You were all over the place, but ok, you disagree with many different parties about many different things. Copy, five-by-five.
How about you ADD to this particular conversation instead now by addressing a plank in any party’s platform you disagree with in its execution, but would accept if it was handled differently.
That’s not what I read the OP as asking, but ok. I think the Democrats should focus on a more centrist economic policy, and I think they are going about addressing economic policy in the wrong way, allowing their more loony (IMHO) left wingers to dictate the discussion. I think this could be a major area where the Dems could put things over the top on the Republicans, who are (wrongfully IMHO, at least these days) perceived as stronger on economic issues. I don’t think they need to do this in this presidential election cycle, as the Republicans are so ridiculous that, again IMHO they don’t have a chance, but I think they SHOULD do it and put themselves on this footing. There would, of course, be a lot of resistance from the Democratic left wing on any of this.
I really have no idea how I’d help a theoretical Republican candidate, to be honest. I suppose telling them to focus on their core conservative economic roots but with a very progressive social outlook, but I don’t see any of them in a position where anything I’d tell them would be helpful…there would be more than a lot of resistance from the Republican right, especially the socially conservative Republican right which completely dominates the party to the exclusion of economic conservatives. And there is just no way I could force myself to help a social conservative.
You seem lost, let me help.
“X is a stance commonly associated with a major political party I am typically opposed too at least on this issue. I disagree with how that party has handled X. If they had done Y in the pursuit of X even I would support it.”
Fill in X and Y.
Goring:Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Can’t improve on that.
That’s why it’s particularly heinous for politicians to say there’s a “war on” something.
[QUOTE=adaher]
Am I understanding the question to be, “What would adaher do if he worked on a Democrat’s campaign?”
[/QUOTE]
Sort of. It’s more talking about policies and general goals of the left/the right/whichever group you disagree with, more than working for particular individuals. I’m not asking “What would you literally do if you were offered the chance to work for your political opponents?” It’s more, “In this hypothetical situation in which you had to support this opposition idea which you do not, how do you think people should go about doing it?”
Actually, I wouldn’t limit it to cases where it’s only the methods that someone disagrees with. It could even be something where the end goal is something you would dislike regardless of the methods. But it could be either.
I apologise for not being very clear in my OP. My OPs always have problems like that.
As a liberal, I can say that conservatives are doing it ALL WRONG on abortion. If you want to reduce abortion, its been proven that liberal methods work.
Teach honest sex ed., not this “abstinence only stuff”. You wouldn’t expect a kid to learn math at home and neither should you expect that kids should only learn this at home with their parents (or more likely not at all)
Free contraception to everyone. I’ve yet to meet someone who thinks life begins BEFORE contraception, so if you want to reduce abortions, then prevent pregnancy in the first place
Health care. For men and women, its important people know what to expect and get the help they need
Reduce poverty. Thinking you’ll save a few bucks by closing down programs that help poverty is short-sighted and plain unworkable. Poor neighborhoods create other issues which will have to be dealt with, just keeping them poor isn’t going to make them disappear off the face of the earth
Liberal methods are superior for getting a lot of things done. A good example is how the Dixie Chicks got virtually destroyed. For awhile there, patriotic correctness had taken over for political correctness. Bill Maher was also a victim although it was probably a blessing for him in the long run. But he commented during that time how it was unfair that conservatives could say any shit they wanted while liberals had to watch themselves lest their careers get destroyed.
If you want to control discourse on certain issues, that’s one way to do it. To take the pro-life example, start making financial support for Planned Parenthood as toxic as support for Prop 8 was for Brandon Eich.
I don’t think the Dixie Chicks were a liberal smear campaign, it was a conservative smear campaign against a country music group when the nation was still under a 9/11 hysteria. 9/11 hysteria wasn’t really a liberal thing, it was a sense of insecurity pervading the nation.
Generally though liberal smear campaigns work better because they can paint their opposition as terrible people (racist, sexist, elitist, etc). Conservative smear campaigns attempt to do this (by making words like liberal, or progressive, or democrat into insults) but ‘liberal’ is not the same kind of insult that ‘racist’ is and the latter has more power to undecided and middle road voters.
If I’m understanding adaher’s post correctly, I think he’s saying that political correctness (and the campaigns that spring from them) are liberal methods, and that the at-the-time patriotic correctness is simply the liberal method but with conservative (or not-liberal) goals/targets.
It was using liberal methods for conservative ends.
“America haters” equivalent to racist, sexist, etc.
Out of curiosity, what general methods are you referring to, and what lead you to consider them liberal methods?