How Democrats View "The People"

Don't mean to snipe... ok maybe a little.

Is this really the best you can do to bash Clinton? Must be scrapping the bottom of the barrel!

I wasn't specifically bashing Clinton. I'm pointing out that Democrats do not really respect democracy; they see "the masses" as sheep to be herded by the elite, who know what's best for everybody.

Is it ALL democrats? Or is it just the ones left of some arbitrary line? Ther are dangers in over generalization... demonizing is one of them.

I am, of course, making generalizations. The perspective Clinton illustrates is, however, fairily predominant among the Democrats I know. And I live in Los Angeles, so almost everyone I know is a Democrat.

Gee.. Your recent comments feature is cool....

You don't see any tendencies on the right with respect to this? What about the so called 'Religous Right' who would dictate social behaviour to match their specific flavor of Christianity?

There are people who would treat us as children on BOTH the left and the right.

Yes, it's pretty cool. I can also see recent comments in the Movable Type control panel (only 5 though).

I'm not aware of the "religious right" attempting to dictate social behavior, please provide an example. I think what the "religious right" mostly wants is for the government to ignore religion entirely -- a lot depends on whether your definition of "religion" includes secular humanism.

As for silly things like installing monuments of the Ten Commandments, there is no behavior being dictated in such instances.

Ok, just one more....
Do you remember the blue laws? Used to be very prevelant, still are in some states. In factm I still can't buy booze on Sunday!

And there's the whole sodomy, homsexuality thingee...

And there's the whole school prayer thing...

And there's the devisive abortion issue..

....

The sodomy prohibition is, I agree, pointless... but it didn't have very broad support. Most Christians I know were pretty indifferent.

As for school prayer, I don't think anyone is advocating that people be forced to pray in schools.

And abortion is only devisive because some people find it convenient to murder babies. It's just not something I can agree to disagree about.

You didn't mention the blue laws at all...

WRT school prayer, isn't coercion a type of force, especially when it is backed with the power of the state?

So, are you are saying that when talking about the 'left', we should lump them all together with the most extreme factions, but when talking about the 'right' we're limited to the ones that you personally know? Hold on there, mister!

You are right about abortion. I hate to argue about it as well, because it is SO divisive and intractable AND emotional. But it is a perfect example of the extreme views on both sides driving the debate. The moderate view has no voice that can be heard over the din.

I didn't mention "blue laws" because I'm not sure what they are and I don't have time to look them up at the moment -- ducking, sorry.

I don't believe anyone wants to coerce people to pray in school. Maybe students do, but students coerce each other all the time. Call the cops.

With Howard Dean set to win the Democrat primary, I don't think the "extreme" views are that far otu of the leftist mainstream.

As for abortion, it's hard to imagine finding a "moderate" position that would please the two factions. That would be like (in my mind) finding a compromise between Civil Rights advocates and lynch mobs. One side will win, the other will lose, and there isn't much room for compromise.

I didn't mention "blue laws" because I'm not sure what they are
They're laws that keep stores, restaurants, and other businesses closed on Sundays. As far as I know, most states had 'em. Texas left there's on the books until '84 or '85, and were removed over the strong protests of the Baptists (and maybe the Catholics, don't remember for sure). I'm sure both groups would be be happy to have them back. Kentucky's went away in the 70's, under the same controversy I think. These are the 2 states I've really lived in, so they're the ones I know the most about.

I don't believe anyone wants to coerce people to pray in school.
Having a teacher stand up and lead a prayer isn't coercive?

Howard Dean? So, we can put him to other side of the left/nanny line. That doesn't help narrow down where you think it is, since you've already put Clinton over there.

So where is this line? Is Jeffords on the other side? Is Lieberman? Is McCain? Is it a straight Democrat/Republican demarcation? Which side is Schwarzenegger on? Ross Perot? What about George W. Bush? He seems to be growing the Federal government by leaps and bounds. But, is he a left/nanny or a right/nanny?

Do you still deny that there's a right/nanny line?
Who could be outside this line? Pat Buchanan? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? All the social conservatives?

I haven't seen Falwell, Robertson, or Buchanan on stage at a Republican primary recently, have you? And yet Dean's in the lead for the Democrats, and he's proud to stand next to racist crooks like Al Sharpton.

So, this is purely a democrat / republican thing then? I'm sorry; I was speaking in terms of left vs. right. I don't feel strongly pulled to either party, so if you expect me to defend Dean or Sharpton, you're barking up the wrong tree.

So, Falwell and Robertson aren't part of the Republican big tent? And how did Robertson poll when he ran for president?

You don't have to answer. I've just been trying to get you to clarify your thoughts about where this nanny line might be, and to point out that you may be over generalizing things, and that there are some on the right as well, who wouldn't grant me the rights of an adult citizen.

Since Clinton is moderate by anyone's definition, you must place the left/nanny line much further right than I would. And using an innocent joke that Clinton told about raising his daughter as a political indicator is just plain silly… but maybe not as silly as taking issue with you having done it. ;-)

As you say, it's not so much about Democrats and Republicans, but it's not about left and right, either. It's about those who want to control us, and those who don't.

There are lots of Republicans who don't, but most Democrats do. Almost all leftist principles involve distorting markets, which is by definition coercion. Most rightists are more into free markets (not just economic), and are less about coercion.

Clinton is economically a moderate, yet you still say he is on the coercive side. So you are drawing the line well to the right, at least on the economic axis.

What about the social axis? There's collectivist and libertarian points of view here as well. On this axis, I think the democratic party is more libertarian than the Republicans. For example, the Republicans are the ones talking about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And it's not people on the fringe either. Let's not forget the proposed flag burning amendment, the right to life amendment, the school prayer amendment. All of these are pretty main stream Republican views. And I still can't buy booze on Sunday.

Clinton was only economically moderate because he faced a hostile Congress. Bush is over-spending because he doesn't.

The Democrats are more libertarian than the Republicans? With all their restrictive labor laws, for one thing? The Democrat party is built around taking your money and spending it on things, what's liberal about that? I mean really liberal?

Gay marriage is a whole 'nother issue, and has nothing to do with "liberty". It has to do with creating more government entitlements. I wrote a little about it here, with civil unions.

You're mixing the economic and social axes again...

Of course you are right about civil unions, but in a way that proves my point. The libertarian view would be no government regulation of adult relationships at all. This stance would throw out government regulation, and recognition, of marriage as well as civil unions. You could of course still get married in a church, by a preacher, but there would be no special government acknowledgement of this. Why should there be?

The true libertarian would be pushing for an amendment to ban government interference in the sacred rights of marriage.

That's fine, but I'm not a libertarian :)

I think that marriage has a lot of social benefit, and extending the institution to gay unions would undermine that benefit. I'd rather eliminate government involvement than have that. But my #1 choice would be to leave things as they are.

Just so we're clear then:
By your stated preferred position on marriage, you consider adults unable to order their own affairs without government involvement. And similarly, on the issue of gay marriage/civil unions, adults are not to be allowed to pursue these relationships even if that wanted too.

If this is a accurate assesment of your position (please clarify if not), then you have exactly the same impression of the American people that you have attributed to the Democrats, e.g. they can't arrange their own affairs and should be treated like children. The difference is that you have this outlook on a social axis, while what you are trying to peg on the Democrats is based on an economic axis.

This is complicated stuff and deserves more analysis than broad stroking the whole Democratic party based on a joke Clinton told. You need to expand your learning set, or add another tier of neurons, or something. Somehow the subtleties are getting swamped by the main effects!

BTW, I'm not Libertarian either. ;-)

Run across this topical post:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/004046.html

I'm not at all sure how you feel that's an accurate characterization of my beliefs or political position. Marriage involves a lot more than just the two people in the relationship.

I don't think the government should get involved in who has relationships with who. But the government and society are inherently involved once the people in a relationship want to get special benefits because of it. I outlined a whole host of problems that would arise by extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples, and none of those problems are in any way related to my disapproval of homosexuality.

Your characterization is completely off-base; did you read the post I linked to about civil unions? The fact that I don't think it's beneficial for the society to recognize civil unions or same-sex marriage says nothing about whether I think people should be allowed to pursue same-sex relationships; it merely says that I don't think such relationships should be given the same perks as marriage.

You're insane if you think that my analysis of politics is "based" on the joke Clinton told. I just thought the joke was funny, because it reveals Democrats' true perception of the American people -- something that is clearly deduced from their actions, but that they formally deny.

But the government and society are inherently involved once the people in a relationship want to get special benefits

Why is there a special benefit at all? And why is it only available to some and not others? This is still the government trying to manipulate social behavior, like parents trying to get their kids to do right. Johnny, Sally, now if you get married you can have a little desert after dinner.... This is the SAME thing that you are accusing ALL democrats of supporting. The ONLY difference is you are talking about issues on an economic axis, and this is an issue on a social axis.

I'm not saying that supporting marriage is the wrong thing to do. Quite the contrary in fact. The point is that both left and right support policies that are more or less libertarian, with the less libertarian ones being the most 'nannyish', or 'parentish' if you perfer.

Now about that joke. You say this:
You're insane if you think that my analysis of politics is "based" on the joke Clinton told

And then in the next sentence you turn around and say this (emphasis added):
because it reveals Democrats' true perception of the American people

So, it looks like you use it as some kind of evidence in your political analysis. Maybe since it confirms your preconceived notion about ALL Democrats.

Consider the entire spectrum of people in the US. Somehow they all get seperated out as Democrats and Republicans, left and right. Do you really think that every Democrat is lock step with the party on every issus? Do you think that about Republicans? Come on....