It has been a tiring week for my husband and me, lots of medical tests, sitting in offices. Tiring, and just in no mood for a couple of the paragraphs I read in the PDF version, the full report.
Before I post the quotes that irritated me, I have noticed a lot of this lately. This putting down of the “activists” in the party, calling them “liberals”, and admonishing them to keep their place. It started in 2003 with the DLC memos directed to Howard Dean and his supporters….which we were. They called us “fringe activists.” Outrageous.
What a damn crying shame that our own party would stoop to turning the word activist into a dirty word. Gingrich did that to liberal, and now our own party is doing it to anyone who speaks out against their right leaning policies.
I have two issues that define who I am. I guess I am still a Christian, most days I am, I guess. My Southern Baptist church drove us away because we did not support the Iraq invasion.
Now to the two issues…women’s rights and the Iraq invasion.
Women’s rights mean so much more than abortion. They mean that a church doctrine will possibly keep women from having access to contraception. It they go as far as our Southern Baptist church did….they will be insulting to women who work outside the home. They are almost to the point in some churches of expecting women to be a childbearing vessel.
So the issue is a woman’s place in society. She must have equal rights, equal to men. She must not be under their thumb on any issues.
The second thing I demand is a stance on this war. It is not really a war. We, a monster country, invaded and destroyed the infrastructure of the small country that was no danger to us. We will play dearly for that. I expect those I intend to vote for to say it was wrong, and to apologize for voting for it.
NOW comes the “how dare you, Elaine Kamarck” part.
from other Democrats,
but also from the country
as a whole. Not only are
they younger, better
educated, and more
prosperous; they are less
likely ever to have been
married or to have
children in their home.
What did you guys just say, Elaine? Not as likely to have been married and have children? Where the hell did you get that? What are you talking about? I have a college degree, five children, and I have been happily married for years. What are you talking about?
But wait, there is another paragraph I want to gripe about. Still talking about us “liberals”.
more likely to be secular in their
orientation, only half as likely as
other Americans to attend religious
services weekly, and only one third as likely to participate in Bible study or prayer
groups. 61 percent of Liberals oppose displaying the Ten Commandments, versus only 22
percent of all Americans.
Elaine Kamarck, when you used to post at DFA, I would take up for you when others got critical. I was embarrassed they would treat a guest at the blog that way. Your support for Howard Dean was appreciated, you know. But maybe the TNR article about retribution for his supporters later on…was right. Who knows.
Your position that most liberals don’t want religious folks meddling in government is correct, but that is not how you phrased it.
As I say, I am tired and cross. Doctors offices do that. By the grace of God (and yes I believe in him) my husband will be ok. But I come back online here to read all this stuff, and I wonder about the Republican wing of the party.
I am an activist, and I am a liberal….though I used to call myself moderate. I use the word liberal now. It is far more appropriate.
up to the NOW. I hope you’re still online and will add a few more comments about your anger with Elaine Kamarck’s statements.
Here’s why I’m asking: I’m surrounded by DINOs and singles, and honestly, I know only one church-goer. I live in what is commonly understood to be a ‘liberal’ area. There have been any number of articles discussing how marriage is on the decline in this country (although I’m not sure if specifically attributed to ‘liberals’) I’m guessing that’s where she “gets it” from. Do you feel she is going to far in trying to define a profile for today’s liberals?
I really don’t see that in the area in which I live. It is very conservative, but there are a lot of us who see the truth about all these issues. We just don’t have ways to express it.
I don’t think saying liberals don’t marry and don’t have children as much sounds right at all.
I am most upset at the way the DLC/PPI/Third Way use the terms liberals and activists in a pejorative manner so often.
Nearly all the “liberals” “activists” I know are married and have children. I guess it depends where you live.
The article is a little obvious…you know…let’s not make waves, kids. Fall in line now. It does have that tone.
And believe it or not, I really do think I am moderate in most views. But not in the two I mentioned…..not anymore. No way.
Nearly all the “liberals” “activists” I know are married and have children. I guess it depends where you live.
It’s DLC spin. It’s entirely possible that ‘liberals’ (whatever this hack means by that) do skew towards being unmarried but she’s not saying by how much they skew, her interest is in making sure that single people or people who haven’t had children are marginalized and not represented by the Democratic party or by politicians. 40% of the adults in this country are unmarried (and, under ‘centrist’ leadership completely neglected by strategists and politicians, I might add) and I’m sure that people who self identify as liberals are well educated. They probably read newspapers too.
Here’s what I know. Pew says that the single largest Dem voting bloc and the most rapidly growing demographic of all voting blocs since 1999 is people who self identify as liberal. Now, it’s nonsense to suppose that ‘centrists’ spin and marginalize us because they want to ‘win’ elections. For one thing they haven’t been ‘winning’ elections, even a brain dead fool should be able to recognise that they lose election after election and that under ‘centrist’ leadership the popularity of the Democratic party has fallen to new lows. So, what we need to ask ourselves is why they keep doing this. Well, that and how to force them to seek employment in non-political jobs….
Yet they cry, kick and scream to the liberal activists to spend money supporting this candidate, go vote for that candidate–right after they criticize and caricature liberal activists.
And they’re surprised that folks are no longer willing to playing that game?
I’ve taken to sending fundraising envelopes from DINOs back with a handwritten note to the effect that “when you move to the left, I’ll reach for my wallet.”
Self-correct, it’s late.
I think it is the condescending tone that wing of the party takes toward anyone who wants to stand up and fight for issues.
There is plenty of room in the party for everyone, activists, liberals, moderates and centrists. They don’t seem to think so sometimes. That is what makes me upset.
Many don’t want the people who are willing to do the on the ground work, are willing to take stands. That makes me want to put on my tinfoil hat and ask why?
Just wait until it’s GOTV time. They’ll want you to be an activist on the ground then, not to mention plenty liberal when they’re sending out half a dozen base-as-ATM emails a day.
They’ll let us know when we’re important, never fear.
Just wait until it’s GOTV time.
heh. Ya, I love it when the operatives who have spent months calling us things like “mouth breathers” and telling us to get fucked, adopt their “get to work, NOW” ‘leadership’ role online. Fuck ’em and the horse they rode in on.
I know thousands of people who would be better at their jobs. My cat would do a better job. I keep hoping that common sense will prevail and that blogs will wake folks up to the dysfunctional pundit class. Democratic politics is the equivalent of having charities run by people who hate and fear the poor. But, then, that’s another problem.
It hurts too much to laugh, but I’m too old to cry.
We all know what “tolerance and common sense” are becoming neo-Dem code words for, so now for the Sesame Street question: Which of these things belong together?
I’m glad they’ve finally got their internal contradictions all worked out.
I read it several times. I still am not very sure what it means. It is vague and confusing, and I have a feeling it was probably meant that way.
from academics.
Careful now! You are stepping on toes you can’t see here! Don’t make me start defending academics as well as progressive Southerners – I’ve already worn through one keyboard this year.
Your friendly neighborhood academic.
You are stepping on toes you can’t see here!
Not really. I’ve had this discussion on- and off-line before. You’re not the first academic to take umbrage.
Don’t make me start defending academics
You don’t need to (in a general sense) because I have a specific context in mind, namely, the presentation of quantitative models (and in particular, predicative) models to a political audience.
Your email address isn’t public; neither is mine. Send me an email, if you’d like to chat about some trade secrets.
[my user name]727
@
yahoo.commie
I will but not for a couple of days! Mid-term time and I’m swamped with exams to grade. the real world of my life intrudes on all this interesting stuff.
it’s a variation of “don’t rock the boat”. People don’t like “trouble makers”.
that you’ve been up reading the Politics of Polarization, as well.
It’s too late for me to really wrestle w/ this paper this evening, but I do see that the attributes describing liberals that floridagal objects to appear to come directly from the Pew Research study “using sophisticated statistical methods”. I did see the Pew Research paper (or a precursor) that described their MLR (multivariate or multiple variable regression analysis) study of party id on independent variables like income, church-going, etc. What I did not see at the time: (1) any discussion on whether the fundamental assumptions for MLR modeling were satisfied, and (2) error estimates for the coefficients (attributes/driver for party id).
In case I’m boring you to tears, I’ll mention that I used their coefficients and a ‘test group’ of ppl I know to see how reliably I could predict party id — failure in numerous cases. Really couldn’t follow up as the dirty details of the model were not available. However, I have suspected for a while that these models may break down (or only have predicative value for less than an election cycle), as is often the case for complex situations with rapidly-changing dynamics.
remember one thing. It was taken only by internet activists. Only 11,000 if memory serves me. Since there were so many more of us, on the ground acivists as well, over 600,000 at last count…..that 11,000 was only a small portion. We have some in our DFA group here who are very moderate in their views. We come in all stripes and colors.
I am too tired to argue the points. The study put out by Third Way is geared to get us in our place, not to be too activist nor to be too liberal.
Maybe I will argue more tomorrow or maybe I won’t. They look down on those of us in the party who do the work on the ground. There are too many articles by the groups to prove my point, so it is not really in question.
Floridagal. I’ve been steaming about this for a while too, and reading your piece tonight I started steaming again.
So, I’ve taken a few minutes to look at some of the members, the past history and a little of the voting record of those who comprise the Third Way. My piece is so long now though, that I’m embarrassed to post it as a comment to your diary. So what I did was put it up at “home” and I linked to your diary here.
It’s up at Our Word.
The Third Way is No Way for Me
Thanks for doing this, bayprairie. I don’t like some of the assumptions, both theoretical and statistical, of Kamarck’s modeling. I’ll read your more detailed reponse.
Did you see the Board of Directors for the “Third Way”… it’s all Guns and Butter… what the fuck is this… looks like a cover for the NRA
Who the fuck is “Americans for Gun Safety”? and the rest are investment brokers…
The third way may have had some benefit in 92. Now that the neocons have wrecked the country we can run as full all out liberals and win. The DLC is not reading what’s happening here. There is a big change a foot, read Booman’s diary. I believe he’s right.
about how liberals are skeptical – skeptical of authors trying to define them – skeptical of preachers soaking up money from widows and lonely folk telling them how to live while they, themselves are sometimes greedy and sometimes sexual predators.
I know I am skeptical of a Catholic church being dictated to by just 230 old dried up men! Why are women supporting that?
I am skeptical of a lot of things, especially the knee jerk reaction about liberals. What the hell is that all about? Liberals are the least likely to rape, kill or mangle anybody I know about. Yes we are mouthy, but is that such a horrible danger? Other than to some outmoded, outrageous stupidity?
You must be a passivist.
Send them a friendly Email to let them know how you feel. I did!
Maybe I was a little harsh?
Oh well!
Maybe they were a little stupid?
Florida Girl,
You rock! Your first sentence leads me to believe you are going through a rough time — sending good energy your way.