![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conservative and liberal movements
Jan. 25th, 2005 02:47 pmThe single best reason to have basic cable is The Daily Show.
They've had some exceptional guests lately, they had Jim Wallis on recently, the editor of Sojourner, & who wrote a book God's Politics which promote a left wing evangelical christianity. He had some great lines like "the bible has 3 lines about homosexuals and over 3000 passages on the poor and which of those seem more important to the religious right". I think he is tilting at windmills, the failure of the christian church to promote true social welfare at the end of the twentieth century demonstrates it's core of utter moral rot. But there's still a lot of emotional allegiance to the things it is often claimed to be about and his ability to point out the hypocrisy from within might strike some chord.
They they had Richard A. Viguerie on talking about his book on how the conservative movement used direct mail and "alternative media" (talk radio) to shape and position thier movement. It could be called the use of a form of tailored narrowcasting. Jon didn't ask him about the tailored direct mail attack Rove used against John McCain in the 2000 republican primaries in south carolina but he did punctuate the observation that there's really not a liberal movement in the US. There is a hodge-podge of loosely aligned focus groups that all kind of default to the democratic party. There's no Sauron to bind them in the darkness, nor I doubt that there can be, fault lines exist that run so deep they'll prevent any real unification.
There are the intellectual liberals: people who tend to be for environmentalism, free (but fair) trade, social justice, public integrity, egalitarianism, etc. which can probably be considered the core, but they are at most 20% of the public (40% of the the democratic party) Pretty much me and everyone reading this. But there are lot of other identity groups which, if pressed, will schism out. The objection to free trade by labor unions (though that's fading), the public integrity anxiety the government worker unions exhibit, and probably most devastating the horror a liberal queer positive holds for the politically active black community (and the older labor unions)
That last fissure is the central split the religious right is trying (and as 2k4 proved, succeeding) to use, making the democrats go mealy mouth on gay marriage rather than standing up for it as the fundamental moral question that it is. Because if they had stridently asserted support for this point the republicans would have won by a lot more than the fraction of a percentage they did, it was obvious to the people reading the polls that too much of the black (and older white) community would rather hate gays than stop bush.
A modern liberal movement can't afford to go soft in the clutches like that. If we're going to lose I would rather lose standing for the right things;
equal rights regardless of race, religion, sex, orientation, ability, or other point of bias.
free trade between countries which enforce equivalent occupational standards
stewardship of the enivironment with a goal of sustainability
public integrity for all institutions of american life enforced by transparency
social justice, trying to ease the suffering inherent in life by aiding the poor, the weak, the infirm, and the downtrodden
They've had some exceptional guests lately, they had Jim Wallis on recently, the editor of Sojourner, & who wrote a book God's Politics which promote a left wing evangelical christianity. He had some great lines like "the bible has 3 lines about homosexuals and over 3000 passages on the poor and which of those seem more important to the religious right". I think he is tilting at windmills, the failure of the christian church to promote true social welfare at the end of the twentieth century demonstrates it's core of utter moral rot. But there's still a lot of emotional allegiance to the things it is often claimed to be about and his ability to point out the hypocrisy from within might strike some chord.
They they had Richard A. Viguerie on talking about his book on how the conservative movement used direct mail and "alternative media" (talk radio) to shape and position thier movement. It could be called the use of a form of tailored narrowcasting. Jon didn't ask him about the tailored direct mail attack Rove used against John McCain in the 2000 republican primaries in south carolina but he did punctuate the observation that there's really not a liberal movement in the US. There is a hodge-podge of loosely aligned focus groups that all kind of default to the democratic party. There's no Sauron to bind them in the darkness, nor I doubt that there can be, fault lines exist that run so deep they'll prevent any real unification.
There are the intellectual liberals: people who tend to be for environmentalism, free (but fair) trade, social justice, public integrity, egalitarianism, etc. which can probably be considered the core, but they are at most 20% of the public (40% of the the democratic party) Pretty much me and everyone reading this. But there are lot of other identity groups which, if pressed, will schism out. The objection to free trade by labor unions (though that's fading), the public integrity anxiety the government worker unions exhibit, and probably most devastating the horror a liberal queer positive holds for the politically active black community (and the older labor unions)
That last fissure is the central split the religious right is trying (and as 2k4 proved, succeeding) to use, making the democrats go mealy mouth on gay marriage rather than standing up for it as the fundamental moral question that it is. Because if they had stridently asserted support for this point the republicans would have won by a lot more than the fraction of a percentage they did, it was obvious to the people reading the polls that too much of the black (and older white) community would rather hate gays than stop bush.
A modern liberal movement can't afford to go soft in the clutches like that. If we're going to lose I would rather lose standing for the right things;
equal rights regardless of race, religion, sex, orientation, ability, or other point of bias.
free trade between countries which enforce equivalent occupational standards
stewardship of the enivironment with a goal of sustainability
public integrity for all institutions of american life enforced by transparency
social justice, trying to ease the suffering inherent in life by aiding the poor, the weak, the infirm, and the downtrodden
