Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/360744p-307379c.html" target="_blank">http://www.nydailynews.com/new s/ideas_opinions/story/360744p-307379c.html</a> >>The new liberal activists, according to Beinart, are "largely in the dark about what they believe." If he is right and today's Deaniacs are modern McGovernites, we should recall the damage done by the McGovern reformers at the 1972 convention - in theory at least, increasing the number of Democrats involved in selecting nominees. In reality, the reformers stacked the convention and radically changed the party. Affluent, well-educated liberals were in - a "new elite," as The Washington Post termed it. Party regulars, officeholders and blue-collar Democrats were out. New York, a union state, had only three union members as delegates, though it had at least nine members of the gay liberation movement. No farmer was a member of the Iowa delegation. Only 30 of the 255 Democratic members of Congress were selected as delegates, while a full 39% of delegates had attended graduate school. More than a third of the white delegates were classified as secularists, compared with 5% of the general population, and rough quotas were installed for blacks, women, Hispanics and people ages 18 to 25. <<
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It is scary how a fringe group in the party can dominate the discussion, isn't it? Kind of like the Republicans and the religious right. There will be no repeat of 1972 though. The author apparently forgot that today's conventions are nothing more than a beauty contest. The party's candidate is chosen by primary election results. And a fringe candidate will not win many primaries. That was Dean's whole problem in 2004 -- he was viewed by the majority of Democrats as being "unelectable" because of his very liberal views.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>he was viewed by the majority of Democrats as being "unelectable" because of his very liberal views.<< Which is odd, because in Vermont they jokingly called him a Republican because of his moderate to right-leaning views. It just goes to show how effectively the GOP was at defining their opponents.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dean was/is indeed moderate on most major matters. He was pegged as "far left" in 2003 because of one position only: his opposition to the war. That was the big issue of the day, and did in fact place him to the left of most of his own party (if one accepts the concept that opposition to was is "left" - in fact I think it transcends simple left/right and has to do more with determining "is this war justified at this time?") But the concept, especially in '03, was that opposition to war equals "far left," and so his otherwise moderate record got left in the dust by a media that loves to pidgeonhole and simplify.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Kind of like the Republicans and the religious right.> The religious right is not a fringe group. They're a plurality of Americans.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The religious right is not a fringe group. They're a plurality of Americans.>> Our definition of "religious right" must differ. <<Evangelicals Are Scarce All Barna Research studies define "evangelicals" as individuals who meet the born again criteria; say their faith is very important in their life today; believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; acknowledge the existence of Satan; contend that eternal salvation is possible only through God's grace, not through good deeds; believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. In this approach, being classified as an evangelical has no relationship to church affiliation or attendance, nor does it rely upon people describing themselves as "evangelical." This classification model indicates that only 8% of adults are evangelicals. Barna Research data show that 12% of adults were evangelicals a decade ago, but the number has dropped by a third as Americans continue to reshape their theological views. Not surprisingly, there were only three denominations that had at least one-quarter of their adherents qualify as evangelicals: the Assemblies of God (33%), non-denominational Protestant (29%), and Pentecostal (27%) churches. One out of every seven Baptists (14%) met the evangelical classification. An unexpectedly high proportion of people associated with the Churches of Christ - 12% - fit this standard. (Barna explained that this was because a majority of the category was comprised of individuals associated with congregations not part of the United Church of Christ cluster, which tends to have very liberal interpretations of Scripture.) Churches that have the lowest proportion of adherents meeting the evangelical criteria were the Catholic, Episcopal, and Mormon churches, each of which has just 1% of its people in this category.>> Source: <a href="http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html" target="_blank">http://www.adherents.com/misc/ BarnaPoll.html</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer They are a plurality? I think moderates are the plurality in this country by a large margin.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Ooh, neat marginalization. The question still remains. What exactly is the "Religious Right"? Who qualifies to be in this group? I like the way that people try to villianize "Evangelicals" without any understanding of what the average Christian really feels. As an eeeevil Evangelical Fundamentalist, my father voted exclusively Democrat because they were for the people, the little man, the needy, the displaced and the hungry. He felt comfortable in the big tent. But somewhere along the line, he got kicked out of the big tent. Personally, I don't see my father or myself as "Religious Right", although I definately qualify as Conservative Evangelical Fundamentalist. I do not give money to the political grandstanders like Reid or the 700 Club. I do not pass out political pamphlets at my church. I do not suggest to people who they should vote for over the pulpit. I do not support get out the vote drives or television commercials. But I do vote my conscience, as do many other Americans obviously. Obviously there must be more of us than 8% or else you would be doing your best to marginalize us. Fortunately for me, I don't believe in Church involvement in politics, just personal civic duty, so I suppose your dislike of "the Religious Right" would not include me, but sometimes I wonder.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer There's a huge difference between "religious right" and "evangelical", in my opinion. They are not the same thing by a long shot, as Disneyman pointed out. There are evangelicals in every denomination, including those seen by outsiders as not evangelical. They are present in the Episcopal church, the Lutheran Church and even the Catholic Church. And their faith can lead them to support liberal causes just as strongly as it can lead them to support conservative causes. The religious right can also be found in every denomination. I know quite a few in the Episcopal church I attend, for example. They aren't the same thing at all.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Obviously there must be more of us than 8% or else you would be doing your best to marginalize us. Fortunately for me, I don't believe in Church involvement in politics, just personal civic duty, so I suppose your dislike of "the Religious Right" would not include me, but sometimes I wonder.>> A little sensitive are we??? I have absolutely no dislike of people comprising the 'religious right' (though I don't think much of some of their views) and would make no attempt to marginalize them. I have merely stated, absolutely correctly, that they are not a plurality in American politics. That is not an opinion. It is an indisputable fact.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Yes RoadTrip, I am sensitive. As you are when someone tries to pigeonhole you in a group because of your beliefs.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>As you are when someone tries to pigeonhole you in a group because of your beliefs. << Imagine how a friend of mine feels - he's also a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, but he's a diehard left of center liberal.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<There's a huge difference between "religious right" and "evangelical", in my opinion. They are not the same thing by a long shot, as Disneyman pointed out.>> I would agree tend to agree with your statement, but since the religious right DOES (as you indicated) cross many religious lines, evangelical comes closer to defining the term than anything else I can think of. I think it is safe to say that the majority of evangelicals are pro-life, anti-gay marriage and largely support the point of view of the "religious right".
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I think it is safe to say that the majority of evangelicals are pro-life, anti-gay marriage and largely support the point of view of the "religious right".<< I don't think that's necessarily true, though. An evangelical Christian can be a strong supporter of support programs for the poor, the hungry, and fair treatment of prisoners based on Matthew. He or she can also believe that God will weed out the sinners and that it isn't up to them to judge others. Evangelical isn't a political philosophy, but a religious philosophy which tends toward a literal interpretation of the Gospels.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Tom, on that subject, you and I both agree. I do not like political involvement and struggle to see the wisdom of legislating morality. The Church and State should be separate, because I don't want the state telling me what I can and can't believe. So why should I force people to live something they don't want to. That actually turns them away from Jesus and the Church. That is why Jesus advised to "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and what is God's unto God". Don't mix the two. Politics should be an individual civic duty and not a church issue. As a Conservative Evangelical Fundamentalist (ooh, an evil combo) I interpret the bible very literally and so I take certain scriptures to heart, like "judge not, lest ye be judged". I vote Republican for thier stand regarding minimal government and lower taxes and because they do not have a hard core anti-Christian fringe in thier midst, like the Democratic Party does. Big tent indeed. Hmpph
Originally Posted By TomSawyer My evangelical friend has problems with the big tent idea as well, but the Democrats are starting to listen to Jim Wallis a bit more now and might come around. We'll do better in this country if the fringes that have such a loud voice in their respective parties were back on the margins where they belong. The GOP risks becoming what the Democrats have been if they let the fringes keep driving the platform.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Oh, and for the record, I am pro-life and have strong feelings regarding sexual lifestyles, but I do not feel comfortable with legislating morality. Personally, I think ones sex life should be kept in the bedroom where it belongs, no matter what kind of sex life it is. I am as much against politicizing sexuality as I am about politicizing the church but oh well, life is full of little disappointments.
