The real reason Kerry Lost...?

mike65

With all the hoopla about Iraq/War on Terror it may have escaped the attention of most that maybe the real reason Kerry lost was due to "The Culture Wars" which have become evermore a feature of US political life at all levels.

The USA is now a deeply divided nation, between those who belive that public and private affairs are conducted within the remit of the Almightys' reach and those who want to keep God and his minions on Earth out of thier private lives and out of public policy.

It was'nt by accident that Dick Cheney effcetivly snubed his gay daughter in public via-a-vis gay marraige or that Kerry would'nt condone same. The election of Kerry would'nt have healed the rift but on the other hand he would'nt have made matters any worse.

Bushes re-election will give the Christian right a real boost and when he fills out the Supreme Court vacanices with those of a conservative pursuasion the stage will be set for a type of civil war I feel.


Mike.

seamus

It's an interesting divide that seems to be replicating the world over. Certainly here and in Britain anyway. In general it tends to be heavily populated, urbanised areas, who'll vote for the liberals, and the less densely populated areas that vote for the conservatives. Certainly look at those maps of America, and compare them with Ireland for our last few referenda/elections, and British elections, and there's a remarkably similar pattern.

Where it will lead, who knows? As you say, I don't think Civil War is too far away at all. In the US, there are massive urban centres who have been persistently voting Democratic, and have been enraged by Bush, but aren't enough in numbers to get him out. Perhaps they may think, "Why bother? Why not just ignore Bush altogther and take the direction that we want?". It's going to be an interesting 4 years, definitely.

ixoy

You're quite right. There's a pertinent point to be made about the religious sector of American society. Statistically they're more likely to vote than the general population (90% turnout I think it was) because they're more driven by their belief system, part of their identity, than those who don't have a belief system. Unfortunately they're driven to the party that protects that system, which is conservative or - Republican.

That's the problem Democrats now face. How can you compete with God? How can you woo over and motivate people who are so firmly entrenched in their ideologies? How can you say to this base, "Yeah I know God apparently says gay marriage is wrong but *I* believe.." to get the retort, "Who are you to question God's edicts?" To this end the Democrats have tried to lobby some Christian bases by saying they won't support gay marriages, etc. but the fact is their approach is far less convincing to the adamant Christian than the current Republican administration is.

How can they fix it? I like to focus on the precepts of rationality, logic, and science and apply them as life principles. I think it's important that belief systems don't affect each other. Clearly that's not a view shared by religious groups who want everyone to hear the word. How do you convince them to take this approach when the theory of Creationism is on the rise?

Terrorism, particularly when perpetrated by "heathens", is yet another good reason why Republicans win over Democrats. It's not a physical attack so much as an emotional scar. And emotional scars are often seen as better dealth with spiritually rather than the, somewhat, more logic proof method that Democrats might employ. The economy - while important - is still, fundamentally, a somewhat tangible physical component that doesn't attack your heart. That's why fears over terrorism win over fears of economy. People may know Kerry's better for the latter, but it's the former that's more invasive to their souls.

I really can't see how the Democrats can get the required shift in thinking needed. It took decades for us to make the conceptual shift here, and we're still only in the process of doing it. Maybe I'm missing something, but for now it seems that etheral intangible spiritual concepts are going to always win out over logical reasoning.

BEAT

It may seem like there would be an uprise turning into a civil war but when it comes down to it Americans are just too lazy to do anything about it. A civil war is far from what will happen here tbh.
We will just sit by and watch Bush dig us another 4 years deeper and just hope the next president can get us out like Clinton did for us after Bush sr. made a mess.

The best thing to happen next would be for Hilary to get in office and attempt to fix what Jr has done to us. Afterall, she fixed it the first time ...first ladies do more than sit pretty and smile for the cameras. Especially in Clionton's case

p.pete

ixoy wrote:

I really can't see how the Democrats can get the required shift in thinking needed. It took decades for us to make the conceptual shift here, and we're still only in the process of doing it. Maybe I'm missing something, but for now it seems that etheral intangible spiritual concepts are going to always win out over logical reasoning.

A shift isn't that unimaginable - given that it was (will be) reasonably close this time. It'll be a case of the democrats needing to send out a strong candidate and hopefully the minds of the people who saw fit to vote Republican this time haven't been too much further entrenched...

Redleslie2

If Kerry loses it's because :

a) He was a useless candidate.
b) The Dems are useless.
c) The christian right republican base is solid.
d) The US media is hopelessly subservient.
e) Large numbers of americans don't give a crap about the rest of the world.
f) The election was rigged sufficiently.


I think any talk of a civil war is way overblown but if they try to bring the draft in, there could be some scuffles.

mr_angry

Even if Kerry had won, its clear that the US is deeply divided on all 4 major issues (Morality, terrorism, Iraq, the economy), and neither candidate could have hoped for a mandate from a significant majority of the population.

I think the idea of a civil war is highly unlikely though. As Beat already pointed out, the majority of Americans are too lazy to get up and act in that manner. Plus, in the previous civil war, the two ideologies were pretty much geographically separated into north and south. In this case, the ideologies are separated into urban and rural communities. Its almost impossible to imagine any kind of co-ordination between the isolated urban communities.

Unless you are John Titor.

Redleslie2

mr_angry wrote:

I think the idea of a civil war is highly unlikely though. As Beat already pointed out, the majority of Americans are too lazy to get up and act in that manner.

It's not laziness.

aidan_walsh

mr_angry wrote:

Unless you are John Titor.

Having read some of the stuff on his Wikipedia entry, I'm starting to feel a little uneasy

OfflerCrocGod

Civil War my fat foot. The chances of that happening are the same as the Second Coming ever occuring i.e. NEVER.

mike65

mike65 wrote:

Bushes re-election will give the Christian right a real boost and when he fills out the Supreme Court vacanices with those of a conservative pursuasion the stage will be set for a type of civil war I feel.

I'm not expecting Sten Guns on 5th Avenue! Something much more subtle but just as damaging where ppl simply stop communicating with anyone who is'nt "on-side". Where schools and community groups split and never re-engage. Where media talks only to its own core demographic. This is already happening to a degree.

Mike.

Redleslie2

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Civil War my fat foot. The chances of that happening are the same as the Second Coming ever occuring i.e. NEVER.

I find rubbish like this as demoralising as the election result. Yeah, wars only happen in the history books.

Bard

It seems that one of John Kerry's main selling points was "I'm not George Bush" which is hardly the best strategy to have...

Redleslie2

mike65 wrote:

I'm not expecting Sten Guns on 5th Avenue!

Sten guns!? You been listening to The Jam?

Inclined to agree with the rest though.

SkepticOne

Bard wrote:

It seems that one of John Kerry's main selling points was "I'm not George Bush" which is hardly the best strategy to have...

True, and I think there was an inability among strong Kerry supporters to understand that there may be alternative points of view such was their Bush obsession (sounds a bit rude). Word of mouth is very important. I think it may have been a bit like on this forum, where anyone who agrees in the slightest with anything the Republicans might do is considered sub-human. This is not condusive to winning people over. I think there may have been people voting for Bush who were simply alienated from the democratic supporters position.

mike65

Redleslie2 wrote:

Sten guns!? You been listening to The Jam?

The Jam had (Eton) Rifles, it was the Clash with Sten Guns in Knightbridge.

Mike.

Tusky

An American president that has gone to war has never not been re-elected. Simple as that.

BattleBoar

Tusky wrote:

An American president that has gone to war has never not been re-elected. Simple as that.

Bush Sr.???

SkepticOne

Maybe he meant currently at war?

Redleslie2

mike65 wrote:

The Jam had (Eton) Rifles, it was the Clash with Sten Guns in Knightbridge.

Mike.

You are of course correct. An american friend of mine said recently that 1984-isms have indeed creeped up on the US like the most hysterical of the punk rock doom-sayers kept saying all along.

seamus

I think you meant "America has always re-elected its President in wartime", Tusky . I wouldn't, however, agree that America is at war. All the fabrication in the world won't make it true.

SkepticOne

seamus wrote:

I think you meant "America has always re-elected its President in wartime", Tusky . I wouldn't, however, agree that America is at war. All the fabrication in the world won't make it true.

No, they are merely providing internal military assistance to the sovereign and independent government of Iraq.

seamus

SkepticOne wrote:

No, they are merely providing internal military assistance to the sovereign and independent government of Iraq.

Actually, I was more thinking that you need to be fighting against a second defined party in order to be at war, but your definition will do too.

Sleepy

ixoy wrote:

You're quite right. There's a pertinent point to be made about the religious sector of American society. Statistically they're more likely to vote than the general population (90% turnout I think it was) because they're more driven by their belief system, part of their identity, than those who don't have a belief system. Unfortunately they're driven to the party that protects that system, which is conservative or - Republican.

That's the problem Democrats now face. How can you compete with God? How can you woo over and motivate people who are so firmly entrenched in their ideologies? How can you say to this base, "Yeah I know God apparently says gay marriage is wrong but *I* believe.." to get the retort, "Who are you to question God's edicts?" To this end the Democrats have tried to lobby some Christian bases by saying they won't support gay marriages, etc. but the fact is their approach is far less convincing to the adamant Christian than the current Republican administration is.

How can they fix it? I like to focus on the precepts of rationality, logic, and science and apply them as life principles. I think it's important that belief systems don't affect each other. Clearly that's not a view shared by religious groups who want everyone to hear the word. How do you convince them to take this approach when the theory of Creationism is on the rise?

Terrorism, particularly when perpetrated by "heathens", is yet another good reason why Republicans win over Democrats. It's not a physical attack so much as an emotional scar. And emotional scars are often seen as better dealth with spiritually rather than the, somewhat, more logic proof method that Democrats might employ. The economy - while important - is still, fundamentally, a somewhat tangible physical component that doesn't attack your heart. That's why fears over terrorism win over fears of economy. People may know Kerry's better for the latter, but it's the former that's more invasive to their souls.

I really can't see how the Democrats can get the required shift in thinking needed. It took decades for us to make the conceptual shift here, and we're still only in the process of doing it. Maybe I'm missing something, but for now it seems that etheral intangible spiritual concepts are going to always win out over logical reasoning.

One of the many, many reasons I think religeon should be banned.

Manach

One of the many, many reasons I think religeon should be banned.
Bring it mate, you and what banner waving army .

Seriously - Given the increased Republican control of the Senate, and the age/poor health of Justice Ryqyist (?spelling) it seems that new conservative justices will be the key objective for the new senate term. Given they are in for life, this will set the social agenda for a generation to come.
It's about 5:4 right:left at present I think.

peckerhead

Let's face it, Kerry lost the hearts and minds of the American public back around the time of the televised debates...

GuanYin

mr_angry wrote:

Unless you are John Titor.

I'm actually beginning to worry about that thread......

John Titor

It will happen

dahamsta

ixoy wrote:

There's a pertinent point to be made about the religious sector of American society. Statistically they're more likely to vote than the general population (90% turnout I think it was) because they're more driven by their belief system, part of their identity, than those who don't have a belief system. Unfortunately they're driven to the party that protects that system, which is conservative or - Republican.

It's interesting to note that, assuming The Power of Nightmares wasn't just making it all up, the religious sector of American society weren't big voters until the early neoconcervative movement saw an opportunity and embraced them, presumably with an influx of money and media support (the docu didn't expand on how they supported the sector, but I think it's a fair assumption).

adam

shotamoose

Wow, a polite and reasonable thread about the US election. Let's see if I can ruin it ...

Firstly, I'm a little surprised at the result, but not hugely. For all the saturation coverage of the election, it occurred to me last night watching the talking heads on tv that I had no real idea what the 'popular mood' in America really was. All the coverage of 'voter mobilisation' was on the Democrat side, for example, but there seems to have been a huge turnout for Bush from some constituencies, such as evangelicals.

I think this election saw two huge but diametrically opposed political mobilisations rise up at once, with one only just trumping the other. Faith-based politics beat reality-based politics, and the Democrats find themselves in the weird position of occupying the political centre-ground, but in a minority in a country of extremists.

So far the Democrats don't seem to have the stomach for a real fight to really win America back rather than just hoping for a narrow win, but they're going to have to find it. Republicans seem to have claimed ownership of the concept of 'values', but there's such thing as centre-left 'values' too, as Labour have shown in Britain.

Looking to the future, I think Hillary Clinton would be a terrible candidate in 2008. She'll divide the country even more and won't win over any fundamenalist Christians, who basically view her as the Anti-Christ. I've only seen one Democrat who can really inspire and win back huge parts of the country: so Barack Obama for President in 2008.

Oh yeah, and Bush stole the election

daveirl

This post has been deleted.