A former right-winger on why the left should never compromise its principles

So are you all feeling the unity that Obama brought when he reached out to the other side and invited Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration? Don’t you see all the people coming together with those they disagree with? Just put a blindfold on and ignore all those people who are ripping each other’s throats out, and I am sure you will be able to have nice dreams about how a gay marching band can work with Rick Warren to unite America.

Not seeing it? Well then I guess it is time to cut the sarcasm and get real; you can not achieve unity by reaching across the aisle on extremely divisive issues. Now I know that a lot of people are probably going to scream at me and tell me that we need to be able to work with people that we disagree with, but as a person who is a former right-winger I used to actually be that person who I now disagree with. I remember when Clinton and others in the DLC were trying to reach out to me, and I remember how I absolutely hated it when they would try to tell me that they were on my side. Those who tried to reach out to me only reinforced my right-wing beliefs, they were moving over to my side and as they moved over it appeared to be an acknowledgement that they recognized that my side was right. Yet at the same time that they seemed to acknowledge that my side was right they simultaneously would work to defeat us, and I resented it. What finally got me to switch sides was not the people who reached out to me, but rather it was the people who fought me. I switched sides because people presented me with information that proved very clearly to me that the positions I was taking were wrong, and when I realized that I was wrong I changed very rapidly. I did not take baby steps towards the center like everyone says people do when they convert because baby steps would have only made me a little bit less wrong, and when I realized that I was wrong it would have made absolutely no sense for me to become just a little bit less wrong. The left proved to me that they were right on the issues, and so I became a leftist rather than a centrist.

Now to be clear I was never on the religious right so I never thought just like the Rick Warrens of the world, in fact I wasn’t even a Republican but rather I was a Libertarian. Take one look at the Libertarian Party platform however and you will see that it is in many ways an extreme right platform, and many of their positions are very similar to some of the most fringe positions of the Republican Party. While my former ideology may not fit perfectly with the ideology that Obama is trying to reach out to, it is close enough that I think I am qualified to speak about why Obama’s choice of Warren will be a complete failure when it comes to bringing right-wingers to his side.

If you pay attention the right-wing is not happy about Warren speaking at the inauguration either, they are outraged that he would even consider speaking at the inauguration of a man that they despise. They don’t like that Obama is trying to pander to them because they feel like Obama is telling them that he is going to side with them, but at the same time they know that Obama will work to defeat much of their agenda. The right-wing hates it when Democrats try to reach out and pretend that they are on their side, sure they may like it when Democrats vote for their bills but apart from that they want absolutely nothing to do with any Democrat that tries to pander to them.

When I was a right-winger the Democrats that I despised the most were Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman. While Lieberman has gotten more popular with the right in recent years as he has kicked the Democrats to the curb, when I was on the right people did not like him at all. Take a look at the politicians who are most reviled by the right-wing and you will see that they are mostly centrist Democrats. You hear them condemn Bill and Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other centrists by calling them extreme liberals all the time. They don’t usually have nearly as much to say about the most progressive members of Congress such as Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Henry Waxman, or Dennis Kucinich. Now don’t get me wrong they don’t like any of the progressives either, but they don’t tend to be nearly as loud about it because they don’t feel like the progressives are trying to pander to them. The word “liberal” actually usually means centrist when it comes from the mouth of Republicans, because it is the centrists that they often despise the most. Just look at who they are referring to when they talk about the “liberal media”, they are rarely referring to actual liberal publications such as The Nation or Mother Jones, instead they are usually referring to the networks such as CNN and CBS which tend to slant towards the center-right.

Trying to reach out to the right-wing does not work, they hate it when people try to reach out to them unless the people reaching out plan on giving them everything that they want. Now of course the right-wing is not the only group that Obama is trying to reach out to, many people will say that it is not the right-wing they are trying to win over but rather the independents. Now it would be difficult to argue that a person like Rick Warren would be the type of person that would win independents over to Obama’s side, but we should still talk about independents because they certainly are a group that the centrists aim to win over. In order to find the issues that will win independents over we must first identify what an independent is. This is extremely difficult to do as independents tend to be, well independent. I actually consider myself to be an independent simply because of some sour experiences working with political parties in the past made me realize that I don’t really want to associate myself too closely with any party. Despite the fact that I am an independent however, I will campaign for some Democratic candidates from time to time and I would never even consider voting Republican, so I am clearly not the type of independent that will be won over if Democrats become more like Republicans. Many independents think much differently than I do, so let’s look at a much larger group of them. Many if not most other independents don’t even really know what they stand for, they may say they are looking for a place in between the two major parties but they are seldom able to describe exactly where that place is. To be blunt many independents quite simply don’t know very much about politics, they tend to be low information voters whose votes tend to be based more on personality than on issues. While independents can be all over the map politically, the ones who do know where they stand on the issues generally know that there really is no such thing as a moderate position on most issues, and they are going to have fairly consistent voting patterns. The independents who don’t know where they stand on the issues will continue to swap their votes between parties, generally going for the candidate whose personality they like the best. You are not going to win many of these people over by compromising your positions.

In order to win people’s support you do not want to give any ground to the side that you know is wrong, you need to stand up for what you believe in and reject the agenda of your opposition strongly and firmly. If you want to win people over you need to show them that you believe passionately in what you are fighting for, and you need to show them why the other side is wrong. This is what won me over, and this is what I am convinced will win other people over. We don’t want to give the people who are on the wrong side of the issues any legitimacy, we need to point out the facts and prove to the American people that the facts prove that people like Rick Warren are dead wrong.

...as Jim Hightower correctly noted...

I like this one (it's either from Truman or Johnson): The only thing you get from sitting on fences is splinters in your ass. Pick the side you're on and get moving.

If we are united around bad policy then we will fall even more quickly than we would if we were divided. If we want to unite people we need to stand up and speak clearly about what we believe in and we need to get people united around our cause. If we unite behind the cause of those who have brought this nation so far downhill in recent years, then we will only end up in worse shape.

While united we stand or divided we fall seems like a good principle in theory, it is only a good theory if you are united around a just cause.

Yeah, that has worked real well for the last 8 years.

Clinton was elected in 1992, Democrats lost Congress 1994. By the time 2000 came around many on the left were so upset by Clinton's policies that they jumped over to Nader, the Republicans did not go over to Gore and they were able to steal just enough votes in Florida to push Bush over the top. The DLC cozies up closely with Bush in his first years, they embrace him tightly after 9/11 and endorse many of his worst policies including the war in Iraq. The Democrats get their asses kicked at the polls in 2002. 2004 the Howard Dean campaign energizes the left, starting out as a small grassroots nomination it grew far beyond anyone's expectations and while it failed to succeed in receiving the nomination, but it was successful enough to get Howard Dean the position of DNC chair a move that reduced the DLC's influence in election significantly. 2006 the grassroots was energized again and the Democrats made significant gains. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid cave into the Republicans numerous times, the approval rating of Congress sinks to rock bottom because the Republicans hate all Democrats and the Democrats don't approve because Bush gets his agenda through. Despite the fact that the centrists brought the approval ratings of Congress down to rock bottom however, the grassroots are still mobilized and in 2008 we saw more big wins.

If you look at the last eight years you can't possibly claim that the centrists were the ones who did a great job successfully organizing.

Look at this place. For instance, look at the polls here that have up to 10 choices and by the 3rd post someone is wanting something not listed. We are our own worst enemy.
Until we can proudly shove the word 'Liberal' in the faces of the reality challenged right, we're not going to be doing much to correct all the wrongs this so called 'right' has and is doing to the rest of us and the world.

They just love all that unitin' until they've got all your money (or power or whatever) then it's off to the next con.

:toast:

Miyagi: Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later

Miyagi: get squish just like grape.

You have done a great job standing up for your community these past few days, please keep it up because we need more people speaking out like you do in these situations.

compromise has its place, but not if you're the only one doing it.

for 30 years.

as people who care somewhat about government when it's time to vote. Otherwise, they're too busy with their own lives to care.

and they think its just a sneaky tactic that Obama is using..they wouldnt vote for Obama or come to the left even if Obama turned white and had the Pope speak..
if anything, its pushed them farther to the RIGHT.

Those who tried to reach out to me only reinforced my right-wing beliefs, they were moving over to my side and as they moved over it appeared to be an acknowledgement that they recognized that my side was right.

Excellent analysis. Thanks. I never could understand whey they hated the Clintons so much when they gave the right so much of what they wanted.

It is about finding common ground between the two sides and working from there to pull them over towards yours.

Say, the UMC, Anglicans, or ELCA.

Saddleback isn't moderate by any stretch of the word.

and it doesn't mean that we have to give up any of our principles in the process.

You just open yourself up to a broader base who will give you less benefit of the doubt on issues. They will think, "Maybe he isn't that bad after all," and will look at him a little differently. Maybe they won't support you on gay marriage, but on something like universal health care.

I mean there really isn't nothing to lose and only gain, if played effectively. If someone doesn't want to grab your hand, then let them be, but there are still many people you can reach out to who will come over if you give them some respect and dignity first.

Clinton gave them respect and they hated him for it, Obama is giving them respect and they hate him for it. The right-wing is pissed off about Warren speaking as well, and you just watch this will actually mobilize them even more in their efforts to bring Obama down.

Yes, reaching across the aisle is compromising your principles. If they want to reach out to us then maybe we can make some progress with them, but we are not going to make progress towards what we envision by caving into what they envision.

My money is on Obama

He thought the pick of Warren was going to unite people, but can you honestly say that this was a unifying choice? People are extremely divided over this choice, if this choice was meant to unite people then it has already been a complete failure.

The only people who do care are never going to change their minds to begin with. They are the extreme partisans at both sides of the aisle.

Obama isn't reaching out to them.

If they don't give a shit then clearly this pick will not have much of an impact on them. You are not going to win people who don't give a shit over by doing something that they don't give a shit about.

And just for your information, the GLBTI community and their allies who are offended by the choice of Warren are not all "extreme partisans" as you suggest.

Warren as the extreme, not the moderate or centrist. He uses the same words, the same justifications as anyone out there that you know to be extreme, he simply dresses it up prettier.

This was the original objection all along to this man, the rest has been mostly defending ourselves from those here in our own "progressive" community that we even had a right to speak up or question He Who Must Not Be Criticized.

side that our positions are worth fighting for, then why would they think that any of our beliefs have any merit at all?

Those in favor of the present day status quo have my disdain as well.

An excellent post, MN Against Bush.

:applause:

Oddly, It was Jesse Helms who taught me to be a good liberal.

Good idea meets bad idea in the middle- you get another bad idea.

Thank you for relaying your perspective. You may not change any minds, but you stated the facts for those interested. Bravo!

Right on!

great read, the whole centrist thing doesn't work in this day and age and he makes a good point....

"Those who tried to reach out to me only reinforced my right-wing beliefs, they were moving over to my side and as they moved over it appeared to be an acknowledgment that they recognized that my side was right"

Just ask the Whigs.

Obama faces in his attempt to represent everyone. The Right will never give an inch to Obama or anyone else with a D beside the name.

I appreciate your formerly-Libertarian perspective.

I particularly like the acknowledgment that libertarianism is a "far right" ideology (which it is). Note also that the DLC, which claims to be the "sensible center," i.e. liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, is, in fact, libertarian.

Great post. Thanks!

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

I hated the DLC when I was a Libertarian, and I would have been pissed if anyone had compared me with them at that time in my life (actually I would still be pissed if someone compared me with them today, but for very different reasons). Now I can kind of see your argument though, they do have a good amount in common. They also have some pretty major differences as well don't get me wrong, on civil liberties issues the Libertarians are a lot better, and on economic issues the DLC are better (although still very crappy). Sadly though there does seem to be more of a connection between the two groups than I would have ever wanted to acknowledge in years past.

Very few people can. That's an admirable quality.

:toast:

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

party's beliefs, it will appear to everyone that the beliefs of the party aren't WORTH fighting for or believing in.

K & R

I completely agree with everything you wrote. I was also, once upon a time, further right. I wasn't religious right, but as you said, more libertarian. I had a group of friends who were very far left and this stood out to me:

What finally got me to switch sides was not the people who reached out to me, but rather it was the people who fought me. I switched sides because people presented me with information that proved very clearly to me that the positions I was taking were wrong, and when I realized that I was wrong I changed very rapidly.

This is exactly what happened to me. "Reaching out" will never work. Excellent post, thank you.

If you want to show someone that their position is wrong then you don't do that by adopting their position, instead you have to challenge it. I am glad that people were able to convince me to change, and I am sure you are glad that you were challenged as well. Thanks for the comment, it is important to have people who have changed speak out about why they have changed so your words are very much appreciated.

there is no way that anyone who thinks Sarah Palin would be a good president can communicate with sane people. There is no way any of these people are going to suddenly see the light. Compromise with them = appeasement

I could never understand why people think making concessions to the opposing viewpoint somehow is the best way to enact change. Every life-changing event I've had in my life was brought about by being challenged, and I've respected those who challenged me more so than anyone else afterward.

Conceding parts of your ideology to get decent law passed in congress is one thing (and even that is usually debatable), but this recent stuff is just ridiculous. It's pandering at best, and we won't even get into what it means at worst...

Harvey Milk reached out across the aisle constantly. But he never, for one second, did so at the expense of his own constituency. He was willing to compromise, but he never compromised his principles -- even when he could have gotten some short-term advantage from it. His constituents were fiercely loyal to him, because they knew they could rely on him.

That's why there's a movie about him.

There is a very fine line between reaching out and pandering. Obama would do well to learn where that line is.

I agree totally. I cannot recommend it enough

So, let me get this straight. We are going to tell 50 million Americans, your dead wrong, and thats it and we are not going talk about this anymore. Isn't that what the right-wing does. This is the solution we are floating as viable. I understand the sentiment, but it does not work.

This argument is all about posturing. I don't want to win people over because I look like I believe passionately in what I am fighting for. I want to change the way the think by providing information. We don't need BS when we have the facts on our side. The right-wing can't hold their own in a debate. They will resort to typical scare tactics like "destroying marriage" or "family values". The way you win people over to your position is by making an argument that is rational and exposing the irrational contradictions that the opposing view has established. Sure, you can scream and yell and trick people for a little while, but after the glitter disappears the "emperor has no clothes".

Explain this, how did King and Ghandi organize social movements. Duh! Did they declare that the other side was wrong and refuse to debate the social issues? You might want to study how social movements are structured and how those structures relate to specified goals before you advocate a methodology that does not work. Or do you think yourself a better organizer of social movements than King and Ghandi.

One more time for the people whose brain cells are locked in the cheap seats. Debating social issues with a right-winger is not a compromise. It is confrontation. I don't like this decision either-I hope that there are behind the scene's negotiations that are fruit-full. But the idea that Obama can immediately exclude ring-wingers such as warren from participation in symbolic political rituals is naive. When are we going to spend our political capital and how? Are we going to spend it on warren, or are we going to demand legislative changes? Are we going to draw the line in the sand before obama takes office. Now or never, change the world.

Keep calling people bigots and prejudice, because if you do, then they will immediately agree with whatever you say. Turn off everyone who does not agree with your exact take on gay marriage. Moderate democrats, they are just republican-lite, tell it to their face, let them know that you think they are phony and compare them to appeasers and nazi's. Let them know that if they are not as angry as you about the warren choice then that means they are a homophobic asshole's and "just don't get it". Anyone that might be leaning in the direction of changing their views on gay marriage, demand they come around to your way of thinking immediately or they can go screw themselves. Thats going to work out great. Tell us what a "true democrat" and "true liberal" is. I want to hear about it. Anyone who argues that this move might be a political calculation which will lead to better conditions for the gay community is a covert, bigot, right-winger-tell them!

This is not a discussion about whether we should be fighting for gay rights. This is a discussion about the tactics we will use
to fight for gay rights.

There are so many things wrong with your post I don't even know where to start. First we will start with your subject line however, you say that this is just like the "don't negotiate with terrorists" bs. Actually I think we should negotiate with terrorists the same way we negotiate with the right, that is we should negotiate on our terms. No one in their right mind suggests that people cave in to the demands of terrorists during negotiations, and we should keep the same principle in dealing with the right and not cave into their demands either.

Second you say "I don't want to win people over because I look like I believe passionately in what I am fighting for. I want to change the way the think by providing information. We don't need BS when we have the facts on our side. The right-wing can't hold their own in a debate. They will resort to typical scare tactics like "destroying marriage" or "family values". The way you win people over to your position is by making an argument that is rational and exposing the irrational contradictions that the opposing view has established." Most of what you say here actually backs up my argument aside from you suggestion that we should not try to win people over by arguing passionately for what we believe in. I think the best way to make an argument is to make it passionately, but your are correct we do need to change the way they think by providing new information and exposing irrational contradictions and that is exactly what I was suggesting we do in my OP. By attacking me with an argument that essentially the same as my own it is quite clear you did not comprehend the message of the OP very well.

Your next paragraph shows that you are the one that needs to study social movements. You say "Explain this, how did King and Ghandi organize social movements. Duh! Did they declare that the other side was wrong and refuse to debate the social issues? You might want to study how social movements are structured and how those structures relate to specified goals before you advocate a methodology that does not work. Or do you think yourself a better organizer of social movements than King and Ghandi." You do realize that neither King nor Ghandi ever caved in to their opposition don't you? You never heard of King inviting George Wallace on the stage to give a speech during his march on Washington did you? Despite what you may think King and Gandhi DID declare that the other side was wrong. Of course they never refused to debate, but I never said we should refuse to debate either in fact I made pretty clear that we need to debate more loudly.

Those who oppose equal rights are wrong, and I am going to tell them loudly and clearly that they are wrong. I am not going to pretend that they have a valid viewpoint any more than I am going to pretend that those who oppose interracial marriage have a valid viewpoint.

Bush claimed that he was not going to "negotiate with terrorists" like the prez of Iran because sitting down with him would legitimize his statements in opposition of the two state solution, among other issues. We criticized this rhetorical tactic as counterproductive and now liberals are advocating the same strategy. He labeled Iran as part of the axis of evil and coined the term "Islamic fascism" at the same time he was stating that this is not a religious war. Now, those who see the political advantages of the warren pick are absolutely wrong and bigots.

Sitting down with someone does not legitimize their position, it de-legitimizes it. The premise of debate is that we disagree, otherwise we would not have a debate. Not debating or interacting legitimizes a position because each side is not willing to discuss their differences. So, if Obama does not interact with or debate the opposition then how serious is he about change. How serious are we if we are not willing to do the same. Meaningful, long-lasting, change is slow and painful.

You argue that you are in favor of debate, however, you enter the debate insisting as fact what we are attempting to persuade people to believe. Entering a debate stating as the premise what you are attempting to persuade is not a debate. For example, you state that "those who oppose equal rights are wrong, and I am going to tell them loudly and clearly that they are wrong.", as evidence that we need to debate more loudly. The point of the debate is to establish gay marriage as an equal rights issue. We (at du) all agree that it is, however, it is those who are on the fence or who don't see the civil rights aspect, that the debate is meant to effect. Additionally, the debate is not about convincing the oppositional debater, but the audience, in this case the public. You state that you are not going to pretend that they have a valid viewpoint, however, I think you are confusing this with agreement. A viewpoint is by definition a subjective perspective. It is not objectively valid or invalid. Of course, for those who disagree, the way they see the world is "right" and we are the ones who are "wrong". Of course, we disagree. That is why we are having such problems. We know that they will uniformly state their perspective as fact, characterize our disagreements as unchristian, shake our hand and walk away. We can not enter the debate with the same tactic, because if we do then we are merely symbolically grandstanding.

This method (stating as fact what you are attempting to persuade) is a researched political tactic that the republican party has developed to influence public opinion. This is the same tactic that bush has used for the last 8 years. Establishing that we do not torture as the premise of a debate about torture. Establishing that Iran can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons as a premise to discuss the development of nuclear weapons. The function it serves is to stifle debate, not foster it. If both parties enter the debate stating what they are attempting to persuade then the net effect is 0. Using divisive language and labels to characterize another persons position, confounding it with that persons identity, only separates. Another well researched tactic is framing a political wedge issue into a narrative that distorts the premise of the opposing view, followed by strong verbal attacks. Your post does not issue strong verbal attacks, however, the strong verbal attacks are evident on this site and are explicitly in violation of site rules as are arguments that gay marriage is wrong. My comments regarding verbal attacks are not directed at you, but at a disturbing pattern that I see emerging.

No one here has argued that warrens views are supported by or consistent with liberal views. Most are displeased, yet hopeful that this is a political maneuver. No one here has argued that "reaching out" means adopting an alternative view. However, we are told that our comments are both, and that such comments justify accusations of bigotry and prejudice. Additionally, we are told that compromise means that we are willing to throw the gay community under the bus and that we have used them as a voting block without any real intention of fighting for the civil rights issues that affect their community. These are very strong accusations. We have stated repeatedly that we intend to fight for gay marriage, compromise does not entail a change in the mission, and that "reaching out" does not mean adopting an alternative view. I do not expect you to instantly believe that everyone's intentions are altruistic, but I ask that you give us the benefit of the doubt. I also ask you to give obama the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you let him become the prez before you declare him a sell out.

The biggest problem that I have with your arguments is that you are contradictory and base your personal experiences as symptomatic of the right-wing as well as a guide for achieving our goals. You have distorted and mocked what our arguments are based upon and flatly rejected that reaching out can be a powerful political tool that creates political capital or that provides political cover. You claim to be a recovered liber. and independent, who would never vote republican, which means you are not independent. You assert that when clinton and others attempted to reach out to you and show you that they were on your side, you resented it and hated them for it. When did clinton reach out to libers? Don't ask don't tell? Naft?-libers party platform is not in favor of free trade agreements because they lock in specific capital arrangements. You where told a narrative about clintons fake reaching out and how it was evidence of the weakness of the democratic party and the control of the DLC. Let me get this straight. The democratic party, and liberals, have been marginalized or a significant minority for the majority of the past 38 years and are a weak party. Well then, the republicans should have accomplished significant legislative achievements across the spectrum. But they didn't, the republicans have used all of their political capital to re-consolidate wealth. All the cultural issues have failed and were merely distractions in the narrative form.

You claim to never have been an ideological member of the religious right but insist that we will not be able to persuade right-wingers because of your personal conversion story. You tell a story about how liberals should never compromise their principles as if someone has argued that we should compromise our principles. We have argued that we should compromise, never our principles, but compromise. For example, warrens pray could be a compromise. We said (as a party) we were going to be different, inclusive, listen to all opposing views, and take the political high road and not insult others who disagree with us and attempt to find common ground. Thus, we can go first, allow this unpleasant event and wait to see how the opposition will respond. Do you actually think that we believe everything is going to be instantly excellent and the republicans are going to role over. No, this type of political tactic is based upon the prediction that we will treat them with respect even as they disrespect us. Have you not considered the fact that asking warren to give the prayer is a very public way to reaffirm that obama does not agree with him and others regarding gay marriage? If we had a UU minister pray, would we be discussing our commitment and addressing those who differ? You stated in your article that the right-wing is mad at warren for doing this, so how does it play into their hands politically. Basically, his acceptance was the realization that the republican party is a sinking ship that he does not want to go down with. He has to pray for a man who has explicitly, on multiple occasions stated that he supports equal rights for gays in all area's. That is like a UU minister praying for Bush, please! This is a victory for the right? More evangelicals voted for obama than any previous democratic president since carter. Thought they could not be persuaded to find common ground with liberals.

You want some examples of common ground. Gay marriage is an issue of religious freedom!!! You ready for this: Im a UU, we are christian, we marry gay's. Reformed Jews marry gays. Other religions marry gays. Why should my religious freedom to participant in a gay wedding that is recognized by the state as equal be violated? Why is it that certain christian denominations are the sole providers of the definition of marriage? Why is the state acting as a mediator between religious denominations? Is that big government or small government? I believe in family values which is why I don't want to proposition 8 to dissolve marriages because it is destroying families. Why are we taking a popular vote to decide if other peoples families should be destroyed? Common ground can be a way of claiming the other parties ideological positions as justification of your principles. You want more common ground. Jesus was a liberal, I would argue that he was a radical. He was not a conservative. Jesus spoke multiple times about helping the poor as the primary means of salvation, and he advocated handouts. He turned water into wine and then he gave it away. He never mentioned homosexuality. There are two other small references commonly interpreted as justification for the sinful status of homosexual acts. If sexuality is so important, why did Jesus fail to address it in clear terms? If people believe that everything in the bible is inspired by god and therefore the ultimate truth, then how do we address the commandment of women to not speak in church and to cover their heads? Why does the bible say that men with long hair are a disgrace? What is too long? IF THEY START GETTING MAD AND CALLING YOU NASTY NAMES-"As a christian I take these religious issues serious, and I know that you do to, I was hoping we could discuss religion in a respectful manner". THEN CONTINUE-If I disagree with another christian about religious beliefs, rituals, or values is my religious freedom to practice and believe as my church instructs protected? If I am not-religious and do not believe in god should I be forced by the state to accept a religious definition of marriage and the family?

You see where I am going with this. Don't bash other people and label them as unconditional zombies. Present these issues as serious religious questions that are part of your spiritual quest. Frame it within the context of "finding common ground" and "reaching out". Either they back down or double up. Make the haters say it. Make them announce that UU is not a real religion. Make them come out and tell everyone what the "true" christian definitions are. Make them say or imply that reformed Jews are non-believers so who cares what they do. Make them dismiss other religions. Be kind, respectful, and genuinely interested in their views. How many people do you think they will turn off? You really think most evangelicals are going to accept the idea that one or two denominations are "right" and the others are "wrong". You think this attempt to "find common ground" will bring to the service the extreme differences of opinion people have and the problems with deciding what marriage is.

C, that is what I was trying to say about previous social movements and reforms. Its not that they don't believe and assert that the other side is wrong. Its not that they say the racists were right. Its that they said, I think the bible says-Im equal and that we should love each other and live together. I believe it is morally correct for me to resist your acts of oppression, but I have christian love for you and will not respond with violence if attacked. If attacked I will forgive you. THEN, THEY WERE BRUTALIZED. They forced us to see it, and it changed minds. Its a tactic.

We can, through attempts at compromises and dialogue that seeks to find "common ground" change minds or expose the ugly side of religious intolerance. If it works in Mississippi, then it will work anywhere. What is stopping us from organizing "common ground" forums? Why are we expecting obama to do all this for us? He did not promise us miracles, he told us we were going to have to stand up and get involved. We can capture this moment ourselves. We can capitalize on dissatisfaction with the republican party and apply the right amount of pressure and cover that will optimize our chances at legislative reforms. Or we can complain about how obama is a sell out, play into the media narrative that they have been carefully constructing. We can play into the stereotype they have created of reactionary bloggers. I say, we confuse them, expose them, convert them. Time to mix it up folks.

PS-on a related note. Important writers at Redstate are debating making deregulation of drug laws the primary platform of the revamped, small government, elimination of wasteful spending, new republican party. I think it goes back to the silly little concept known as "common ground". Your welcome!

http://www.redstate.com/jaded/2008/12/04/this-story-is-why-the-war-on-drugs-is-an-utter-failure/

Its called a complete meltdown!

I think you have nailed it.

I think that we should never compromise our principles. Not this time and not ever again. There is unity and then there is capitulation.

Warren's hate speech is even worse than Rev Wright's so called Anti-American rhetoric (I don't think Wright did anything wrong, but that's another conversation). Warren will prove to be another nut like all of the others that walked before him. He will compete with Baker or some of the other thieves and liars.

K & R

when I have more time.

I've always thought this was the case. Though as a life long Dem I think the hatred of Clinton is about hangups about sex and denial that they themselves could ever be tempted. A right wing folly in my view.

I wish you would edit this down, post it again with another title. Some won't read long posts.

"In order to win people’s support you do not want to give any ground to the side that you know is wrong, you need to stand up for what you believe in and reject the agenda of your opposition strongly and firmly. If you want to win people over you need to show them that you believe passionately in what you are fighting for, and you need to show them why the other side is wrong."


Is the crux of what I've always believed.

They think we are idiots and wusses because we don't stand for anything. EVER. It's not that we need to compromise, we compromise endlessly on things we don't need to.

That was one seriously awesome fucking post! :toast:

the center gets dragged farther right.

The American "center" is now roughly where Mussolini was at the beginning of Italian fascism. That's now our "center." Remember that next time someone tries to characterize a right winger (or one of their stooges) as a "centrist" or worse, as a "moderate."

That's how you get rights.

and should be REQUIRED reading for Obama and the cowardly 'centrist' democrats ---

I guess I have been wrong. This is the first time that anyone from the right has admitted that the FACTS MATTER.

K & R !

This piece puts it more eloquently than I ever could. My position has always been that you can't compromise or reason with a rabid dog. They must be crushed into submission.

People new to this concept should, after reading this piece, then read John Deans Three part series for FindLaw that begins with: Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party: Authoritarians Have Taken Control - Part One in a Three-Part Series

and his book: Conservatives without Conscience