Dammitall. I watched 60 minutes on Sunday and they talked about how morality was the most important issue for voters this election, more important than what you would assume would be the most important issues like healthcare, foreign policy, the economy, the budget, or terrorism. So sadly I assume the democrats will respond to this loss on the morality vote (those who voted on morals voted 79% to 18% for Bush) by becoming puritanical and trying to court the morality vote. Is this likely to happen with both parties being anti stem cells, anti gay marriage/civil unions, etc or will the democrats remain as social libertarians in order to provide an option for those who don’t support what passes for morality (which some of us find bad for a variety of valid reasons)? You would assume if both parties sounded the same on social libertarian issues than the 50% of americans who do not support ‘moral’ stances on abortion, stem cells, gay marriage, etc. will have no one to vote for.
At the very least I see alot of token morality coming from the democratic party soon. Maybe not changing their stances on major issues but more flag waving and less sepration of church and state for them.
For the record I know both the democrats and republicans were anti-gay marriage but the democrats were pro civil unions while the republicans were anti that and pro a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
It could happen, but I doubt it. Most of the time, I believe that the “puritanistic” social values are on their last legs. People are fighting so hard for them because they are fading.
If Democrats swung toward the right socially, someone like Nader (not Nader, but someone like him) would simply steal away those of us who aren’t going to vote for a social conservative, while those who want a social conservative in office would vote for the “real deal” Republican.
yep… expect more bible carrying politicians and campaigns centered on religious issues. Really sad. If your not vomiting religious talk… don’t bother running for office.
I sincerely hope not. It would be nice if the Democrats had the sense to realize that “morals” do not necessarily equal “puritanical evangelism”.
If the Democrats just try to ape the Republicans on this one…if they all try to turn themselves into Joe Lieberman as some seem to think they should…the Republicans will happily turn around and label the Democrats as poseurs, Johnny-come-lately’s, flip-floppers, and panderers. Democrats need to get in front of the “moral values” movement instead, and starting trumpeting the moral values that they already hold (or should already hold). Things like compassion, tolerance, openness, respect, and forthrightness with the American people. Morals which can form the core of a positive message, instead of code-words for banning gay marriage and repealing Roe vs. Wade.
Trying to play Republican-lite will just play right into the flip-flopper smears, and ironically result in voters thinking that Democrats are amoral panderers who’ll do anything for a vote. Better to push the moral values that truly flow from Democrat core beliefs, before Republicans define the debate entirely to their own advantage. Again.
Of course, this is just what I hope the Democratic party will do, and what I think they should do. Whether they’ll actually do it is another question.
If they DO stroll on over to the right, I’ll look for another party to support. I want a party that reflects my morals & goals, not one that hanges course as a matter of business practice to garner more customers.
What they NEED to do is figure out how they alienated The South and The MidWest. As has been noted, it appears that the reluctance to take a firm stand toward legislating “morality” spoke more clearly than any motion toward bettering the physical lives of the people in those areas.
And it didn’t help that the Dems couldn’t find a decent candidate with any more to offer than 3 purple hearts and an exotic bride. Kerry may have had more on the ball that Bush, or at least was able to think on his feet, but he was not engaging as a speaker. Too Serious, cold, and not friendly/not approachable. In short, the Dems fielded a guy that lived up to the negative Southern stereotype of a “Yankee.” Of *course *they didn’t want him.
The Dems can pull it off in 2008 with a candidate of the exact same platform as Kerry, if they can find a Southerner or a Farmer. A “Good Ol Boy” if you will. Someone who can be believed when he says, “I support (moral issue), but recognize the right of Free Americans to make this decision for themselves. If we address poverty, healthcare and international relations according to MY (liberal) vision, then it will be clear that the morality we live truly is best for everyone.”
If they do, I withdraw all support, simple as that. As it is I’m registered Independent, but held my nose and voted for Kerry as the lesser of two evils, and as an attempt to boost the popular vote to try to provide some sort of mandate to counter the Republican Congress. Guess that didn’t work out. If pandery to the religious right is the only way they can conceive of improving their influence, if they so lack creativity, vision, and a sense of societal justice that they must embrace the very people who wish, as a matter of law, to deny equal rights and protections to all citizens because of their faith, then they are simply another part of the problem, as far as I’m concerned. They warrant neither endorsement, nor respect, and I will happily do what I can to combat them.
Same here. If the Democrats field a pro-life candidate, or a candidate who starts spewing moralistic bullshit and the bigbrotherly coercive enforcement thereof, they will under no circumstances get my vote.
Yeah. When I first heard that announced, that huge numbers of voters were saying “Morals” was the most important issue to them in this election, I literally started shouting at the radio, “WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN?!”
Because from where I stand, John Kerry just about had a deadlock on morals compared to his opponent. His opponent bore false witness far more often (look at Bush’s constant, lying references to Kerry’s “Global Test” as just one tiny example). His opponent has gotten a lot more people unnecessarily killed. His opponent has overseen an administration that has made backroom deals with corporations to create national policy.
These, in my mind, are highly immoral acts, and if a voter went into the booth concerned about morals, I’d expect the voter to vote against Bush.
But it seems to me that the Republican party has co-opted the word, twisted it around until it means, “Hating naughty bits.” You know, because they’re Christian, and Jesus just harped and harped on what people did with their genitalia. Couldn’t shut up on the issue.
I think that the Democratic party needs to explain why their positions are absolutely based on a strong morality, and why it’s a significant, relevant morality, not just a prurient judgmentalism masking as goodness. We need people who can show their passion for doing what’s right, who show that this stuff isn’t about number, it’s about lives.
“Morals.” We got morals. What we don’t have is an obsession with naughty bits.