Update [2005-3-27 13:20:39 by diane101]:
Based on ongoing discussions regarding Galiel and with Galiel; and comments I made regarding him posting in this diary, I have apologized to him for pre-judging him, posted a response to his comment that I wish I would have done before, and invited him here to continue this particular discussion if he wishes and any others as well who wish to join in.
Original Diary
I am a little hesitant tackeling this subject but I really want to discuss it from the perspective of what I see happening within each party, that I think is worth discussing.
This is my take based on my observation that this issue is dividing each party within itself.
The Republicans are taking the position that Terri must be helped, her life must be saved, she is worth saving at all costs, the court results are wrong, etc.
The Democrats are saying, the court has decided, the law should be followed, the congress should not have become involved, and the Reps are using this as a voting wedge, usurping power, etc. You know the story.
Problem is within each party there are those that don’t totally agree with the popular opinion and they are being pounced on by their own side for not following the pack.
I have seen this on blogs from both sides and it is apparent on the cable shows as well.
Now each side is really intolerant of their own people on this issue like few other issues have done and simply will not stand for any other views.
What does the stray dog do when their home does not welcome them anymore; they try to find a new home. But where? 2 new parties maybe; Republican and Republicant, Democrat and Democrit? Certainly this issue can’t make one slide all the way to the other side can it”
Even though I am leaning a little toward the right on the issue with certain caveats, I still would not go all the way over there. But I am certainly disappointed in my party for being so intolerant of different views within. I also wonder how many will really be pushed all the way over.
So I’m asking, what do you think, not about the Shiavo case per se but the hypothesis I have put forth above. I don’t want to see a war here on this site so lets restrict the discussion to that, ok, if you don’t mind.
I look forward to your hearing your opinion on this subject.
It’s cable that’s in trouble.
This whole sorry spectacle shows the so called cable news networks to be the vacuous blowhards that they really are.
Joseph Nye Welch
They, too, have no sense of decency. And definitely no sense of journalistic competence.
Aaron Brown just had on a legitimate medical ethicist on, Arthur Kaplan of of the University of Pennsylvania. He calmly informed Aaron that there had been a concensus on this issue of PVS right-to-die for more than 20 years.
What if they had learned even just a little about the landmark cases of medical ethics — and reported it — a week or two ago? It has to do with a person’s right to choose medical care and is well-established.
Is it because no one there knows there’s an established field of medical ethics? Inexcusable! Or did they fail to report mainstream medical ethics because their corporate masters want to please their benefactors in the executive branch?
Aaaarghh!
They’ve had Arthur Kaplan on more than once in the last week; he just isn’t as “sexy” as the protestors and their signs in the background when the “reporter” weighs in from the care facility. So they have him on for balance, but pretty much ignore him.
Typical.
I beleive that it will show both sides, for what they truly are. Just keep an eye on the end result, and then look for the reverse gear to engage, on BOTH sides. I gaurantee that there will be NO back-up beeper sound when it happens.
It is Fracturing my BRAIN.
I think each party’s actions reveal the true nature of their party, rather than the artificial way they’ve been identified in the press. Each party is asking itself, “Who are we really?” Not a splintering, but a definition. The essential argument here is not over Ms. Schiavo’s life. It is rather over the quality of choices we each may expect at the end of our own lives, and who gets to make those choices.
I’m not sure how we can discuss the fallout without discussing the issue. The Republican argument is that Ms. Schiavo’s expressed wishes about her own life, as confirmed by court judgments based on the evidence, are irrelevant, because they would choose differently. Their choices and beliefs are paramount. The Democratic argument is that Ms. Schiavo’s choices must be respected, as proven in the courts according to applicable state law. Her choices and beliefs are paramount.
Republicans are not pro-life but pro-interference in private individual and family matters. Democrats are not anti-life, but pro-self determination for individuals and families. I am horrified by the dreadful sacrifice of Ms. Schiavo’s privacy. But since that has already occurred, the resulting debates within both parties can only help us figure out who we are. Some people may cross over to the other side. Maybe that’s good–we’ll all know where we stand. And what we stand for.
The point I was trying to make was that regardless of the postion of each side, and their opinions of the other side, there are those within each side that do not agree with every position of the side they are on.
Not every Democrat feels the way you have characterized them as and not every Republican does either.
But now its (around the blogosphere) beginning to sound an awful lot like if you don’t agree with your side then you not on that side anymore, you must be on the other side, off you go and don’t bother us again.
But of course that is not true, I can have my own independant postion and I expect to retain that forever and still be on the side of my choice, whichever it is.
I do not totally agree with either side on this issue, I am in the middle in a lot of respects and that’s just my personal feelings. Doesn’t make me any less a Democrat, no outside force can make me be any more or less than I choose to be.
There is just too much of they are bad, we are good coming from both directions. We simply cannot lock either group into that stereotype or any other that is so excluding of the many different types of people makeing up the group.
I have seen on Conservative blogs recently, people attacking those they were all gung ho for before. Now this issue has divided them, just as it has on this side. A lot of folks will be driven not walked from their parties.
My interest at this point is where will they fall.
Where the Repugs driven from the party go depends, off the top of my head, on two things: (1) Will Repugs learn from this disaster? The religious right has finally got the power they’ve been after for 30 years, and they’ve totally blown it. Can non-theocrats take the party back?
(2) Can Dems simply communicate the party’s goals and who they benefit? If we can learn to communicate clearly and simply in a complex, busy world, we have a chance. On the social wedge issues, I think we have to recognize that Dems live in a variety of cultures. I think we need to fight those divisive issues by insisting on individual liberty. That should play well with small-government Repugs.
Interesting question. We do need to think ahead, and keep a sharp eye on the theocrats.
Thanks for your response.
My mission is to get in there (conservative side) with a moderate approach, such as I have been doing posting on Conservative sites, (please see my diary on http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/3/22/142132/826
for more of an idea of what I am getting at.
We have to get off our high horse and just go for the ones being pushed or driven to this side. If we bad mouth them now, they will not want to come.
We need to be the compassionate Democrats to our fellow citizens, and that means to me to be ready with open arms to accept them into the fold. Forget the party, just like we had to learn to forget the color of the skin or the choice of religion, etc.
We can only win, what we say we want, if we have a majority (assuming we have fair elections?). Where are we going to get that majority from, the Republicans, I would think. How can we do that effectively, certainly not by attacking and calling them names. They don’t have to be perfectly aligned with us, just lean this way a little and I’ll be happy.
Please read my diary recommended above and let me know what you think.
Thanks. I read the previous diary and agree that Democrats need to welcome the old-time conservatives who are being driven away from their party by the theocrats. Over time, Democrats must be able to speak clearly about the rights of individuals to promote tolerance for other points of view.
I also followed your link to theconservativevoice and found a piece pointing out that my generation, the baby boomers, are aging en masse and will again confront the right-to-die laws. An important point on a conservative web site. (I’m a boomer, and I don’t want scarce resources used on me at the end of my physical life!)
But there’s a world of difference between a conservative and a theocrat, and frankly I have very little tolerance for the latter. As far as welcoming the old-time conservatives who have been betrayed by the theocrats, I’m all for it. Minimize the wedge issues and maximize our agreements, get a majority, and win.
Perhaps Terri Schiavo’s right to die is not the best specific issue from which to generalize about your point, which I think is about tolerance.
“””Perhaps Terri Schiavo’s right to die is not the best specific issue from which to generalize about your point, which I think is about tolerance.”””
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I can’t think of any other issue that better points to the need for tolerance than this one. And I haven’t seen any other issue that has affected people in quite this way, for a long time.
The reason I wrote this diary, is that I see this as “watershed moment” that may not come around again in a long while. I was very reluctant even to write the name Schiavo, because of the emotions connected to this issue and that is why I chose to keep the issue itself out of the argument and focus only on the possible results of the issue.
I am also trying to raise awareness on this whole issue of intolerance for the other side.
Seems like I have been hearing for years now, how do we get them on our side? What can we do to reach them?
WEll maybe this is just the chance we have been looking for, is it or not worth a try. That is the question we have to ask ourselves.
I am just putting the thoughts out there and each can decide what direction to go in.
Maybe we need a new movement of something like, “Hey Republicans, we love you, we have the same hopes and dreams in our hearts, lets work together on issues and put aside some of these age old differences. And maybe I am trying to start one.
If anyone has any better ideas, I would love to hear them.
Thanks to everyone who has responded.
I thought I understood your question; perhaps my answer was at fault. I’m not saying that people cannot be Democrats or Republicans and still disagree with some of their party’s actions; I’m saying that a party leadership’s actions define what that party stands for, and each person must choose whether they can live with that or not. They will leave or stay as they choose. Where they go will depend on what the other party stands for, and whether they can live with that or not.
Not every Democrat feels the way you have characterized them as and not every Republican does either. I’m sorry if I was unclear here. I wasn’t saying that every Democrat or Republican agrees with these positions, just that those are the arguments I’m hearing from each party’s leadership. Since average party members only drive the platform in an election year, a party’s standards are defined by its leadership’s actions in the off-years. In my opinion, of course!
Doesn’t make me any less a Democrat, no outside force can make me be any more or less than I choose to be. Me either. I disagree with my party’s positions on various issues; the question for me is, “Can I properly support the party as a whole, even when it doesn’t completely reflect my views?” My answer is a qualified yes, depending on how basic the disagreement. Some issues, I’d leave the Democratic party immediately if they swung a different way. The ones right now, I can live with.
There is just too much of they are bad, we are good coming from both directions. We simply cannot lock either group into that stereotype or any other that is so excluding of the many different types of people makeing up the group. I think we agree more than disagree here. Zealotry and absolutism have brought us to this point; I’m terrified that we’ll see violence in the end. Attacking someone for believing differently in personal matters ends all reasonable debate. I’m not sure that I’ve heard that from the Democratic side, but I’m against it if it’s happening.
I respect the positions of others, provided their positions do not have the legal effect of limiting my own individual choices. I can respect anyone who would make a different choice in Ms. Schiavo’s situation. I just think that the proper application of the rule of law in this case requires the respect for her choice. YMMV, of course.
Check out a comment up thread I made when you were posting this. Maybe it clarifies more. I was not disagreeing with you in any case, just expanding the discussion in a different direction.
In reference to your statement:
“””Attacking someone for believing differently in personal matters ends all reasonable debate. I’m not sure that I’ve heard that from the Democratic side, but I’m against it if it’s happening.”””
Check hidden comments in DK. One whole diary was driven off the pages due to a difference in position or view. Troll rated to oblivion. I check them every day to see what is considered worthy of troll rating, and I am pretty surprised at the comments deemed unacceptable. Kind of like a feeding frenzy, I think.
Thanks for the discussion, I think it is an important one to have.
BTW who hates trying to remember the spelling of so many words?????????
i’m not getting it, actually.
it feels as if you are actively seeking out a way to make both parties liable, culpable and hurt from this issue.
the congressional abuse of law and power and the constitution and the judicial branch was orchestrated by deLay, bush, frist et al — the republican party — and not the democratic party. period.
so to answer your question, no, it is not fracturing both parties. because both parties are not guilty of running roughshod over the constitution, both parties are not guilty of promoting misinformation as well as undocumented and unsubstantiated medical claims, because both parties are not guilty of slander and libel on the floor of the house against a citizen, because both parties are not guilty of making a calcuated political decision to become a theocratic and one-party system of government and elevate the case of one husband and wife to the level of a national crisis.
no.
only one party is guilty of those wrong-doings.
it is unfair and very unhealthy to suggest that both parties own the blame and therefore need to make amends. while we may not like the gelatinous actions of the democratic party on this issue, that is an irrelevant and specious concern. the democratic party left the constitution intact, they left the division of power at the fedral level intact, and the democratic party did not slander and violate and trump and make a mockery of decency, the laws or even of the sanctity of marriage simply because they did or did not agree with the decisions (not one decision but several) of the judiciary.
no memo floated around the senate democrats signalling that supportig the schiavo issue had good political outcomes in that it would be well-received by the pro-life factions. again, the violations of decency,of law, or respect and of commo sense were committed, orchestrated and executed by the republican party. it might hurt to be so baldly shown up for being wrong, but these are lumps and criticisms that are due to the guilty party. the republicans.
you have always been free to choose your political affiliation. you will always be free to choose your politcal affiliation. but to try to find cover for your own choice by deflecting responsibility for your own actions in pointing to the other side and saying “see, they were no help to me” is nothing more than doing exactly what deLay and bush and frist et al did here. if you make a decision, own the consequences.
Very sorry you aren’t getting my point.
I don’t think I can say it any more clearly than I already have.
Your statement:
“”it is unfair and very unhealthy to suggest that both parties own the blame and therefore need to make amends. “”
Nowhere in what I have written do I suggest anything of the sort.
Do you see that I am not talking about this issue itself, I am talking about reactions to the issue on both sides.
Your comment is a perfect example of what I am talking about. In fact you have called me “unfair and unhealthy”, a tag I do not appreciate in any case, for a point I did not make.
Off you went in a lengthly rant on us vs. them.
I am talking about the little people, not the leaders.
And further this comment below of yours, is just baffeling, I don’t know where you are getting this from, certainly not anything I have written. Have you chosen to misunderstand what I have written, I wonder?
“”political affiliation. you will always be free to choose your politcal affiliation. but to try to find cover for your own choice by deflecting responsibility for your own actions in pointing to the other side and saying “see, they were no help to me” is nothing more than doing exactly what deLay and bush and frist et al did here. if you make a decision, own the consequences.””””
you wrote:
Even though I am leaning a little toward the right on the issue with certain caveats, I still would not go all the way over there. But I am certainly disappointed in my party for being so intolerant of different views within. I also wonder how many will really be pushed all the way over.
not me.
and if i misunderstood your meaning, then please show me what it is that you mean. because what i read, and i did btw follow yor other inks to the other posts in hope of getting more carity, which i obviously was not abe to get for myself, before posting to this diary. so, if i did not read the diary correctly, i apologize. however, what i did read and especially the section i pasted above seems to me to be much more corroborative of my reaction. but i could be wrong.
you believe i misread it. ok. so please help me understand the where i made my boo-boo, ok?
I thank you for your response and I will make another attempt to clarify. Yes I think both parties have become intolerant over this issue, of any point other than the predominate one. And that is the feeling I have gotten from reading many blog sites (of both sides), not this one, but others.
And frankly I think that fact will drive some over the edge of allegiance to their party. From both sides.
Since I hold the view that one way to further the cause of the Dems, is to have more citizens in the party, by raising the numbers.
We have to be the majority, is that not correct, to win. So we have to look for cross-over Repubs. for that, I think, as where else will new members (I know there are all kinds of exceptions, but in general) come from?
So I am pointing out that by lumping all Dems, and all Repubs, into a group think position that is pretty intolerant of the other side at this point, will only hurt that endeavor.
Hey maybe I’m wrong, but it can’t hurt certainly to turn down the rhetoric, can it.
Honestly, I have repubs in my family and I would never dream of painting them with some of the pictures I have seen (on other blogs), again, not on this one. Just as I don’t like the picture Reps. are painting of Dems on their blogs.
I think actually we have as dems a golden opportunity to attract new members (over this issue) and I just don’t want us to blow the chance, by maintaining the “we are all right and you are all wrong”, attitude. Separate out feelings for the leaders from feelings for the people. I think we can have a “coat of many colors” and hopefully room for some converts from the other side.
Hope that helps you to understand my postion and the thrust of my Diary.
I do appreciate your response.
but again, i would be cautious in this regard; to believe there is a fundamentally proportional disconnect between “leadership” and “rank & file” that is equal in both the democratic and republican parties would be a very shaky assumption.
i saw y’day in the march 25 edition of the palm beach post some polling numbers specifically of floridians on the issue which showed almost 2/3s of the voters opposed to the intervention actions (by congress, state legislators, president and governor) and while the numbers were higher among dems and independents, more than half the polled republicans also opposed the interventions.
so my feeling on the “attracting of new dems” idea is that there are far less democrats who would consider going to the republican side because of the issue than the other way around. because democrats are still in line with the actions of their party on this issue, which is that they have not sullied the constitution, the law or even decency. there may be feelings within the members of the party that may have held a different stance regarding mrs. schiavo’s choice (as i am sure there must be since the right to die movement is very much a controversial movement regardless of political affiliation). but in the political assesment of this event or series of events, the republican party, which most assuredly DOES have open dissent among its rank and file, is the one that is facing the crisis of attrition.
even y’day, in kos’ piece on his front page, there was this (note he corrects his sources etc):
if your point is that we should be thinking more proactively as to how welcoming the democratic party is now, i wholeheartedly agree. if you are suggesting that we need to think about the manner in which we debate and discuss issues, however, would disagree. there is a healthy component to debate and discussion, and an important air of civility and respect that seems to me to more prevalent in these democratic blogs than on the more republican blogs (i read eeverything i can get my hands on). so, yes, we should think about a retention strategy for the republica dissidents who will come over; we however should not cut debate off at the pass for fear of scaring the guests.
Hey I’m a Dem so I feel we are the best, so no go on that point.
And no I don’t think there is the same disconnect on the Dem side as the repub side, but at the same time I want to grab the Repus we can and keep the Dems we already have. And I don’t think there will be as many fallouts of the Dems as the Repubs and that is precisely my point.
So I am saying be gentle with the Dems we have in our dialogue, even if you don’t totally agree with them, that’s all. Ok.
an air of civility and a deep love for respectful engagement is what i expect my party to show to any and all comers (be they exiles frm the right or the middle or the left or just new totally to the party overall).
hiding the disagreements or watering down the passion are neither helpful nor appropriate. but maintaining a degree of respect for self and other is essential.
thanks for taking the time to walk me through the muddied reaction i had to your diary. it is really appreciated.
Personally I just think it is an emotive issue for most individuals regardless of party. As such it would probably have been better for it to have stayed within the family and courts. When emotive issues get into the public sphere tempers tend to get frayed. However, in the world in which we live this kind of thing is unfortunately newsworthy, so it too easily becomes public.
First off, brave of you to post on a really emotional issue. I can see your point, that some on the right will drift leftwards and vice-versa after this. And I can see the value of being civil and welcoming to those who drift our way. I’ve certainly had perfectly civil conversations with moderate republicans who are alarmed at what their party is doing and not in agreement with many of their policies. I think they should be welcomed even if we don’t agree on each and every point, I also know there are some lines I can’t cross.
The high emotions at this time are making things difficult, along with so many people taking this personally, if you see what I mean. Makes civil discourse difficult.
You have said it well and added to my point, thank you.
Any discussion about a case like this must start with the facts.
Such as the fact that Terry Shiavo’s cerebral cortex has liquified. There is simply NO basis to the idea that she can recover consciousness, as the critical part of the human brain that makes us sentient is not present inside her skull.
That is the simple medical fact. As is the fact that, despite superficial appearances, she is not currently conscious and does not currently have sentient thoughts.
Unfortunately, this debate has not been between rational people who reach different conclusions based on the facts. Instead, it is a struggle between magical thinking and the reality-based community.
This is a debate between reason and Jiminy Cricket.
G, this is my response to your comment.
I appreciate your sentiment above, however that is not the topic of this disussion. Please see my diary above and that part where I ask to limit the discussion to that narrow parameter.
This diary is not about the case itself, but rather the fracturing that is occuring within the parties, not the why and the how it is happening.
The ground rules for that would be: “whether you think it is fracturing, whatever the reason and if there is an opportunity there for Reps. to come to the Dem party, and if so should we or should we not make room for them here, etc.
Sorry, but I just don’t want to make this a discussion of the case itself. If you do, please do a diary on it.
I would be interested in hearing your views on my hypothesis, however.
From your comment on the other thread, my response transferred here as you requested.
The reality of this diary was “is there fracturing of the parties,” and the common ground to that would be whether or not you think there is fracturing.
I believe there is a fracturing on faith-based grounds. That was the whole point of my comment. The public division on the Schiavo case on both sides of the aisle is not, in my opinion, rational.
On one side, are people interested in respectfully debating the best way to implement our rule of law for the common benefit, and on the other side are people who wish to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Both positions exist on the Right and on the Left.
At this particular moment in history, the Right is dominated by magical thinking, and the rational voices are marginalized. In the Democratic Party, the picture is more muddled.
I am particularly concerned about the well-meaning efforts of those who wish to “reach out” to those whose religion drives their politics, when that “reaching out” means censoring criticism of irrational beliefs, and when that “reaching out” means legitimizing the idea promoted publicly by Supreme Court Justice Scalia, that God’s law superceded man’s law, and that our political decisions and policy acts should be governed first by our faith, and only then by human law.
That is my opinion on the specific issue you raised.
My observation is that especially on the right side there are those that agree totally with the predominiate postion on this side and for the same reasons.
These are the people I am addressing, mainly. In a way they are almost being driven out, as I think I have said above more than once.
And in the observations I have been making over about a year long period of that side, I have never seen anything like it before. They are turning on their previously respected writers, for holding those views.
So I am seeing that as an opportunity for our side to enlarge our base.
I don’t believe one converts political opponents on a single issue.
The fundamental political struggle of our time is the debate over whether we are a people governed by reason, or a people governed by faith.
NOT, I would note, whether or not we each have whatever faith, but whether we have the right to demand and/or impose public policy based on religious beliefs.
Fundamentally, in my understanding, America has a secular government governed by laws developed rationally through consensus in a pluralistic society among people with diverse beliefs.
Fundamentally, in my understanding, there is a powerful, indeed presently dominant, belief that America needs a government ruled by Christian beliefs (even though there are a millions different interpretations about what that means), and that our laws should be governed by religious concepts about “sin” and “punishment”.
People who vote their religion first, have an entire value system that is foreign to progressive liberalism. Note that I did not say “Religious People”, I said people who vote their religion first.
This is not an attack on individual beliefs. It is a resistance to those who believe that their beliefs dictate political right and wrong and should control policy.
This is a problem, in my opinion, whether those beliefs happen to support helping the poor or whether they support unrestrained free markets, whether they support civil unions because “Jesus loves gays”, or whether they oppose them because “Jesus hates gays”.
I do not believe that ANY policy driven ANY interpretation of WWJD has a place in American polity.
If you personally derive your liberalism from the Bible, that’s fine. But when people articulate liberal beliefs SOLELY on the basis of the Bible, that alienates, excludes and divides.
When I articulate a liberal worldview based on common human rights and responsibilities, that is an inherently inclusive position that does not require anyone to hold particular religious beliefs.
Like Math, rational liberalism is agnostic and universal.
In my opinion, the issue is not that people in the Right who happen to support Schiavo’s right to die are potential recruits for the Democratic Party. Not if the rest of their political beliefs have allowed them to support this administration, the most radical and irrational in the history of the United States.
The Democratic party should, in my opinion, present a clear and unambiguous rational alternative to the faith-driven politics of the current Republican Party. Concurrently, we should invest our efforts in an education program that teaches people how to think critically, how to understand basic statistics so that they can evaluate the propaganda presented to them by political interests, and how to find and judge the veracity of information online.
AN informed populace educated in rational thinking is liberalism’s best ally – and only hope.
In my opinion.
This is the dialogue I was looking for.
Are you suggesting that most all Republicans are religious? I don’t think that is necessarily true.
Also there is a presupposed bias, I think in your comment, that all Republicans voted for or support this Administration. And if they did vote for and are now seeing the light would that qualify them with you to take up the Dem. side.
In all reality, we have no control over this, how strongly a Dem supports his side so how can we be selective in new converts. Personally I will take them if they only want to vote to change the regime in power.
That would give us the edge we need, would it not?
“I don’t believe one converts political opponents on a single issue”
I hope this isn’t off topic, but I had an interesting experience with this very issue. Two close friends of mine were outspoken, die-hard Republicans, who were highly active in politics. These same individuals were one-issue, anti-abortion voters, and very much involved in the Catholic Church.
After reading “The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics” by Major Garrett and Tim Penny, I felt compelled to share the book with them. It contains a well-articulated position surrounding abortion, and presented how the subject is used for political gain. I had no intention of converting my friends, I just wanted to share this particular perspective. I then watched something astounding unfold before my eyes. From that point forward, they chose to stop voting and discontinued their involvement in politics.
The outcome was certainly unanticipated, and not my intention. But it depicts an example of how one person, presenting one issue, can impact the actions of others.
Pretty interesting, its all gone. Thanks for taking down the diary, with all the thousands of words, I think I wrote and others too.
No where else to post to you so I’m doing it here. Hope we can all settle down now and get one with other things.
Galiel, I think in all of the mess you did give us something to think about and I think we came to a good resolution.
Suggestion go to this diary, called “Tell me about you” and post. I would like to see your story added to the others there.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/3/24/13448/6342