Don't we have the wedge issues now? Shouldn't we press them?

[Hamlette]

I read a bunch of sites/columnists we all hate on the theory we need to know what the other side is up to.

Lately I've seen several areas or agreement, or near agreement between the sides.

The first modern wedge issue was abortion. It was a calculated strike at making the GOP a permanent majority party. They set their sights are driving a wedge through the Democratic party to split off the anti-choice folks. Read up on the history of those times. The GOP went after the South and West by concentrating on wedge issues and local races.

Today yet another column from conservative Brooks saying the same thing. There is a possibility for realignment.

"Here's how a populist nationalist candidate would sound: "We are the ordinary, burden-bearing people of this country. We are the ones who work hard and build communities. It's time for us to come together and recognize that our loyalty to our fellow Americans comes first.

"That means we can't waste our precious blood and treasure on poorly planned, pie-in-the-sky wars to bring democracy to the Middle East. We need to get out of Iraq now. That means we can't sell our ports to our enemies. That means we must secure our borders against terrorists and illegal immigrants who break the law, take our jobs and drive down wages.
"We need to stand up to the big money interests who value their own profits more than their own countrymen, who outsource jobs to China and India, who destroy unions and control Washington. We need to fight off their efforts to take away our Social Security and Medicare. Instead of widening inequality and a race to the bottom, we need universal health care and decent wages. We need a government that will stand up to Internet porn and for decent family values.

"We're tired of both the corporate elites and the cultural elites. We want leaders who understand our anxieties and are, like us, tired of a world where nothing is safe, where everything can be swept away by a serious illness, a divorce or a terrorist's bomb."

And who would be on that side? "Kevin Phillips together with Pat Buchanan, the Virginia senatorial candidate James Webb together with Lou Dobbs, Al Sharpton together with James Dobson."

Now, I don't agree with all those issues but most of them make some sense.

Shouldn't we be driving the wedges now? The war and immigration have given us some ammunition but we are letting them paint us as cowards and divided.

[Virginia Dare]

1. I think John Edwards was on the right track...

with the "two Americas" theme. The gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" is widening, this should be the Democratic wedge issue going into the next election.

[sandnsea]

2. They lie

Do you think the first time they proposed abortion legislation they said they were going to outlaw it? No, only the very religious and the extremists said that. The reasonable Republicans scoffed at the idea that they intended to make abortion illegal. That's what they do, pick up the hot button issues and use them to manipulate people; then go off about their merry business doing exactly what they want. Just like they're doing right now in the House, promising a debate on Iraq and then turning it into ridicule of Democrats who won't fight terrorists. That's what they always do. You can't believe a word any of them say.

[Hamlette]

7. yeah, they manipulate with hot button issues, I'm saying we should too

they are weak now on the very issues they were strong on....defense. We should take it from them. "They can't wage war. The told us Iraq would be a cake walk and they blew it. Only Dems can win the war on Terror."

[sandnsea]

10. "near agreement"

That's what I object to. This is just what they do, take some small fragment of an issue that everybody agrees on and then make it seem as if that's the central issue. It's like saying since nobody likes watermelon seeds, everybody prefers genetically altered watermelons. Faulty conclusion but that's what they do all the time. Worse, the only reason they would support genetically altered watermelons is to help some agribusiness get a monopoly on watermelons. So just because I don't like watermelon seeds, it doesn't follow that I'm on near agreement with anything these asshats have to say or any policy they might want to implement. That idea has to be front and center before any debate about the issues can even begin.

And yes we should have wedge issues and we do. Prescription drugs, student loan interest, border security, port security, 9/11 commission, Osama Bin Forgotten...

WE, the grassroots, just pay more attention to THEIR wedges than we do our own.

[Hamlette]

14. I don't see those as wedge issue. . .maybe we just haven't developed them

and I disagree that we pay too much attention to their wedge issues....ie abortion and gay rights. I see those isssues as important enough to fight over.

My state was true blue prior to abortion. Now its the reddest state in the union. All over abortion. These people should be dems, they are middle class, hard working. I want to find the wedge issue that brings them back to us. It could be the war, immigration, gap between rich and poor, medical care. We should agree on one and get to work.

That was my point.

The brilliance of the GOP push was they got churches to do grass roots organization for them. It was calculated. Why don't we think that way?

[Warren DeMontague]

16. The 55 Electoral Votes from California won't go GOP in a Prez. Race

any time in the forseeable future. Know why? One word. Abortion.

I don't know which red state you hail from, but maybe the answer is for us to stop trying to play their game, and to stand up strongly for our own. If we could define ourselves, clearly, as the party of letting people mind their own business about their own bodies, if we could enunciate why separation of Church and State is a patriotic, American, family Value- I think we could make some headway.

But there are parts of this country that are lost to us, as long as we remain (generally) the party of choice. I think that's preferable to the alternative.

[sandnsea]

17. "maybe we haven't developed them" duh

That's what a wedge issue is, an issue concocted to create division where none existed.

When people apply their common sense to abortion, it's obvious that there are medical reasons for abortion and it should be left to doctors and patients. It's also obvious that making abortion a crime does nothing to end abortions. There's no issue, just rhetoric.

When people apply their common sense to gay rights, they know everybody has to have an equal opportunity for employment, equal protection, equal security. They know partnership rights need to exist.

Issues to bring them back have already been laid out. Social security privatization, prescription drugs and health care, stem cells, real national security including border and ports. The Democrats have laid it out, we either pick up the banner by talking about these issues that are important to your neighbors too - or hand over the entire election by continuing to let THEM set the terms of debate.

Did you know boxing rings are not exactly the same size for every fight?? Different sizes of rings benefit different styles of fighters. You don't fight in a ring that benefits your opponent. You don't debate THEIR wedge issues.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. I think your resasoning is seriously screwy.

And it sounds like another rephrasing of the "Lets jettison the gays, the atheists, the pro-choicers, the folks who give a shit about the first amendment- so we can court these all powerful Heartland values voters" saw that has been flogged half to death since the '04 election.

Sorry, but James Dobson can plainly fuck the hell off.

You want to wage war on "internet porn"? I want to wage war on people who don't understand the concept of the "off button" and need to censor what other consenting adults can read or watch.

The whole idea that abortion is some kind of "wedge issue" benefitting the RIGHT is another right-wing LIE. Know why? I'll spell it out in big letters:

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO-CHOICE

Period.

Likewise, the majority of Americans tend to be a helluva lot more socially libertarian than any of these half-assed "analyses" ever seem to recognize. How about, instead of waging war on consenting adults looking at pictures of other consenting adults having sex, we stand up clearly for the principle that people's bodies belong to themselves? That $40 Billion a year (not counting costs of incarceration, mind you) for a "Drug war" aimed primarily at pot smokers is a sham and a cruel waste of humanity and resources? That if people with crippling pain want adequate pain management medication, or terminally ill folks want a dignified exit of their own choosing, it's not the business of the DEA or a bunch of big-hair televangelists?

THAT'S the way to bring voters in that we currently aren't reaching. Bending over to accomodate a few control freaks and religious kooks in the Heartland is a total waste of time.



Oh. And define "Cultural Elite", please.

[Hamlette]

8. show me where I said we should jettison any of those issues?

Can you find one post I have EVER made wherein I said we should not fight for abortion? I'll save you the trouble. You can't. I won't. Ever. Nor will I EVER give up on gay rights. EVER. Or atheists, in large part because I am one.

Will someone direct me to a place where one can have a conversation about ideas?

I said NOTHING OF THE SORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't agree with Brooks statement on porn but let me tell you, its WAY down my list. If I could have my government back and the ONLY price was no internet porn, I'm there in a heartbeat.

Cultural elite was not my phrase. Ask the author.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Okay. I gotcha. You were quoting David Brooks.

He's an idiot. And his breakdown of where the votes supposedly lie in this society is more than suspect.

Like I said. I think the way to go to WIN MORE VOTES is appealing to the social libertarians- something we've done a piss-poor job of, BTW- NOT the religious right control freak crowd. They already own one party, and they don't give a shit about universal health coverage.

And honestly, if you -or David Brooks, for that matter- want to talk about the kind of "family values" that will attract the James Dobson crowd, you're going to have to go after gays along with the First Amendment.

And in your op, you did define abortion as a RW "wedge issue". Which is also a RW talking point. It's not a wedge issue for them, it's a wedge issue for US- because (like I said) most americans are pro-choice.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. ..And please define "decent family values", while you're at it.

:hi:

[Hamlette]

12. decent family values. . .

parent/s earn/s a living wage without working 2, 3, 4 jobs.

kids get a great education

everyone has health coverage

we teach that family is an important unit because it provides (idealy and in my situation) shelter

we provide financially for old age so kids don't have to and we don't have to worry about being a burden to our kids

[nosillies]

21. Right on on this point, Hamlette

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I agree. But those aren't the kind of family values

that are going to win over the James Dobson crowd.


They're not.

[William Seger]

5. I'd say the first modern wedge issue was...

"states rights," a euphemism for opposition to the Civil Rights movement. It marked the point at which the Republican Party decided to collect all manner of antiliberalism into the Big Tent of "conservatism."

[Hamlette]

9. states rights was not a wedge issue,

read some history. Political history.

[William Seger]

15. Not a wedge issue? Really?

Well, gee, I'm not sure what political history you've been reading, but it was a deliberate (and successful) attempt to divide the Democratic Party base. Ever hear of the "solid South" and Nixon's "southern strategy?"

[Hamlette]

19. I see it more as a hold over from the civil war

the south didn't switch parties as much as the parties changed. Nixon courted the south on racist issues and the democratic party refused to seat southern delegations at its national conventions because they were all white. Maybe its because the dixicrats were never seen as part of the party of FDR.

Read Master of the Senate for a great history of the civil rights movement and its effect on the Senate. The dems drove the wedge, finally.

[Hamlette]

6. my, my, my

I'm surprised I was so misunderstood. But it happens whenever I mention that one of the "evil ones" says something that makes sense to me.

I do not think we should abandon abortion. I said nothing of the kind in my post. I was talking history.

The current wedge issues as I see them developing (what the right is pissed off about) are:

1. The economy. The elites own too much, we have too little and we are ruining everything by our debt. (Listen, you will hear rational people on the right saying just this. Can we drive a wedge and bring them over? No, you say, if they won't join our side on abortion, to hell with them? Yeah, well, whatever. I thought we were the big tent or at least that we wanted to win. Oh well, I guess not.)

2. Immigration. Many on the right see the value on granting amnesty to those here now. But shouldn't we stop or slow it in the future and isn't a wall insane? If we do nothing our population will reach 1 Billion by the end of this century and mushroom after that. No thanks. I'd rather punish employers. Many on the right see the same thing. We tried amnesty twice, once in the 80s once in the 90s. It didn't work without enforcement. Let's wedge some to our side...they are already there.

3. The war. The right is furious. We can't afford to bring democracy to the world. The left used to say "lets lead by example." We could wedge them off. Honest. It's also the moral anti-war position right now.

4. Gay rights. Republican gays are pissed. Why can't we bring them into a populist, civil rights message?

5. Outsourcing. Hello? Many on the right are upset about that.

[sandnsea]

11. Those are THEIR wedge issues

Quit fighting in their ring.

[Hamlette]

20. we are in the same ring!

that's the damned problem. And since I have to inhabit the same country as they do, I think we should figure out what they are saying and figure out how to bring them around!

I don't see how the war, the economy or immigration are their wedge issues.

Saying "maybe we could appeal to some republicans who are mad at Bush" (which I have been saying for weeks here) is met with too much hostility here for me. I am not the target. Nor are they. It is their ideas that we should be fighting. Least we become Coulters.

[sandnsea]

24. Then why can't you hear DEM issues??

You keep acting as if Democrats have no issues. Why do you think that??

[Hamlette]

26. you must be right, I don't hear Dem issues

you might tell me what they are.

My issues are

the war
the poor
big corporations having too much power in Washington
outsourcing
decent wages
social security
universal health care
that our loyalty to each other should come before many other issues
union busting
power to the ordinary people who carry the burden of building this country

All things listed in that article

I'd add civil rights (which I think is implied in the article) and abortion (which the article is silent on). I said I disagreed with some things in the article but I wouldn't run on the "allow internet porn" as the main/only plank in my platform (I don't like it but I don't think censorship works). And yes, I actually agree with "decent family values" although I wouldn't agree with what the christian right thinks those are. My family is important to me. That's my family value.

I see a chance for a realignment of the parties. I hate the national debt, I don't think we can afford our quality of life with unlimited immigration, and these wars are insane. Which is what I hear the reasonable people on the right saying. All I was saying is we should wedge them off.

I don't think that means I'm not a Dem. I think that means I'm a Dem who is sick of losing elections and interested in looking at a way to win.

[KyuzoGator]

18. Honesty in government and health care should be the ultimate wedge issues.

Too bad we keep falling into dumbass gay marriage and flag burning traps.

[Hamlette]

23. I'd add competence in government

and the flag burning bugs me but I think equal rights for gays is something worth standing up for. We might tone down the rhetoric. The scandanavian countries first passed cohabitation laws and when they passed something more like marriage (didn't call it that) it did not allow for adoption by gay "married" couples (and one other exception I've forgotten).

[ruggerson]

25. Those aren't wedge issues

wedge issues are tactical, specific issues that are designed to split the otherwise harmonious opposition.

Immigration is a wedge issue that works to divide Republicans, but only if we take a very hard line anti immigration stand. In other words, to the right of Bush.

Stem cell is a no brainer wedge issue that divides the fundie Republicans from the country club Republicans. This should be our NUMBER ONE wedge issue, and it should be on ballot initiatives at the state level wherever we can organize it.

Medical privacy rights is another big wedge issue that divides Republicans. Basically, our position should be: the government has no right to tell you when to pull Grandma's plug. That should be a private decision between a family and its doctor.

Those are wedge issues.

And yes, we do an INCREDIBLY bad job of exploiting them.

[RagAss]

27. Actually, we have too many issues. And that can be as bad as

having no issues at all. It's ironic for sure, but the Pugs have fucked everything up so bad that complaining about everything sounds like chronic complaining. How we approach the pile of shit that they made out of our country will have a lot to do with our chances in November. I say pick one or two major fuck-ups and beat them to death with the message..