MyDD :: Democrats Are The Party of Individual Freedoms

Democrats Are The Party of Individual Freedoms

by Chris Bowers, Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 04:16:43 PM EST

Pew has released a large survey today about religion and political life in America. Among its many, many findings is that the post-election meta-narrative about Democrats losing because of "values voters" and religion has taken a major toll on the Democratic image when it comes to religion. While only 20% of voters actively see the Democratic Party as unfriendly to religion, and most of those are probably Republicans, it is instructive that the Democratic drop on this question occurred in 2005, after the election, rather than in 2004, before the election. In other words, it was the post-election meta-narrative that changed voters views on this subject, not anything the Democratic actually did. So, we lost in 2004, largely because of the conservative message machine sliming John Kerry, and then took another beating at the hands of the conservative message machine. And so the cycle continues.

In another sign of the power of the backlash narrative and the conservative message machine, despite conservative controlling every branch of government in Washington, noticeably higher percentages of almost every demographic view liberals as having gone further in trying to push religion out of government and schools than conservative Christians have gone in trying to impose their values on the rest of the nation. If anyone every believed that conservatives being in power everywhere would somehow end their persecution narrative, think again.

Another interesting finding in the study is the growing perception that while Republicans are interested in protecting religious values, Democrats are overwhelmingly the party that works to protect individual liberties. This is particularly the case among younger voters, who see Democrats as the party of individual freedoms by more than a two to one margin, and Republicans as the party of religious values by more than a two to one margin. Considering the current governing direction of the Republican junta, it is hard to imagine that perception changing anytime soon. It will be important for Democrats to reify this belief during the Roberts hearings.

The study also features a lot of information about evolution, which I just can't stand to see. That such large percentages of America (42%) still reject not only evolution, but the idea that evolution could have been directed by a Supreme Being, quite honestly makes me want to throw my hands up in the air and move to a small cabin in the Aleutian Islands.

Tags: Culture (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

And this won't change... (none / 0)

until we have an effective noise machine of our own.

And Current TV is not a step in that direction.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds

by LiberalFromPA on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 04:35:08 PM EST

No Surprise (3.00 / 1)

If anyone every believed that conservatives being in power everywhere would somehow end their persecution narrative, think again.

The persecution narrative is a core element in conservative ideology, stretching back to the dawn of time.

Conservatives believe in to two seemingly contradictory things:

(2) The world reflects a just social order. (The "just world" syndrome.) Anyone who questions the order of things is a force of evil.

Underlying this seeming contradiction is the simple truth: the arbitrary destructive force they pretend to oppose is the source of their legitimation and power.

As the world's leading persecutors, naturally they live in constant fear of persecution.

Of course we can expect to see variations over time, and polls like these are worth studying carefully. But the conservative's persecution complex will always be there in some form or other.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 05:02:42 PM EST

Re: No Surprise (none / 0)

Your observation is excellent.

I only wish to add that the Pew poll shows that there are now moderate/liberal republicans and M/L independents who may be receptive to a persecution narrative written from a differing perspective.

Accept that there will always be a conservative religious element, yet be reassured that there may be a moderate backlash.

by MassachusettsLiberalinDC on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Surprise (none / 0)

Conservatism is not a threat to the country, esp. religious conservatism. Adherence to the bible - think about it, what about, the book of Genesis, just the story of Jacob and Esau - as the infallible word of god is a natural part of evolution of thought and a very healthy ideology. Jacob and Esau, as you recall, went to the opposite sides of the earth against each other - but reconciled. When Jacob struggled in the night the place where he fought God was called Israel. "Struggle with god"

Just stop and think about it for a minute. Nothing threatens you. You're absolutely safe so far. I haven't gotten into your pants, I'm not interested in teaching you how to talk to your children or your mom and pop -

And so for me to say that I am a christian, and an independent - for me to say that I have a conservative view of religion - where, o serpent is thy sting?

Here is the catch: Corporatism threatens america - not corporations, but the process of our lawmaking and our entire political machine to be exclusively powered by corporate lobbyists. Whether or not you believe in God - to them - is only a marketing classification and a branding problem. To accept that we should follow their lead is to in essence acknowledge spiritual death and their power.

I speak for all Americans that wish both parties could reform. Conservatism is a healthy philosophy - just think how wasteful it would be to do something by hand that you could do with a webpage. On the other hand, Liberalism is a proud american tradtion - reflect for a moment how World War II was won - how rosie the riveter gave her all and we all bought war bonds.

As an american I'm only turned off by defeat, small mindedness, grandstanding, single issue agendas - all of the little scraps we get fed today and have it called a party platform. Nobody cares about us. Enjoy your paid vacation while it lasts, let me tell you something - another three months of Gas goin' up at 100% and brothers are gonna be talking to you.

World.
The time has come to..

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 09:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Surprise (none / 0)

"Conservatism is not a threat to the country, esp. religious conservatism. Adherence to the bible - think about it, what about, the book of Genesis, just the story of Jacob and Esau - as the infallible word of god is a natural part of evolution of thought and a very healthy ideology."

Adherence to a book written three thousand years ago by bigoted, racist, sexist, superstitious tyrants is lunacy. An illustration:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Craverguy

by craverguy on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 10:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

loose the Godless Liberal moniker (none / 0)

looking at the Pew press release, I was most struck by the following:

Roughly a third of Democrats (34%) say the Democratic Party is too influenced by liberals who are not religious, and 30% of Republicans believe their party is too controlled by religious conservatives.

Centrist members of both parties more often express these concerns about their own party than do their more ideological counterparts. For instance, 39% of moderate and conservative Democrats worry that the party is too influenced by secular liberals, compared with 25% of liberal Democrats. On the Republican side, 35% of moderate and liberal Republicans say the party is too influenced by religious conservatives, as opposed to 26% of conservative Republicans.

Independents are more likely to describe the Republican Party as controlled by religious conservatives (54%) than to describe the Democratic Party as controlled by secular liberals (43%). In fact, independents are nearly as critical of the Republican Party in this respect as are Democrats overall.

We must take on the conservative message machine whenever it paints us as the Godless Liberals. Most of us are not. To defend the establishment clause is not to be anti-religion. Remind the country that we have an answer to WWJD? Feed the poor, help the helpless, promote human dignity. Remind the country that you can be religious and be sexually active at the same time. It's not all about abstinence and the sanctity of marriage. Let's redefine "religious values."

This will take a major effort needing a more charismatic leader than I currently see in our party elite, but if successful, there will be many moderate and liberal Republicans, half the Independents, and a considerable amount of conservative religious Democrats who shun the extreme religious views of the Republicans who will embrace a Democratic party accepting of religion.

Votes can be gained without abandoning the establishment clause. We do not have to promote religion, rather accept it, and, at times, embrace it, just don't legislate it.

by MassachusettsLiberalinDC on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 05:15:12 PM EST

The good thing here is that... (none / 0)

...if we play our cards right (a big "if", granted), this shows we can pick up a lot of independents in the next couple elections.

by Geotpf on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 05:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Gates supports ID (none / 0)

From Salon, Intelligent donation?:Why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave more than $10 million to the Discovery Institute, champions of "intelligent design." (watch 30 second ad for day pass)

It comes as no small surprise, then, to learn that during the past five years the Gates Foundation has pledged more than $10 million to the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that is leading the charge to bring "intelligent design" to the masses. Advocates of I.D. say Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed and that certain complex biological features -- such as, for instance, the human eye -- point to the presence of a "designer" at the source of creation. The scientific establishment roundly rejects I.D. They say it represents a back door through which religious views are being snuck into public education. Due to the Discovery Institute, I.D. is popping up in school districts all over the country, fueling a renewed controversy over evolution that has even made its way into national politics. George W. Bush recently espoused Discovery's views by urging teachers to make sure "both sides" -- that is, I.D. as well as evolution -- are "properly taught."

The Gates Foundation has squirrly responses to questions. Much like their position on the Washington gay rights initiative:

The Gates Foundation's grants to Discovery are not the only connection Microsoft has to the institute. Mark Ryland, who heads the institute's Washington office, is a former Microsoft executive, and a Microsoft employee named Michael Martin is a current member of Discovery's board. A spokeswoman for Microsoft says that Martin served on the board in his personal capacity, not as a representative of the company. In an e-mail, Keith Pennock, the program administrator of Discovery's Center for Science and Culture (which runs its intelligent design work), concurs. "Mr. Martin is a member of the Discovery Board in his individual capacity and does not represent the Microsoft Corporation. Does Microsoft support Discovery's work on intelligent design? No."

Digby has a fun article on the emergence of a conservative culture war over evolution, Comic Designer

You see, the racist Bell Curve people are ardent adherants of evolution; one of their primary wingnut funded institutions is called The Charles Darwin Research Institute. When you go to the site, you will see that it opens with a stirring defense of the theory of evolution and natural selection. As you read down you see its true agenda:

Based on his readings and his personal experiences of exploring Southwest Africa, Galton concluded that the average mental ability of Africans was low, whether they were observed in Africa or in the Americas. In Descent, Darwin acknowledged Galton's work and also accepted the importance of the brain-size differences reported between Africans and Europeans by Paul Broca and other nineteenth- century scientists.

Modern studies confirm Darwin and Galton. The races do differ in average brain size and intelligence. The racial gradient in average intelligence and brain size increases from Africans to Europeans to East Asians.

This institute is run by J. Philippe Rushton, who is best known for his hypothesis that men with bigger penises and women with big breasts and buttocks have smaller brains and are therefore biologically inferior. He is famous for saying in an interview: "It's a trade-off: More brain or more penis. You can't have everything."

In 2003, he became head of the nazi-founded Pioneer Fund which also supports such racist and sexist luminaries as Richard Lynn of the recent "women are dumber than men" study. Both of these alleged scientists' work are positively referenced in The Bell Curve.

Unsurprisingly, Bell Curve authors Murray and Hernstein (and contributor Lynn) all pretty much agree with Rushton that large black dicks are a very serious threat to western civilization. Because of their large dicks and big tits, you see, blacks are more promiscuous and therefore have a different "reproductive strategy" that undermines our culture by overpopulating it with more big dicks and more big tits rather than the small dicks of white men like Murray, Hernstein, Rushton and Lynn.

They fail to explain why such a reproductive strategy would actually be inferior in their Disney version of Darwin's big adventure, but they do set forth a very novel explanation as to why having a very small dick is a good thing. (I wonder if any woman (or man) has ever bought that line.)

Anyway, none of these dummies for Darwin, many of whom have followers in the white supremecist creationist crowd (as well as the long standing approbation of such cultural icons of dick as Andrew Sullivan) can sign on to the new fundamentalist chic of the moment --- ID. Without evolution, a tiny tiparillo is just a tiny tiparillo.

That's the best part of digby's article. Click through to read about the controversy between the conservative Bell Curve racists and the ID theocrats.

Cheer up Chris. We can take some small consolation that more Americans believe in flying saucers and angels than the percentage of Americans who strongly support Bush. I think I see a connection there.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 05:58:02 PM EST

Values numbers (none / 0)

I'd be careful not to interpret the numbers as a call to focus more on values and religion, though. I think the major reason the Dems are on the ropes is that they've run away from their core economic message of helping everyday workers. Into that vacuum, the GOP has poured their invective and vitriol, and as a result blue-collar whites have become more and more Republican, against their economic interest. The values field holds another trap for Dems, too -- "protecting individual liberties" is easily mangled into "permissive libertinism" -- the Dems need to find a way to cut through the backlash and go on the offensive with a coherent economic message (easier said than done, I know).

by dobbler on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:01:15 PM EST

go with protect personal freedom (none / 0)

There are two alternative approches that the Democratic party could take from this survey data. The first is to embrace our strength and go forward with the message that the Democratic party will protect American's personal freedom. The other is to try to gain around on the Republcian stronghold of protect religious values.

20% believe the Democrats are unfriendly towards religion. What percentage of those 20% could we actually get to vote Democratic. I'm betting not very many.

A better strategy to is to be unequivocal that the Democrats will protect personal freedom and part of personal freedom means the government must be neutral towards religion. The fundies would like us to believe that the government could promote Christianity and everything would be fine. In reality, once a government starts promoting religion there are always arguments about which is the right branch to promote and those on branches on the losing end will lose their religious freedom as much the non-believers.

The other problem focusing on being more religion friendly is that it looks like the Repugs were right all along and the Dems realized their godless ways were wrong and reinforces that the Repugs have better values.

I'm not saying Dems should not defend against the "godless" attack or be unwelcoming to people of faith. Religious belief is a matter of personal conscience and every citizens should be free to excersize their beliefs (or lack thereof) without interference from the Government.

by pyewacket1 on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:02:10 PM EST

Intelligent Design... (none / 0)

Count me as one of the wackos who believes in both evolution and intelligent design. By which I mean, I believe God created the universe, or at minimum the beginning force that evolved to present day.

As to the seven day Bible creationist story, I have no problem in believing God could have taken seven days, in the sense they were seven equal time frames.

God's version of "days," not ours.

Consider me a born-again Christian in the true meaning of these words.

I place my faith in God and vote for Democratic candidates who mirror Christ's command on earth. "Love your neighbor as yourself."

If any person in interested in reading more of my personal musings, read my post at http://howlinglatina.blogspot.com.

by notime4lies on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:05:09 PM EST

But You Don't Believe In Speaking Honestly (3.00 / 0)

"Intelligent design" is a propaganda term. It has no scientific content whatsoever, but it pretends to. One simply cannot believe in it and believe in evolution at the same time.

You go on to say, "By which I mean, I believe God created the universe, or at minimum the beginning force that evolved to present day." But that's not even theistic evolution, much less "intelligent design."

The spectrum goes something like this:

Complete naturalism (Account of modern science with no dependence on supernatural explanation. No attempt to link realms of mythos and logos.): Universe happened. Live emerged from non-living matter. Life evolved via genetic differentiation and natural selection.

Theistic creation (Creation as believed in by Deists like Jefferson, plus evolution ala modern science): God created universe capable of supporting life. Live emerged from non-living matter. Life evolved via genetic differentiation and natural selection.

[You seem to be somewhere in here.]

Theistic evolution (Account of modern science with conscious effort to articulate loose connection between the realms of logos and mythos): God created universe capable of supporting life, and played some role in (a) getting things started, (b) implanting the human soul, or (c) guiding evolution in ways consistent with naturalistic evolution.

Intelligent design: God created the universe, but we won't come out and say it, because then people will identify us with the Creationists, which we are really, but we're pretending we're not. God created life, but we won't come out and say it, because then people will identify us with the Creationists, which we are really, but we're pretending we're not. Evolution happens, but some things are too complicated to evolve. We can't tell you what they are, they just are. (Or, rather, when we've tried to tell you, we've turned up with egg on our faces.) And these things are created by God. But we won't come out and say it was God, because then people will identify us with the Creationists, which we are really, but we're pretending we're not.

Creationists: God did it. And you're going to Hell because you doubt my word!

If you're saying what you said because you were unclear, I hope this clears it up for you.

If not, you fall into the category of people who are doing the Creationists work for them, by spreading the confusion even more subtly than the IDers. In that case, I really wish you'd stop.

The only reason people have to do this is foolish pride. (Trying to act superior to the rest of us, supposedly narrow-minded folks.) Which is not rated higly in the Bible. Or in science.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:47:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intelligent Design... (none / 0)

I believe in Intelligent Design as well, however...

Intelligent Design is NOT science.

It falls somewhere between philosophy and religion and should be regarded as such.

by wayward on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 08:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, Intelligent Design Falls (none / 0)

Somewhere between three-card monte and beachfront property in Arizona.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 09:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]