I don’t thing you’re “demonizing” anyone, but I do think you’re deliberately mischaracterizing liberal criticisms of Bush as finding “the very existance of conservatives to be provocative.”
Ptahlis’ distinction between “uniter” and “not a divider” is an important distinction, and one that GW certainly made by implication during his campaign.
What I’m trying to do is distinguish dividing (or provoking) by deliberately attempting to rile up the passions of one group against another. Many people (mostly conservatives, obviously) feel that this is a standard Democratic Party tactic. Falling under this category are tactics like asserting that Republicans are racist (or semi-racist), or that Bush is a tool of the Rich People, or Big Tobbaco or Big Oil etc. These are regarded as attempts to increase the resentment that the people feel against the targeted group, and channel this resentment into votes for the champion of the oppressed (Gore). A similar tactic on the Republican side would be someone ranting about immigrants taking over the country, or about welfare cheats.
By contrast, the appointment of a person who holds a conservative political belief (or the adoption of a conservative policy) is not an attempt to divide anyone. It is a substantive move. The fact that this will also have something of a tendency to outrage many people is a regretable outgrowth of the move. It is not the purpose of it.
When I said that liberals find the very existence of conservatives to be provocative, I meant it in this context. I did not mean that liberals are offended by the presence on Earth of conservatives. Rather, that the liberals are offended in such instances not by the message being sent, but by the actual substance of the appointments (or policies). I don’t think being a uniter means betraying your principles.
Thanks for the explanation, Izzy (I should have dropped the “deliberately” from my post anyway).
I won’t pursue the argument on which party plays the “outrage” card more often; I think that’s fodder for another thread.
Your characterization of Ashcroft as merely “a person who holds a conservative political belief” is a bit slippery, though. Ashcroft is a devoted opponent of abortion rights, a man who gave us the famous quote about what kinds of dead animals are found in “the middle of the road,” and was the filibuster king against many of Clinton’s proposals and nominations (notably Surgeon Gen’l Satcher, over -what else?- the issue of abortion).
His appointment to Att’y Gen’l cannot be seen as anything other than a signal that a hard right agenda will be pursued. Coming as it does from GW Bush, who cultivated a moderate image and promised that he would try and “build coalitions” during his campaign, the appointment of Ashcroft is not seen as a principled stance, even by those of us who knew Bush was showing a false face to the voters.
Am I being overly pessimistic when I point out that vague phrases like “Uniter, not a divider” are simply meaningless slogans to give warm fuzzy feelings?
What was Clinton’s, something like “Bridge to the 21st Century?” As long as time didn’t stop, he was safe!
And boy, didn’t Bush the elder make the nation kinder and gentler!
Back to my original premise: it’s virtually impossible to “unite” people who share no common values, and it’s probably a waste of time to try. Let’s look at two of the issues that always seem to arouse deep passions, and see how a hypothetical right-winger and a hypothetical left-winger might present a “unifying” message:
Fundamentalist says, “Prayer and Bible reading have been a tradition in our public schools for over a hundred years, and MUST continue. Of course, we recognize that not all students are Christians, and we would allow non-Christian students to leave the classroom while prayers and Bible readings are conducted.”
Pro-choice feminist: “Abortion is a sacred right, and women will NEVER tolerate any infringement upon control of our own bodies. Instead, let us all agree to keep abortion legal and safe. Let’s make sure that poor women have their choices paid for by the government. But since we all agree abortion should be a last option, let’s unite by supporting mandatory, comprehensive birth control education in our schools, and the free distibution of condoms.”
Now, I’m simplifying, but I have heard these very arguments numerous times. In each case, the speaker THINKS he/she is being reasonable! The speaker THINKS his/her position is moderate, and can’t see how anyone but a fanatic could possibly disagree with his/her premises. But…
I can certainly see where Jewish parents who acceded to Speaker 1’s wishes would be compromisng THEIR principles. And I can see how a devout Catholic who goes along with Speaker #2 is compromising HIS principles. But for all the seeming moderation in both proposals, the fact remains: the “moderate” speakers have not compromised a whit! IF their proposals are accepted, they get exactly what they want, without the slightest compromise!
And THAT, I think, is the problem with almost ALL politicians who speak against being “divisive.” An ideologue who speaks of “unity” invariably wants everyone else to unite around the ideologues belief!
I don’t expect ANY liberal to jump for joy over the Ashcroft nomination. On the other hand, it’s silly to argue that the Ashcroft nomination is “divisive,” because the truth is, ANY nomination to ANY position is bound to be divisive! If George Bush had nominated, say, Arlen Specter as Attorney General, that would have been perceived (correctly) as an insult to the Religious Right, the very people who bailed George W.'s butt out of trouble during the primaries. 11 out of 12 Cabinet members are standard, Ford/Rockefeller country club Repubs. Ashcroft is the ONLY standard-bearer of the Religious Right in the Cabinet. I can certainly understand why liberals would LIKE a Cabinet that excludes the Religious Right… but how would such a Cabinet be “uniting” America? CAN you “unite” America while completely shutting out religious conservatives?
As I said earlier, I’d prefer to skip sloganeeering about “unity,” and let all sides fight tooth and nail for what they believe. But I repeat my challenge to all who CLAIM to want unity and not divisiveness. If you REALLY want unity, offer your “unifying” plan for coping with some hot-button issue. And be sure to explain how this plan REALLY addresses the concerns of both warring sides.
I really don’t give a damn about unity. The phrase “uniter, not a divider” is a convenient phrase for individuals on my side of the political spectrum to exploit in order to damage Bush’s credibility. I am not really interesting in unity with the likes of John Ashcroft, Lynne Cheney, and James Dobson. When the Rapture comes, I am going to steal their cars.
I don’t want you to think that I despise all conservatives. Equally, at least. Fiscally, I tend to be extremely, extremely conservative. I am all for trimming government spending in all sorts of creative ways. [sub]Which doesn’t include giving billions of dollars away to the military-industrial complex…[/sub]
However, in my heart of hearts, I think that social freedoms are more important than economic policy. I care less about the government spending my money than it dictating how I and others conduct our lives. When the government involves itself in these issues, it behaves divisively by definition. I do believe that Bush can pursue a conservative agenda, at least in the beginning, without causing every liberal group nationwide to mobilize against him. Hell, he should be able to set an agenda that does not transgress SOCAS as well. But given that the religious right is vastly overrepresented in the leadership of both legislative houses, that might just be too difficult for Dubya to manage.
Well, okay, so if he is not a tool of the above, can you give me examples of him taking political positions in opposition to them? I tried asking this basic question in a thread a while back. (“Has Bush ever met a corporate interest he didn’t like?” http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=54375) The answer seemed to be that people couldn’t come up with any examples, except for a few business interests like Hollywood producers and pornographers who Bush has opposed in the name of the religious right. There were a couple of examples of bills passed while Bush was governor that sounded pro-consumer or pro-environment on the face of it, but for the environmental one, once you looked into what had actually happened, it appeared that Bush tried his darndest to fight the legislature to produce a bill as pro-corporate as possible.
Please, if he is not a tool of rich people, big tobacco, or big oil (or big “any business”), provide examples that show this!
Admittedly, this is a bit of an aside to the whole debate about “uniter vs. divider”…My opinion on that is that if his definition of “uniter” means that he’s “nice” to the people who he is screwing over, then that is a pretty narrow definition. I mean, why didn’t he just say in the campaign, “I will work in all cases to advance the interests of corporate America and the wealthy because I believe this best represents the interests of America as a whole” and “I will sign on to much of the agenda of the Religious Right and appoint people from that community to at least one of the most important offices of government”? That would have been a lot more honest than this “uniter not a divider” BS.
Getting back to the OP. I think that this is an interesting question that deserves to be addressed.
That’s rather perjorative language. ‘Knuckle under’ indeed. Compromise is the act of making everyone equally unhappy. If the far right or far left gets everything they want of of a bill, then by definition it isn’t a moderate bill.
Moderate Republicans are (IMHO) those that aren’t 100 percent by the right wing agenda. So when they vote for a compromise, they aren’t necessarily ‘knuckling under’. They may in fact have gotten exactly what they wanted.
No politician wants to be in the minority.
This point is nonsense on it’s face, so I’ll leave it at that. If you want to defend it, then I’ll work on a more substative refutation at your request.
This isn’t a betrayal of liberals. They weren’t foolish enough to believe in the shrub.
This is a betrayal of moderates. Or more specifically, non-religious-right Republicans. Those who vote Republican because of the party’s stance on small government, personal responsibility, low taxes, freedom to own guns, but NOT Abortion.
There are a substantial number of republicans who don’t believe in the in-your-face, my-god-tells-me-what’s-right-for-me-and-for-you. style of Republicanism.
It’s those people who have been betrayed. Bush campaigned on a plaform of “lasse faire” for abortion. He did is best not to discuss it, but when he did, he made it seem that his opposition to abortion was personal, and would not become political. That is he had an opinion about abortion, but not an agenda.
Turns out he’s a liar. Who woulda guessed? :rolleyes:
Yes you are baiting, but I think this is the only truely interesting point you have to make, so I’ll dedicate my next post to that idea.
This is such a cop-out. Lets take Abortion for example,
A clear majority of Americans believe BOTH that Abortion should be legal AND that it should be rare.
The only reason that there is any sort of a debate is because a small but vocal minority feels that they have the right to tell the rest of us how to behave. This minority will never have the votes to abolish abortion unless they do it sneakily.
Say by electing a president who pretends not to have an abortion agenda until after he gets elected. Then by having him stuff SCOTUS with hacks chosen, NOT by their ability in the law by by their willingness to make ONE decision.
Strawman. The great ‘values rift’ is a myth, perpetuated mostly by the two party system that thrives on trying to make minor differences in policy into major issues.
If you toss out the zealots on the extreme left & right and work only with the middle, you can come up with legislation that appeals to the majority quite easily. Take the centermost 60% of dems and the centermost 60% of reps and you have a 60% majority that can come to a workable agreement on just about any issue. (note the use of the term workable).
You seem to think that the extremists are the majority of each party, but in fact they are only a small minority of each. Unfortunately, they are passionate, so they often get to define the debate. Which makes it seem that there is a larger polarization than there really is.
You don’t. You ignore the socialists. They only make up a small fraction of the electorate anyway.
Perhaps you meant to say socialists & Libertarians? I doubt you could find more than a handful of Americans wouldn’t say that they were capitalists…
This one is easy: education, or creative problem solving.
Do you think the loggers and the earth firster are so far apart? They’re not. Loggers know that if they cut all of the trees, they are out of work. They don’t wan’t to ruin the earth anymore than anyone else does. It’s the logging companies that don’t give a shit. Ignore them and work with the people and you CAN make a workable compromise. What the loggers care about is JOBS, The earth firsters care about TREES. (actually, ecosystems, but whatever). This is only a JOBS vs TREES issue if you let the logging companies define the problem as such. A good politician finds other work for the loggers and everyong wins (except the guy who makes money by re-selling resources that Uncle Sam pays for him to extract.)
Nonsense. Daschle and Bush aren’t enemies unless they CHOOSE to be. They are enemies only if they let the assholes define the topic of debate. Daschle isn’t particulary an idealogue. Now Kennedy and Bush are probably enemies, but then again. Bush is (or at least pretended to be?) a moderate.
Other than Abortion (which wasn’t supposed to be a bush agenda item), The Bush agenda looks a LOT like the democrat agenda. The differences are in the details, both sides will give and the big winners are the people who have moderate positions.
The only natural enemies here are the whackos at either end of the spectrum. THEY stand to loose out big unless they can manufacture polarization and keep the moderates from either side from coming up with reasonable laws and leaving the extremists out in the cold.
Simple: Renounce using party affilition as a club to pass your agenda. Deal only on an issue-by-issue basis with the majority of congress that is in the center. Ignore the party affilition and deal only with reasonable people.
Put simply, you unite, by collecting together the people who are WILLING to be united and discarding those who are not.
Generally speaking its only children (and those stuck in that state) who see the world in black and white. If the pres ignored the children in congress and dealt with the adults, he could put together a working majority on most any piece of legislation.
Now in the case of Bush, I think he may have been damned either way. Since he wasn’t properly elected, he never really got a proper honeymoon. The dem’s are really hoping that he’ll fail. So it’s even harder for him. On the other hand, if he did make some unexpected concession right from the start, he might have won them all over.
Instead, he did just about the most anti-unity thing he could do. Almost ANY failed senator would have been less devisive than Ashcroft. There just isn’t any way at looking at the appointment that isn’t a slap in the face to moderation.
(I know, lets put a homophobe in charge of civil rights enforcement!)
Godd job, Tejota. I just want to add a few things.
IzzyR:
But being a uniter is one of Bush’s principles. So is being a compassionate conservative. (John Ashcroft is not a compassionate conservative.) By ‘knuckling under’ to the far right, he is compromising his principles.
Either that or he was lying about them being his principles in the first place.