Can we talk about a real issue instead of the celebrity candidates and their latest photo-op?

[arendt]

"When you mix religion and politics, you get politics."

- Evangelical preacher quoted in NYT Magazine, Sunday, October 28, 2007

I am constantly being told by DLCers that, to be loyal to America, I must vote for the Democratic nominee - no matter how flawed, corrupt, and lobbied-up they might be - because the alternative is a SCOTUS packed full of GOP authoritarians and theocrats. However, this rhetorical cudgel rests upon the premise that the DLC respects our intelligence, our history, and our Constitution more than God's Own Party. After their behavior since the 2006 elections, that premise is seriously in doubt. Before I vote for a nominee (or a primary candidate), they are going to have to prove to me that they actually are opposing the evil of theocracy, and all of its tentacles currently twining about our government and corporate entities.

Behavioral case in point: Diane Feinstein's recent miraculous conversion on Air Force 1. I don't care if she was blackmailed, intimidated, or is merely another DLC quisling - like Joe Lieberman. After DiFi's latest, why the hell should we trust any DLC nominee not to sell us out to Bush? After rolling over for Alito and Roberts and pandering to fundie whackjobs on gays, why should I believe any words the corporate Dems say about their willingness to defend us against theocracy?

Its a given that a corporate Dem candidate will be nothing more than a good cop face on the continuing war on the middle class and the continuing war in Iraq. The DLC knows that progressives get that. But, they argue we must vote for them to stop theocracy. Fine. All they have to do is prove to me that voting for a corporate Dem will really stop theocracy. Otherwise, if the general election comes down to a choice between being burned at the stake or fed to the lions, I may just sit this one out.

If the DLC is going to fight theocracy, they need to start right now, not in fifteen months; because Bush is constantly empowering the theocrats, placing Regents University grads in positions of power. Our country has already been handed over to a pack of religious nut jobs, and more are being appointed and promoted every day. Here are just five fronts in what Al Gore has named the War on Reason:

1. Religion in the military

We have the Air Force academy being taken to court for evangelical hazing and discrimination - apparently it has been taken over by a fundie church in Colorado Springs. We have people like General Boykin, who wears his Christianity on his sleeve as he provokes Muslims and proselytizes our own troops in violation of the Constitution. We have active duty generals appearing in uniform in fundie videos in violation of military code. These people are substituting Rapture for realpolitic. Their religious-based statements have no place in a military setting in a secular democracy.

2. Religion in health issues

We have a pro-life nut case, David Hager, appointed to the FDA advisory committee on reproductive health drugs. (At one point, Hillary denounced this guy; but nothing came of it.) We have pharmacists refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions and many so-called lawmakers extolling their "courageous and principled" stand. We had years worth of resistance to RU386 and to hospitals being forced to provide it if asked. We have price supports for birth control methods being cancelled. We have junk science reports about abortion causing breast cancer and gayness being "a choice" that can be "cured".

3. Religion in climate change

Religious resistance to environmental science began under Reagan, when James Watt encouraged environmental pillage because Armageddon was coming. Under Bush, climate change science is being openly censored, defunded, and sabotaged, with the help of flat-earthers like James Inhofe (Insane, OK). We have the Arctic melting, the Amazon on fire, massive droughts, melting glaciers and snowpack that, when completely gone, will deprive whole regions of water, and rising sea levels. And, in the face of all that, this administration won't do squat, while they gleefully advance the "Armageddon clock" closer to midnight. Oh, pardon me. That's not true. They will do squat. They will sabotage, delay, and resist all attempts to address this issue.

4. Government funding and non-regulation of religious organizations

We have federal funds going to unconstitutional "faith-based initiatives" that openly discriminate against non-fundamentalists - essentially a McCarthyite loyalty oath operation. We have a Justice Department that has allowed partisan "voter guides" to be freely circulated in churches for years. We have Congress passing a Bill of Attainder against Michael Schaivo in special session. We have a coven of fundamentalist representatives and senators that share common housing in D.C. with fundamentalist preachers.

5. Corporate dumbing down of science programming

The country is awash in Apocalypse/Rapture propaganda from Fox and other TV networks, including the "history" channel. We have "creation science" museums promulgating outright lies and, not satisfied with bashing only biology, they have started in on physics - as always, "teaching the controversy" about the origin of the universe.

Meanwhile, the "science" channels are talking about hot rods, construction equipment, military weapons systems, hauntings, UFOs, etc. (Not to mention Mythbusters - adolescents who like to blow stuff up.) No one is doing stories about Depleted Uranium, or overviews of the horrific and irrefutable evidence for global climate change. TV viewers are not getting the information needed to counter the incessant medieval propaganda from the theocrats about the "failure" of the Enlightenment and the "bankruptcy" of the scientific approach. There are very few hours of new programming that attempts to popularize the really cool, but intellectually challenging, advances in genomics, systems biology, and other truly cutting-edge science topics.

Instead, viewers are being given the impression that automotive engineering is the apex of science, that paranormal activities can be investigated by scientific means, and that evolution is just a metaphor about alpha males. And for this "public service", we gladly renew their broadcast licenses?

----------

If the DLC wing of the Democratic Party really wanted to include, rather than exclude, the Progressive wing, their candidates would pick some of the theocracy issues listed above (issues that the Progressives can honestly and enthusiastically support) and take high-profile legislative or legal action about those issues.

But, so far, all I see is the leading corporate candidates doing nothing about the religious infiltration of the military, pandering to the religious homophobe/misogynst vote, and ignoring the FCC gutting of media regulation and the DOJ refusal to regulate tax-exempt status.

How much of a risk is it to attack the "ketchup is a vegetable" science media? Can't we at least fight to give science back to real scientists? Or is minimizing the effects of climate change against the corporate war on the middle class agenda, too?

How hard is it to attack the hazing of Jews by evangelicals at the Air Force Academy? Afraid of losing the KKK vote are we?

And, are we really going to lose the general election because we stop pandering to misognystic, homophobic nutcase fundies who, the NY Times reports, are being abandoned by their own congregations?

Given what we have witnessed over the last year, these are not rhetorical questions. Will the corporate Dems actively support a goal (stopping creeping theocracy) that is seemingly not at odds with their agenda in return for active support from progressives? If they can't even make that kind of a deal, why would any non-suicidal progessive bother voting for them?

[CT_Progressive]

1. Your post lost all credibility when you used the word "they".

The person that wins the Primary will have been chosen by EVERY Dem in the country.

The result, therefore, will be the collective will of "us", the Democrats.

There is no "they".

[JackRiddler]

2. "The person that wins the Primary will have been chosen by EVERY Dem in the country"

This is mystification of the most extreme sort. ("And that wine is the literal blood of Christ.") And if arendt has lost your extension of credibility, so be it.

[CT_Progressive]

5. Anyone that says "they" have chosen our candidate is not credible.

Thats conspiracy theory B.S.

We vote in this country. Those votes decide elections.

Are there criminals tampering with our votes? Sure, and we've discovered them, and taking steps to prevent that crap (machines with paper trails, etc.).
Does that mean that all votes are a "sham" and that candidates are secretly chosen by the DLC? No.

Again, there is no "they".

[arendt]

6. This thread is about theocracy and whether you will oppose it. You want to make it about a pronoun..

Get off this word game, and have a discussion.

arendt

[CT_Progressive]

7. I'm totally against a theocracy.

In fact, I'd ban religion in the U.S., and jail anyone who tried to preach or teach it. (So, don't elect me President, like, ever.)

That said, please try to avoid the "they" stuff.

[arendt]

11. Good. So, will you ask your candidate to oppose it right now, with more than just speeches?...

All I am asking for is some return on my support for a candidate that I really don't prefer.

arendt

[CT_Progressive]

13. I will vote for the candidate (in the primary) that most represents my views.

Dennis Kucinich.

In the General, I will vote for the person with a (D) next to their name who is the officially backed candidate of the Democratic Party.

Simple as that.

[arendt]

15. OK. So, you will not demand any action on theocracy from a Dem (other than DK?), correct? n/t

[CT_Progressive]

16. "Demand" ?

That's not how our election system works.

See, it works like this.

People run for office. Anyone can choose to do it.
Then, I go and vote for the one I most agree with.
I do not, at any time, make "demands" of them.
I simply examine their positions on important issues, and vote for the one I feel will do the best job.

I'm totally confused as to where you get this "demand" stuff from.

[arendt]

17. You love word games. Fine. Strongly request. Will you answer a simple question? n/t

[arendt]

20. Apparently not within five minutes. So, good night. I've got to go. n/t

[CT_Progressive]

21. I'm sorry, I honesty don't understand what you're asking me.

Are you literally asking me if I will pick up a phone, dial Dennis Kucinich and/or the winner of the Primary, and "Strongly Request" that they take steps to rollback the advances of religion into government from past administrations?

No, I will not be phoning any candidates to make such "strong requests".

What I will be doing, is keep a close eye on their positions on important issues, and then I will vote for the one that is the most in line with my philosophy. Even if that person wants to advance theocracy in America. Thankfully, none of the Dem candidates do, which is good.

[arendt]

25. It seems you understood. Thanks for the answer.

But, have you been asleep for the last 20 years?

Voting and nothing more is not enough to save our democracy at this point. The whole system has been rigged. As a DK supporter, you must recognize that. The powers that be put corporate wishes ahead of voters all the time - unless voters make a continuous stink about an issue, and even then they play passive aggressive.

Do you think our democracy is a smooth-running car that you turn the ignition key every four years and it just goes? On the contrary, it is a broken down jalopy that barely turns over after you open the hood and tinker, then coax it into running with a manual choke.

"keeping a close eye on positions, and then voting" is a vote for the status quo when the corporations select the candidates.

arendt

[JackRiddler]

8. "They" have so far chosen the Democratic candidate

Or was there a vote held before HRC was anointed the overwhelming and unbeatable favorite by the money and the corporate media? Did I miss that?

Voters may or may not change that, but it's hardly easy to go against it. If voters don't challenge this pre-determination early on, most people will never get a chance to vote before it's a done deal (as in 2004, when the election was settled long before my state - or most states - held a primary).

[CT_Progressive]

10. "They" chose Howard Dean in 2004, too.

"They" kinda SUCK at predicting how "WE" will vote, eh?

[JackRiddler]

12. No, "they" didn't -

"They" most definitely killed him, in a flash of selective editing repeated 10,000 times. A bullet wouldn't have been as effective.

[arendt]

3. Use sophistry much? The whole post is premised on DLC vs Progressive. Get used to it. n/t

[arendt]

4. Is this word game what we can expect from candidates when we ask them to oppose theocracy? n/t

[OzarkDem]

9. Quite a fantasy

you have going there. Given the large amount of corporate donations that have been put into Dem candidates' campaigns, its very, very unlikely that the one who wins the primary will represent Democrats everywhere.

If that were the case, Dems in the House and Senate would have done much more than they have to date. If they were truly following the wishes of Dem voters they would be supporting the party platform instead of rubber stamping everything Bush asks for and pulling their punches in conducting real investigations.

If you have some evidence that shows how a Dem presidential candidate is going to have a "come to Jesus" moment after the primary and start representing Dem voters, please share with us.

[arendt]

14. Its more a tactic than a fantasy...

In earlier threads (see my journal), I had reasoned my way to the conclusion that the only possible difference between corporate Dems and the GOP might be the Dems willingness to roll back the creeping theocracy that is ruining our country.

This thread is merely the latest in a series of attempts to prove or disprove that I can have some common ground with DLC dems, namely common ground that we will work together to unpack the SCOTUS, tax the fundies that use their churches for politics, etc.

I don't expect anything, really. I'm just playing out the bad hand that I've been dealt.

arendt

[OzarkDem]

18. I read it, good points

don't expect them to get back to you about it anytime soon.

[arendt]

19. Yeah. I just like to finish what I start. Thanks for reading. n/t

[cali]

22. I think you inflate your own importance.

You aren't constantly being told by DLC types that you have to vote for the nominee. At least not here on DU. Sure there are people that will tell you they think dems should vote for the eventual nominee. That hardly means those folks are all DLC, and they're only expressing they're opinion like everyone else here- like you're doing now, as a matter of fact.

And frankly, I suspect most people here who plan on voting for the eventual dem nom, are like me, and don't give a shit whether you vote for nom or not.

[JackRiddler]

24. Be assured no one here is more important than you! n/t

[JackRiddler]

Yes, we can...

Who will listen, is the question.

[JackRiddler]

23. Yes, we can...

Who will listen, is the question.

[arendt]

26. Thanks for the kick. Bad post timing on my part - right in the middle of TDS/TCR...

Still, I have my doubts that anyone wants to discuss issues here anymore. Slagging a candidate is so much more fun.

arendt

[LWolf]

27. Yes, let's do it

before the front page is taken over by posts about some mythical candidate selected for "all" of us.

[arendt]

28. Kick. Can I get any substantive discussion on this? n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. I have been deeply troubled...

by the Dems recent courting attempts of the "religious", as witnesses by Obama's recent gospel events. (Of course, that is just the latest in a long line of problematic actions.)

IMO, any religious/spiritual person who give a rat's ass about the poor, justice, & peace, etc. already votes Democratic the majority of the time.

The religious/spiritual people who might care about the poor, justice, & peace but lean towards the GOP do so for two primary reasons: choice and gays.

That's it.

I have argued privately with DUers who have said the party should drop our pro-choice plank and abandon the active pursuit of equal rights for GLBT -- I have been told that to do so will bring in a whole community of the religious who agree with us on almost all the other issues.

To me, that is a deal with the devil of the worst kind, and unacceptable, even if it brings in more votes.

But too many of the new Dems feel that this is an opening that cannot be unexplored. Because you know, winning is everything. :eyes: And so they do exactly what you have outlined above.

And we are supposed to be good Democrats and go along with it.

I would love for the Democratic candidates to be asked what they will do about funding the faith-based initiative crap and other points you bring up.

We are dangerously close to having the lines between the DLC/Democrats and the GOP blurred in such a way that there will be little significant difference between the two.

And that is the day I (sadly) go Independent.

[arendt]

30. Thanks for your extended comment; the pursuit of the fundie vote makes no sense...

I picked the religious issue to highlight the state of our intra-party conversation (apologies to the alien in "Independence Day"):

Progressives: Want do you want us to do?

DLC: We want you to die?

It has been my take (and the non-response to this thread from the DLC side supports that take) that the DLC don't want the Progressives to do anything to help except shut up and salute. They don't care about our issues at all. As you say, they want to win.

arendt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

To access the people -- the evangelicals who currently do not vote Democratic -- we will have to say goodbye to choice and gay rights, it is that simple.

That's why I think it is batshit insane to do so.

I feel it would be much more logical and productive to court/create a coalition with Greens, frankly. They are much more in synch with real Democratic values and could have a positive impact on putting our candidates over the top -- after all, so many Dems love to go on about all those Greens who voted for Nader in Florida. What if we'd had their votes??? :evilgrin: .

Ah, but I am sure the DLC would never do that because the Greens would want to jettison all that corporate cash Rahm et al has been greedily lapping up.

Tinoire's and later MadFloridian's work over the years has shown clearly just how much the DLC/corporate infiltration of the party wants us out of the way. They don't hesitate to say it in clear, understandable terms. And I think they want it that way -- they are intentionally trying to inflame the left. If they can drive off the progressives (the real ones, not the Marshall Whitman variety) they will have controlling interest in both the Dems and the GOP -- and how nice for them.

[arendt]

32. The madfloridian stuff about the Florida Dems is scary...

while I offer this thread as an opportunity to the DLCers, I don't really expect them to take me up on it - because of exactly the behavior you have pointed out.

It sure looks like they want us to die.

The only question is, do we take them with us?

arendt

[puebloknot]

33. *The* most important issue of our time!

I grew up with the fundies, but thanks to Pearl Harbor (yeah, I know, that's a crazy thing to say, but on a personal level, it saved me) and my father's enlistment in and continued participation in the U.S. Army, I knew at age five, living in Korea, that there was a larger world, and that I was among frightening strangers with my mother's religious-fanatic associates.

I fear that too many Progressives are locked in their ivory-tower idealism, and do not realize the sub rosa intentions of these evangelicals. I realize there are some who are more moderate and try to apply elevated principles in their association with other people, but the bottom line is they pledge allegiance to their "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." And their intent is to *evangelize*! We know that's been done before -- and often at swordpoint, or through manipulation of long-held traditions. The end result is in direct opposition to the principles on which this country was founded.

Everything you've outlined in your five-point list is of major concern, but the greatest worry is the infiltration of the military. That, and the arrival home of hundreds of Blackwater "troops" sweeps us right back to circa 1939 in Nazi Germany.

Until we grow up and realize that "voting to win," no matter what the candidate brings to the table, is a losing strategy, we're just a bunch of goose-stepping loyal party members (metaphorically speaking, of course -- but the metaphor is deadly) who will go along to get along until we have lost our democracy.

Thanks for this great article!

[arendt]

34. The naivete of Dems who think the fundies can be "reasoned with" is depressing...

The fundies' negotiating style is "what's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable." After 30 years of playing that game, the traditional Democratic positions have long since been sold out.

Given the gaping holes Bushco has blown in the Constitution, and the brownshirt army that Blackwater has been warming up overseas for US duty, we cannot afford any more compromises or negotiating. At this point, its like compromising with someone who wants to skewer you on a sword, and you compromise that he will only stick the sword in half of its length.

I know you get it. Too bad that only people who get it have responded to my thread.

But, even an experiment with a negative result gives you useful data.

The silence of the DLCers on this thread is shouting their intentions.

arendt