Ignatius J. Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Well, my guy lost, sucks for me. But the even bigger concern on my part is why bush won. It seems that Bush won this election on values, and many of those values are values that I do not agree with. I was hoping that a democratic win would shake up the republican party and bring them back to a contract with america sentiment. Instead, what we saw was a vote for big government. Low taxes, but bigger even bigger spending, and more deficits. We saw Bush carry states where exit polls seemed to indicate that bush's feelings on gay marriage and abortion and stem cell research were among his top selling points. This was a victory for people who believe in legislating morality. I worry that the more libertarian wing of the party will be forced to concede that the mandate, if there was one at all, was from the religious right who came out and showed that they are THE powerful voice in american politics right now. I remember a few conversations on this board, where some spoke of hopes that a party would step in to fill the void for those who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I think this victory will keep that void from being filled for at least another decade. That's not an ideology that represents who america is right now. The democrats are spinning. If they seriously want to win, they need to pander to the religious right as well. Is social liberalism dead? or am I misreading this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 It really seems that way. But I really do not think so. What social liberals have to do is come up with a clear coherent message. Its that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 No. In fact it is very much alive inside the party of George Bush. The Social Liberals CANNOT win the fight from the outside. They need to join the GOP and accept the Fiscal Conservative (insert joke here) and WarHawk agenda's to get the Social Liberal issues in the forefront. Guys like Guiliani, Ahnold, et al are the Prototype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Two different countries in one. Crazy stuff. The loudest voice was definitely heard in this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 Kilmer, I hope you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think social liberalism is splitting apart. Arnold and Giuliani et al have picked up the laissez-faire part of social liberalism: leave gays alone, leave immigrants alone, support scientific research, and generally less regulation of personal life. Most of these issues simply involve keeping the status quo. The Democrats are holding the losing end of the stick: gay marriage, affirmative action, health care, social security, welfare, minimum wage, international human rights ... all expensive and all requiring positive action. I think those parts of social liberalism are dying... I feel like Abortion has killed the Democratic Party. There is no longer half of the country that is pro-choice, and it is a litmus test for Democrats ... something will have to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Of course it's not dead. Hell if the democrats had halfway decent leadership they would have won this election. What needs to change is that the Dems have to start doing what the GOP does so well....hide the lunatics in the basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Its not dead, but the media and the very left liberals need to realize that this country has some strong values, and when you push to hard, they fight back. The dems like I said earlier have to show they can relate to the moral majority, and the south as well as the heartland of america, because that is what we have now. I also think the dems need to find a new leader to guide them, it is obvious that the current leadership is not doing the job, look at the minority leader, he is out. The media has to wake up and realize most of america will not listen to their slant anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The south I think will forever be Republican now. It'll be hard for any Democrat to take the south, and the farming midwest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Its not dead , thank goodness. We need to keep this endangered species around though to remind people why they need to side with what right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 It will most likely be relegated back to the Green Party and Socialist party camps again. Democrats were always most successful when they were centrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I don't think it's dead, but I also think it depends on exactly what we're talking about by "social liberalism." What the Democratic Party needs to do, if they want to win over the South and Midwest truly, is either cut ties off with or distance themselves from the progressive secular movement that exists among the fringe liberals. If we're talking social liberalism in-terms of a hands-off approach with people living their lives, then I don't believe it will or should die. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 Kilmer, upon further review, I think you are wrong. Guiliani, and especially schwartzy would have been crushed by Kerry in this election. Many bush supporters would have simply stayed home feeling that thier party had abandoned them. Neither man would have won a republican primary. Bush just won a mandate on his values, and those values are not shared by socially liberal republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by DjTj I think social liberalism is splitting apart. The Democrats are holding the losing end of the stick: gay marriage, affirmative action, health care, social security, welfare, minimum wage, international human rights ... all expensive and all requiring positive action. I think those parts of social liberalism are dying... gay marriage is not expensive. And the drug war IS expensive. It's more than expense and requiring positive action. It's about values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by Ignatius J. gay marriage is not expensive. And the drug war IS expensive. It's more than expense and requiring positive action. It's about values. That was the point of my post above, except for the deal about drugs. If Democrats want any hope of getting back the South at all, they need to distance themselves from the fringe group that doesn't have the same traditional values those votes hold. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by ntotoro That was the point of my post above, except for the deal about drugs. If Democrats want any hope of getting back the South at all, they need to distance themselves from the fringe group that doesn't have the same traditional values those votes hold. Nick Great point. That's one of the reason's I couldn't stand Kerry, his voting record showed he was way to the left.. why they chose him, I'll never understand. I would vote for Arnold in a second, based on what I know of him now. His views are very similar to mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 code, can you give me an example of a socially liberal stance that kerry took that was too far to the left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by Ignatius J. code, can you give me an example of a socially liberal stance that kerry took that was too far to the left? You "misunderestimated" me.... I didn't mean a social stance that Kerry had, I meant as a whole... his views that is. I'm about as socially liberal as you can get, but I don't believe in the traditional "big govt" dem strategies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankRizzo Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 To see why Bush won, you need not look any further than your own candidate. This just goes to show you how unelectable he was, this election SHOULD have been in the bag for the dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 thing is, the social stances are what lost the election for kerry. And if he budged an inch to the right on any of them, he would lose most of the democratic base. Every socailly liberal value you hold was dealt a killing blow yesterday. And big government got a ringing endorsement as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by TankRizzo To see why Bush won, you need not look any further than your own candidate. This just goes to show you how unelectable he was, this election SHOULD have been in the bag for the dems. This is what I believe as well. That's why I voted Badnarik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by Ignatius J. thing is, the social stances are what lost the election for kerry. And if he budged an inch to the right on any of them, he would lose most of the democratic base. Every socailly liberal value you hold was dealt a killing blow yesterday. And big government got a ringing endorsement as well. I honestly don't believe that. I think those are superficial answers. I honestly think that people saw kerry as a flip flopper and wouldn't keep his word on anything. I may have voted for kerry if he would have been more committal about what he wanted to do and if he was more specific about getting us out of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 God, guns, and Gays. Three things that I don't really think about that much -- at least let effect me that much -- and also the three things that won this thing for Bush. Strange. On a completely different note, when did Jesse Ventura become a Hair Club member? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Didnt help that the lefty loons like ELF and NOW as well as GLAD, NAMBLA endorsed him directly or indirectly. Nobody was going to elect a Thurston Howell III wannabe and Lovey Heinz to the white house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 Code, I know that you would have voted differently, but you are in the minority. Haven't you noticed that there is no legitimate party that supports your views? There's a reason for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.