to give land to the n****** and the c*****, but WE DON'T WANT THE IRISH!!!
Ooookay.
By the way, on my last post, the word I forgot (which I remembered whalst transferring the laundry from the washer to the dryer) was...repeal. I thank you.)
Now... You ask, "Should we start healing the rift where we're presently closest, or should we try to force the other around to our way of thinking? Or, should we just give up, thereby ensuring the failure of the great experiment - The United States of America".
Here's my view on this cuz it's a sort of a... take charge kind of question. One of those "lonely at the top" type of decisions. A commander-in-chief attitude that needs intelligent, relevant, well thought out, take no prioners, lucid answers. So here we go...
I have no idea.
:)
But I'll be sure to express my warped opinions once everyone else chimes in.
I think that when people talk face to face (and not via the internet or on television commentary), we have a lot more in common than we think.
There are some nut jobs, of course, like the guy who pickets the funerals of service people with signs that say "God Hates Fags," but those people are remarkable and get attention because they are SOOOO out there.
Discourse that is not face to face tends to get insulting quickly because people assume things based on what others write - it's all about reading your own thoughts into another's words. And then misinterpreting them either accidentally or on purpose.
But, for your first question, I consider my mom and dad to represent the republican span. My dad is really a conservative - small government, whatever it takes so that he can keep his money. He is sensitive to some groups that he feels got shafted (like native americans) but otherwise thinks that everyone has basically the same playing field and can do whatever they try to do. He doesn't really have an opinion about abortion, except that he doesn't think he should have to pay for other people's and as far as I know, believes that gay marriage is fine and a fair solution for everyone to take advantage of benefits and tax credits.
My mom is very religious and anti-choice, anti-death penalty, and anti-immigration. She also doesn't approve of the homosexual life-style and even McCain is not conservative enough for her. We all love her anyway. She's very sweet and nice and although she says she believes these things, I've never seen her be rude to anyone based on their nationality or sexual preference or religion. In fact, she used to invite the Jehovah's Witnesses in for long discussions.
I know. :)
Can you force someone around to your way of thinking, on either side? I think that very element of force would be a deterrent to open-mindedness in itself. Much like religious enlightenment, political enlightenment must come from within, not without...
Both of the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have been co-opted in the modern era to mean something far worse, and far different, than their original meanings.
I don't like the modern Liberal view that we are in need of a "Nanny State" of Political Correctness, I also don't like the modern Conservative view that the Government is the people's enemy. We'll have to meet in the middle...
I'm willing to talk with anyone who's willing to listen. And I'm willing to listen to anyone who's willing to listen to me. Once we get these requirements out of the way, I can have a reasoned discussion. Ideas are the key to finding common ground. But these things are rarer than you might think.
Before common ground can be reached, common sense must prevail. Take abortion for example. The government should not be telling women they must carry a baby to full term, as the religious right would prefer, nor should they force a woman to have an abortion, as is the practice in China. Another hot button issue; gay marriage. That's easy, the state should only concern itself with civil unions, all consenting, human adults, even polygamists, are eligible. Leave the religious marriage ceremonies to the churches, and they may discriminate as they see fit. See, this really isn't that hard.
While both parties have moved away from their original form, I believe they have both moved to the right. The common ground shared in a capitalist society is the pursuit and hoarding of wealth. With an eye on historic images of Southern white crackers keeping slaves to enrich themselves, we easily excuse the contemporary American practice of outsourcing slavery to produce cheap consumables overseas and lining our 401ks with the spoils. We need to start with human dignity and work our way up from there. As it is, we currently debate whether a woman or a person of color can handle the presidency, a position intended to be filled by one of 'the people'. It's clear that both are not yet considered to be among that group. We trumpet 'sacrifice' as the act of travelling to another country to engage in warfare, while the concept of real sacrifice-- of foregoing the instant gratification we've taken as our right to consume more and more, regardless of consequences to our environment and the people around us at home and abroad-- is ridiculed at worst, and given a vague nod at best. It's less a matter of restoring American pride than it is one of discovering American humility.
TooSense--interesting commentary. It's funny, your line of thinking is mostly my rational for my stance on abortion. It's about human dignity and foregoing self-gratification and having the humility to sacrifice one's own interests for the well-being of another. It seems that modern day democrats have the same rational also, but can't apply it across the board to what to me should be a fundamental right of everyone. I'd love to know why they can't. I know it's about women's choice, and in some instances abortion would make sense, but the practices of modern day abortion seem so wrong. We seem to have robbed ourselves of our intrinsic value.
We can quibble about when life begins, for me, it is at moment of conception. I honestly believe that there is some intellectual dishonesty from the left about when life begins. Traditionally and medically speaking, life was always considered to start at conception. It wasn't until the Hippocratic Oath was changed and the beginnings of the push to legalize abortion that it was reconsidered. I think there's more to it than just a woman's right to chose.I think it's a profitable industry--one that the left won't even acknowledge exists--and industry always protects itself. That might be why there's so much passion involved when it comes to bringing this issue to light.
Right or wrong, the deed of legalizing abortion was done and in my opinion, began our country down the slippery slope of violating our constitutional rights.
gina, that's an understandable viewpoint-- I know many who share it. It is indeed possible that the medical industry has a vested interest in abortion, although they make money from births as well, so not being an expert in the relative billings, I can't say for sure. One thing that is certain is that the opression of women goes back centuries and more. Republican policies traditionally show little interest in assisting women who choose to give birth under difficult financial circumstances to raise the children they insist must come into the world. Additionally, efforts are made to make family planning aside from abortion difficult to obtain, especially in the schools, where promoting such measures makes good health care sense. Women still face pay inequality in America, something Obama makes clear is a priority to fix on his website, with no such acknowledgment by McCain. It would seem that the combined effect of all of this would be to keep women barefoot and pregnant, at home where they belong, and poorer than they might have been previously if "unlucky" enough to be married to a white male, who has the highest earning potential. Throw in the death penalty, a tendancy toward war, and a general callousness toward quality of life after birth for those less fortunate, and to this voter, the choice is clear. Again, if your conscience guides you to McCain, then that seems a logical vote for you.
Sorry, that should say "unlucky" enough not to be married to a white male...
Gina, I don't think abortion supports a "profitable industry." And how many doctors who perform abortions have been terrorized, assaulted, murdered? It's not the kind of practice a sharp entrepreneurial MD would choose if money was his or her main concern.
btw, as to being anti-abortion (or right to life) making one a "conservative," as a man, I listen to what women have to say about abortion. And as a life-long left-winger, I have encountered many women on the left -- either liberal Democrats or farther left than that -- who are pro-life and who oppose abortion.
The right to choose / right to life dichomtomy concerns modern-era women's rights, so it's identified as a leftish cause; but that's simple-minded.
In other words, I don't think being right-to-life makes anyone a conservative. That's just the impression people have because the religious right dominates that side of the debate.
As a person who believes that we are sexual beings-- that "life" includes consensual sex, I don't believe that women not wanting children should be forced to forego sex under threat of imprisonment, should birth control fail. The limitation to the roles of mother or fugitive of a woman who wishes to lead a sexually fulfilled "life" is the end result of outlawing abortion. The mother/fugitive dichotomy is a false choice, and one that offers no choice to women who wish to remain childless. The childless female "life" becomes a product of luck, rather than right. Women uninclined to rely on luck are left with no alternative but to lead a "life" in someway deficient, either of sex or of freedom from childbirth. 'Pro-life' implies opposition to war and the death penalty. 'Pro-birth' or 'pro-motherhood' are more accurate descriptors for many conservatives who are opposed to a woman's right to choose the alternative. And this is a personal decision to be made by each woman. I'd no sooner wish government interference in a woman's right to give birth than her right not to.
Wow!three-for-one! I love it...now let me see if I can answer in one take.
I want to be careful here, to maintain a respectful tone, so please bear with me if I step over that line.
I would not say that the act of abortion alone would be profitable, but I think it acts more like something akin to a loss leader in the retail business. In case you don't know what that is, it is a service or good that does not bring profit, but instead serves to draw in the customer for other more profitable services. I'm not going to elaborate too much, but think about the broad spectrum of what is involved in reproductive services. It's not just about something as simple as negating the result of an unfortunate act, it's about reshaping how we as a society view life itself. We've gone from determining when a life becomes a person in its own right, to all the way to how that "pre-life" may be used for our own benefit. In my book, the bio-med industry is a very profitable one, and is directly related to abortion.
Regarding pro-lifer's in the Dem party. Yes, it may be true that they exist, I do encounter plenty of women who will proclaim that personally, they are against abortion, but on the other hand, they don't believe they have the right to make that choice for another woman.It seems like a very safe answer to me. In my opinion, one should either oppose abortion on the grounds that it is murder, and stand on that ground as a whole, or admit they're capable of supporting the act that in their mind is a protected right. You don't get it both ways. To me, this kind of woman is really saying, 'yes, I would never kill my own child because it's wrong, but please go ahead and kill yours and I'll look away 'cause it allows me to keep my circle of friends." I could be wrong--it's just my opinion and I tend to see in black and white only.
As far as Dems allowing pro-lifer's to be representatives, being pro-life or pro-choice seems to be the litmus test. I can't think of one Dem politician that is a pro-lifer--can anyone?
TooSense--good point about sexuality--but a woman who wants to remain permanently childless has more than one option than to have an abortion should her birth control fail. There is sterilization. It would be a smaller price to pay than sacrificing the life of another...and a far safer choice than abortion.
And guess what? I'm opposed to unjust wars and the death penalty. How's that for consistency?
What the "pro-lifers" fail to realize is this, by allowing the government to dictate that a woman must carry a pregnancy to full term, you are also granting the government the right to force women to have an abortion, should the political winds change. This isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Our Chinese overlords have already usurped control of the womb, America could be next, if the rightwing freaks win this election.
well, since we are talking about abortion, let me offer my two cents. essentially, women have been having abortions since they figured out how to do it.
Throughout history women have used a variety of herbs and primitive surgical procedures to induce miscarriage.
No matter when you think life begins (personally, I have no idea, and I am comfortable with the current medically accepted divisions), women have and will continue to have abortions.
We have an obligation as an advanced society to accept that this is a practice that not everyone agrees upon, but which will continue to exist no matter the criminality. Our wisest option is to regulate it to ensure that any potential damage to mother and fetus is minimized and to prevent exploitation of both.
gina - well, for one there's Sen. Bob Casey of PA, who will be speaking at the Dem convention. He is a pro-life Catholic who has endorsed Obama. (http://casey.senate.gov/)
.
Actually, the original act was NOT legalizing abortion via Roe v. Wade, but illegalizing it in the first place. Abortion was commonplace when the Constitution was framed (both by surgical and herbal means) - so, if the procedure was to be illegal, the Founders most certainly could have done that, had it been intended. Roe came about because different states had different laws.
I have the utmost respect for your position, especially the consistency of your stance. Speaking only for myself, the debate isn't about when life begins. Personally, I believe that abortion ends the formation of cells that represent a potential life, and the value of that potential must be weighed against the actuality of a woman's life. In a perfect world, every child would be a wanted child. Abortions would be limited to saving the life of the woman (or would you say that they woman should die to save the life of the fetus?), or when carrying the pregnancy to term is unviable.
Each of us has their own belief system (including the decision to not believe). If in fact abortion is considered murder by the creator, the consequences of that decision will be faced by each person who has one. I don't think that I can condemn anyone for making a desperate choice, and I have difficulty with those who think it's for them to judge.
BTW - the comment I deleted was a double-post. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting all Big Brother-y!
Yogi, I do not care for your tone-- not at all appropriate for a fiance of mine. Didn't you ask me for my hand in marriage?
I don't think the issue of being pro-life is about imposing one's will upon another and forcing a woman to carry her child to term--which I'll admit, pregnancy can very easily become life-threatening--I think it's more about having people be responsible for their actions and not making an innocent person pay the price instead. It's about justice for all, not protected rights for a few. I think when you take away such a basic right--one that equalizes us--then you start getting into trouble. Protected classes and all that such. You dig?
FH, that wasn't a double post, it was so pithy I thought it bore repeating. More like giving birth to a beautiful pair of twins IMHO
yogi - all apologies! I didn't mean to 'abort' your comment. (sorry, I couldn't resist!) (Big favor? Ixnay on the eaksfray - okay?)
Wow! I was going to save the abortion debate for another post - it seemed a overly ambitious for a second post. Can I say how happy you have all made me? We're talking! gina - sorry that you're the only one taking your position, but can I say you are conducting yourself admirably! Hopefully, that is because we are all being so respectful towards each others' point of view. (sniff!) I'm so proud of my little blog!!!
gina, your point about sterilization ignores another aspect of human "life"-- that of changing one's mind, or even acknowledging that what one doesn't want in some circumstances, one might welcome in others. For instance, in an environment in which children-- "life" -- are described by the very same conservatives who insisted on their birth as "illegitimate", some women may wish to avoid childbirth until meeting "Mr. Right", but not sex until that point. Sterilization is not an option here, and birth control can and does fail. That's just one example of the myriad choices a woman might make. It's also understandable that the abortion issue would be of utmost importance to 'pro-lifers' and women who feel that they have a right to choose for themselves what happens to their body, rather than to grant the government that right. Obviously, that's not the only issue that's important to all Americans, and this election is certainly about much more, although I can see where McCain would benefit from painting an abortion only scenario. History has shown that this wins the vote of the religious right, whether or not promises are delivered upon. As a voter who prefers to protect the rights of the women who are already, without doubt, living, I prefer the candidate who doesn't play games with reproduction rights issues. Democrats do generally support Roe, true. And conservatives such as yourself have found themselves suffering a society that imposes the death penalty and a tendancy to war, along with inequality for women and minorities and the suffering that goes along with that, in return for unfulfilled promises to outlaw abortion. You lose all the way around. We all lose along with you. Democrat women who are 'pro-life' consider the trade-off for what has so far been nothing to be too high. They also view life as the period beginning with conception, and ending with death. Most of that time is spent living a life that includes sexual behavior and all that can come, if one chooses, with it. Your stance is, as you say, black and white. You're entitled to it, and your vote carries consequences just as you feel abortion does. A vote for John McCain will result in many more murders of men, women and children, some of them unborn, if that matters to you, than a vote for Obama. If your objection to abortion is that you consider it murder, then this should be equally unacceptable to you. I would say more, since choice other than 'the Decider's' plays no part in the slaughter.
Bravo TooSense...very astute--now you understand why I feel like writing in Hillary. It's a no-win situation...and an issue that does divide us.
Honestly, I've never been so apathetic about an election. For the first time in my adult life, I don't feel like voting. Do our votes really matter? I'd consider voting for Obama, because he sounds good, and might be able to change things, but he doesn't have enough experience to make me feel comfortable. And McCain? McNut is my pet name for him. Even though he's pro-life, all he had to do to lose my vote was say "100 years".
P.S. Nix on the Freaks? Am I missing something here? I'm quite familiar with pigs and their Latin, but that doesn't make sense.
Whatever works for you gina, but last I checked, Hillary was pro-choice, and a write-in for her is a vote not cast for McCain's only serious opponent in this election. Seeing as how the pro-choice aspect is not swaying you from voting for Hillary, then it shouldn't be an issue with Obama, either. Lack of experience... has the Bush experience been a good one for you? Does McCain's experience, which falls right in line with Bush's give you confidence? Obviously not, from what you've said about '100 years', and I agree. I can appreciate a protest vote, but I believe a pragmatic vote wields more power in this election. It's a contest between Obama and McCain, and refusal to admit that is costly. Writing in Hillary weakens Obama's chances to defeat McCain, and I can only interpret your purpose as precisely that. You are clearly not a 'pro-life' issue voter, as you plan to write in Hillary, a pro-choice candidate. You are playing games with the reproduction rights issue, just as the Republicans have done historically. I have no 'Bravos' for you gina.
There are too many abortions, but one of the big reasons I see for it these days is the fact that the GOP refuses to acknowledge the benefits of sex education and birth control. As someone who has closely studied the Catholic doctrine on life, I respect the principle of life being sacred and the notion that when we tinker with the boundaries of life we are to some extent usurping God's place. Having said that, I believe that making abortion illegal on that basis would be an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. I am more comfortable with the notion that the Constitution protects individual privacy rights to the extent that women have a right to control their bodies with regard to abortion, limited by the state's interest in protecting life. The notion of when human life begins is a thorny one, but to say that it begins at conception puts too much weight on the side of the fetus well before many of them even survive spontaneous abortion. The idea that life begins at conception is another religious doctrine that I believe cannot be legislated without violating the Constitution. Focusing on viability seems to me to be the only objective standard that the state could legitimately use to protect the rights of the unborn.
And Gina, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't take my "name" in van. :)
J.M., I'd love to hear your take on "judicial activism."
TooSense--First of all, I haven't cast my vote for anyone yet.In fact, if the Dem's were smart they'd be all over this blog and swing-voters like me trying to figure out just how to capture this vote. I'm open for change. I'm clearly dissatisfied with the GOP,I'm willing to compromise on a very key issue and this is what you're missing about The Big Hill that Obama has yet to say...she has at least broached the subject of abortion. The fact that she is wiling to open a dialogue is enough for me.
A good politician, an effective one, knows how to compromise.
And TooSense, I don't ask or need any bravos from you...I'm used to going against the grain.
That wasn't too snarky, was it ferret?
Must.Maintain. Admirable.Composure.
dsg...I would dare not take your name in a van. Didn't I tell one of you that I had a big Greek for a boyfriend? And he is one man I'd never take in vain.
Gonzalloni is one of my family names. Do you have exclusive rights to it that I'm not aware of?
I would surmise that your name is of Spanish origin, correct?
Perhaps we're distant cousins?
I have heard several conservatives express a less-than-enthusiastic support for McCain. It will be intersting if he wins, espcially by a small margin.
I don't want to say that it would mean that someone is CHEATING or stuffing the ballot box somehow (although there was a very interesting documentary about just that), but it would be very telling if someone that so few are enthusiastic about lost to someone that many are ecstatic about.
I think cheating is a very good possibility. As an example, I point the state of Washington's last Governor's election (I think it was 2004?). Talk about cheating...they didn't even bother to hide it. It was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. Interestingly, the same two people are up again. Wonder what will happen this time?
Anyway, Suza (this is you?)
Here's the problem as I see it. I'm not impressed with either candidate. I really thought Hillary would have been the best candidate. I think there was some serious maneuvering to keep her off of the ticket. My mother, for example, voted as an independent for Obama in the primary just to keep Hillary off the ticket.She can't be the only one.
I know Hillary's very unpopular-- I never used to like her--but I've come to respect her, and with her, like it or not, you at least know what you get.
I honestly think Obama doesn't stand a chance. It's the race thing. People won't admit it, but I don't think a lot of this country is quite ready for a dark man with a Muslim name to be president...not so soon after 9/11. I think the GOP is banking on it. I could be wrong, though.
Gina, just to be clear, I was joking. :)
yes, it is me, suzagoob.
I have also heard people say that they don't think the US is ready for Obama because of his race and his name. I'd like to think that it's not that big of a deal, but I'm really not sure. I do think that he is very "presidential" looking, whatever that means, and he is an excellent speech giver. Isn't that what Reagan was also good at?
I have hope that the race thing really isn't that big of an issue. And also that he'll pick Hillary as his running mate.
If he does, will you vote for him?
dsg...so was I...I'll take your name in your van anytime...
Suza...I hate to think it, too. I was raised to believe in that MLK philosophy of not judging a man by the color of his skin, but by the contents of his soul. Unfortunately, while Obama sounds good--I loved that on speech during the Wright hullaballo he gave--I feel like I don't know the contents of his soul, only what he says is in his soul. And what I do know about him, the Church thing, kinda scares me. It plays into that whole fear some people are silently saying we should be afraid of.
I think I could vote for that ticket. I'd have to see it and hear it to believe it. I may be the exception to the rule though. These are very unsettling times. I think many of us have lost our faith in the system, but are afraid of what might happen if we don't keep the status quo.
Post a Comment