It’s political suicide, right? This is the eternal argument, the perpetual motion machine of the left. If you stand up in public and proclaim atheism, or even if you proclaim strict secularism and refuse to comment on your personal religious views, you’re out of the race, because those ideas are unpopular. It’s a minefield… the only way to reach the gap is to tip-toe past the strong partisan questions into more neutral territory. Leave it to the right to stampede through touchy issues like God and evolution.
I’ll accept that logic as explanation, but not as justification. It may be what's happening, but it's definitely not what should be happening. If no political figure stands up for an idea because it's unpopular, then there will be no channel for the public to express its approval or disapproval (since, necessarily, the public only shows up as a number at the voting booth). This public silence, read as unpopularity, will reinforce politicians’ desperate desire to avoid those issues that they’re already dismissing from public discourse. This is a positive feedback loop, a self-destructive system that’s collapsing on the broader liberal issues.
You can put the onus for this on the public, of course... it’s the fault of the regressive, ill-informed, easily-enchanted redneck population of these United States, brandishing at every turn their hatred of intellectuals, their media-fueled self-righteousness and confusion. That assumption is widely-held, but it’s not self-evident. As I noted above, these issues aren’t necessarily unpopular. Rather, there’s no conduit in public discourse for their treatment as issues, or for their popularity at the ground level. Nobody supports them because there is no forum for their support. They need a conductor before they can assemble as a chorus.
As much as it pains me to say so, a good deal of the responsibility for this falls on the public personalities and the politicians who are crafting our discursive space. A politician needs to stand up for one of these issues... any one of them... and make an ideological commitment that’s so simple, so authentic, that the right decries it as hopeless radicalism, and the left breathes a sigh of relief as it finds itself standing on its own political foundation.
I don’t want to point fingers into the void without pointing one back at myself. As a voter, and a representative of a voting public, I pledge my vote and my support to the person who proves themselves committed to an issue I care about. I'll accept any of the broadly-cast leftist issues that I’ve watched disappear from political discussions at the highest levels. I’ve got three suggestions:
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Well hell, Jesse. I'm with you on most of this. Certainly on the secular morality, gay marriage and support of entrepreneurs (though I'd hardly call it 'socialization'), but here's what may be at the heart of your quandry. I'm a Republican and certainly not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination - in fact, a lot of your cohorts call me a 'conservative'.
So maybe you're looking at the wrong end of the political spectrum for your validation here.
Dave
2 - gonzo marx
as an Independent i heartily endorse all three planks of your proposed platform
good luck getting and Dem to stand up for it, not enough spine between the lot of them
as for the GOP being even remotely close to touching any of it...
most...ludicrous...notion...EVER!
could be a solid foundation for a truly viable third party, imo... far too many Americans hold exactly these kinds of Ideas, but have no political *home* for them
that huge percentage that don't vote at all might find something worth voting for...and quite a few from each of the elitist clubs that make up the current parties would happily jump ship for a viable alternative
i don't think it's a matter of if, just when
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
3 - Dave Nalle
gonzo, the gop has candidates running for president who have at one time or another endorsed all of the positions he describes. some of them are even frontrunners.
dave
4 - gonzo marx
and how many touch any of them now that they are running for national office?
1- secularism: please cite your example, i can see Ron Paul going for this one, none of the rest of that crew tho...and do remember what was it 3 of the candidates won't even stand up for evolution...spare me, ok?
2 - staying our of our bedrooms and marriages: Giuliani and again Ron Paul...neither of whom will make it through the primaries because of it
3 - small business over big business: this one you have to prove, again..even those willing to stand up for the little guys would do NOTHING to curb and regulate the big boys...if you think you have it, show your proof
why anyone with even half an Intellect would support the GOP is difficult to fathom...unless their own nest gets feathered by them being in power
but while i am all for self interest, i do NOT think it has to come at the expense of other's oppression, our environment or our rule of Law
your mileage may vary...
sell it to someone else, Vox..cuz i ain't buying shit, no matter how the salesman tries to polish it up
Excelsior?
5 - Les Slater
Jesse,
I am attempting to initiate a new political party. None of your requirements will be part of its program.
The logic of this party will definitely be toward secularism, defense of social relationships that are private affairs between consenting individuals and a support of small business at the expense of the prerogatives of large businesses and their institutions.
The major thrust, however, will be the defense of the needs of the working class.
Les
6 - gonzo marx
Les, check the link in #4...you may have a theme song for your new Party
Excelsior?
7 - Les Slater
Gonzo,
Thanks for pointing to the link. The sentiment of the song is pretty good.
Leds
8 - Dave Nalle
The major thrust, however, will be the defense of the needs of the working class.
a concept whose value varies greatly depending on how you define the working class.
dave
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Someone here should really take a look at The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. In it, he recommends that the prince appear to be religious to his subjects. For this reason you will not see a professed agnostic or atheist run for office and admit to what they believe...
They all want to be Prince...
"Here Prince! Here boy! Come on over! Now roll over. Fetch!!!
Goood boy!!!
10 - bliffle
Everyone should read "The Prince". Instead of just claiming they read it. Here's a handy pointer to the Project Gutenberg download (you can even get a version for your Palm now):
Download The Prince
Good reading.
11 - gonzo marx
bliffle - ya gotta add Sun Tzu's "the Art of War" and Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings" to complete the trilogy for any that are really interested in understanding politics and political interaction on the grand scale
hope that helps...
Excelsior?
12 - Doug Hunter
"why anyone with even half an Intellect would support the GOP is difficult to fathom"
I'm not claiming to have even a partial intellect, but socialism doesn't appeal to me. Getting the government out of the bedroom is good, the problem with the socialists is they want to put the government in everywhere else.
If you like having your money and finances, education and indoctrination, retirement and lack thereof, and healthcare and body controlled and micromanaged down to the point of telling you what lightbulbs to use, what to eat, what to drive, and how much of the proceeds from your own labor you can keep by some lame appointed failure of a bureacrat then by all means continue down the Dem path to servitude like the rest of the sheeple.
It's not that leftists don't believe in god, to a leftist THE GOVERNMENT IS GOD!
13 - bliffle
For eons in the USA religion has received a pass, In patricular, christianity. At somber public occasions when prayers are issued and entreaties made to god, everyone has been expected to bow their heads, whether theist, atheist, agnostic or non-theist alike (a non-theist is not for god, nor against the notion, nor pondering still, but simply finds it an uninteresting and unimportant question).
Newspapers and politicians have always allowed religion to intrude and have bowed to the religionists. But that has certainly changed in the News area as the internet has become more ubiquitous and free discussion has replaced the hegemony of the MSM, which always covered up the sins of the religious and gave somber respect to religion.
The general public has ceased to regard religionists as inherently having better morals and ethics as a parade of crooked businessmen and exposed politicians make their routine appeals to their gods for forgiveness, and then report back faithfully to us that god HAS forgiven them.
It'll only be a matter of time before politicians give regard to the significant minority that comprises the irreligious. The first step will probably be to not disclose any such inclinations, instead of flourishing the routine hypocrisy of Personal Belief when it is evident to everyone that they have no such belief. Religious and irreligious alike have always recognized these lies for what they are: bows to the political power of the churches.
And when politicians cease making those routine bows the power of the churches will crumble.
14 - gonzo marx
Doug, i think your premise is faulty on a few levels
never have i said the Dems were the be all and end all Answer, i'm and Independent and think both parties are seriously flawed...
but warrantless wiretaps and casually tossing habeus corpus out the window are FAR more dangerous to our Nation, imo
and let us not forget the Fact that government has grown to record proportions during the last six years of a GoP controlled government, as did spending
take a breath and look at the factual track record, and not just the hype and propaganda
checks and balances remain our greatest Hope, not any kind of "-ology"
Excelsior!
15 - Dave Nalle
why anyone with even half an Intellect would support the GOP is difficult to fathom
this question will make sense when there's an alternative to the gop which is politically viable and doesn't support policies which are entirely repugnant.
i've said it before and i'll say it again. the gop may be corrupt and incompetent, but at least they espouse a philosophy of government which is positive and generally in the best interests of the people. the opposition starts from a point of supporting fundamentally destructive and unconstitutional policies. from that starting point, even if they aren't corrupt and incompetent (which they certainly are in reality) they cannot possibly be any better than the gop, which at least starts with good intentions.
dave
16 - Zedd
I sense that the author does not follow the candidates and their speeches. All of these topics have been dealt with and expressed.
Now as for the atheist thing, maybe they aren't atheists.
17 - gonzo marx
unless and until the GoP even comes close to beginning to standup for some of those "intentions" and tosses aside some others, they remain not only hypocrites, but dangerous ones...
as shown in my previous examples in comment #14, as well as a pre-emptive war that at best, was a demonstration of complete incompetence, and at worse a deliberate deception
warrantless wiretaps, ignoring habeus corpus, cherry picking Intelligence for political purposes, outing a covert operative for political purposes and covering it all up...all of these historical facts are FAR worse and more damaging to our Republic than any imagined threat some wishfully believe the Dems appear to pose, imo
your mileage may vary...
Excelsior
18 - Dave Nalle
and let us not forget the Fact that government has grown to record proportions during the last six years of a GoP controlled government, as did spending
a common complaint, and i agree that growth has been excessive, but other presidents have presided over far more budgetary and pure numerical growth of the government by huge margins when compared to bush. bush has increased overall spending by 55% and non-military spending by 44%, in comparison, in a similar period the kennedy/johnson administration increased overall spending by 65% and non-military spending by 72%. that's substantially more.
dave
19 - gonzo marx
that doesn't make it right, and you know that..but still insist on dredging up bullshit to try and justify your take on things...your choice, but still bullshit, imo
and you have to count ALL spending, not just parts..it's like saying "economic indicators are good, after discounting food and fuel figures"...pure bullshit
just because some one else has fucked up in the past does NOT excuse fucking up now..also funny to note you have to go back 45 years to find your example
you are welcome to your Opinion, but bullshit will never cause me to change mine
Excelsior?
20 - Dave Nalle
gonzo, i gave the figures for ALL spending, and what you're calling 'bullshit' here is just the correct facts to counter your untrue assertions.
i went back to the period i chose because it was the fairest comparison, as it was also during a war and during a two term administration. it was clearly NOT chosen to make bush look good. there are more recent examples of presidents who massively outspent kennedy/johnson. You want a more recent comparison? Here you go:
kennedy/johnson averaged 9% budget increase/year
nixon/ford averaged 13.55% budget increase/year
carter averaged 12% budget increase/year
reagan averaged 6.6% budget increase/year
clinton averaged 4.4% budget increase/year
bush averaged 6.4% budget increase/year so far
so your claims that bush has provided over record government growth are just pure partisan deception. it would be nice to see you admit it for once. i'll give due credit to clinton for holding down spending more than anyone since ike.
what you're calling 'bullshit' here is just the correct facts to counter your untrue assertions.
as for changing your opinion, when it is based on a basic lack of knowledge of the facts you might want to consider changing it rather than obstinately carrying on and calling the truth bullshit.
21 - gonzo marx
thanks for the figures, and i have no argument with them...due note i said "record spending", meaning total dollars spent...my Apologies if i was unclear
as fo rthe rest...i'm more than willing to listen, do please show/cite your examples of exactly what it is in the Dem platform you consider such a threat?
i know in the past you have stated that you believe that the Dems have some kind of socialist segment that you find alarming...what makes me wonder is that even if so (and i know there are indeed some neosocialists among the Dems), the percentage of such appears to pale in comparison to even the neocon/theocon percentage amongst the GoP...both factions which you have stated to have problems with...but the combination of just those two factions represent a majority of the federally elected GoP representatives...and a far larger percentage than any avowed neosocialists in the Dem gang, as far as i know
so spare me the false accusations of being any kind of partisan...even in this thread i readily state that there's a lot of fucked up shit among the Dems, but that in comparison to the factual instances of REAL danger to our Republic brought about in the last 6 years by the GoP (and i cite some of those examples)..the possible and theoretical threat you espouse form the Dems pales in comparison, imo
oh yes, i repeat some of the serious dangers to keep them from being distracted away form attention, since they remain the gist of the problem and grist for the *mill*
Excelsior?
22 - Dave Nalle
thanks for the figures, and i have no argument with them...due note i said "record spending", meaning total dollars spent...my Apologies if i was unclear
then i suppose it could be said that every president engaged in record spending because every president spends more than the one before. that kind of comparison is meaningless.
as fo rthe rest...i'm more than willing to listen, do please show/cite your examples of exactly what it is in the Dem platform you consider such a threat?
i refer you to democratic socialists of america who express the perspective on government which is rapidly coming to dominate the democratic party.
i know in the past you have stated that you believe that the Dems have some kind of socialist segment that you find alarming
i think it is now safe to call it a socialist majority, or at least close enough to one that it dominates the party and especially the leadership.
...what makes me wonder is that even if so (and i know there are indeed some neosocialists among the Dems), the percentage of such appears to pale in comparison to even the neocon/theocon percentage amongst the GoP...both factions which you have stated to have problems with...but the combination of just those two factions represent a majority of the federally elected GoP representatives...and a far larger percentage than any avowed neosocialists in the Dem gang, as far as i know
based on the compositio of congress there are about 20% of the republicans who i would call theocons and almost none who are neocons. by comparison democrats who have avowed allegiance to socialism make up more than a third of their membership in congress.
and i think it's also significant that outside of their particular pet issues both neocons and theocons are either neutral or go along with gop party positions on other issues which are fairly reasonable.
dave
23 - gonzo marx
you still appear to make baseless accusations and false comparisons in the matter
i asked for exactly which portion of the Dem platform you find objectionable..i have yet to see a citation
instead you point to the avowed socialists i mention as well, then proceed to make unfounded claims about them somehow "taking over" the Dem party...show your proof
even your link doesn't give us any names of Dems that sign up for this agenda...whereas it has been shown how 3 of the GoP Presidential candidates openly state they do not belive in evolution (theocons) or the voting records of current GoP officeholders that go along with the neocon agenda
"sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Excelsior?
24 - Dr Dreadful
Wait, wait, Dave - back up...
You're a Republican? With a capital R? I thought you were a Libertarian (with a capital L).
I stress the capitalizations because otherwise these things are just labels, and not worth a gnat's fart.
25 - Dave Nalle
my keyboard won't currently capitalize, so pardon the imprecision, dr.d. i was a longtime member of the libertarian party, but recently gave up on its inability to do anything sensible at all. i've been a republican for several years, but i still hold to a basically libertarian philosophy with some reasonable accomodations with common sense. and i'm not alone. there are a lot of libertarian leaning republicans - more all the time.
dave