Politics and Religion: the Game

I think the effectiveness of the religious right can be attributed to the fact that if their brainwashed constituency fails to vote as they are told they will burn in hell for all eternity. The wishy-washy left is totally incapable of providing such effective negative reinforcement.

Haven’t been reading the SUV thread, have you?

[quote=“Erik_Andersson”]

I’m currently studying theoretical philosophy. I guess this is a bit off topic so I’ll send you a message instead.[/quote]

They have practical philosophy?

I think we ran Sinner3001 off permanently.

Yes, we do. It’s what I’m reading right now.

On the contrary, they didn’t ignore their core issues, they were trumpeted proudly. The people just didn’t buy them this time. Look at them now, their core is ‘I hate that idiot Bush’. In fact, that’s what the democratic party has been about for the last 40 years: telling people what they want to hear, free from ideology or principle, only the echo of the public whim.

This country functions best when two opposed idealogies balance each other. It functions very poorly when we have one extreme-wing idealogy and “competition” from a party trying to appear, at worst, centrist, and at best, enthusiastic cheerleaders.

This seems to be the new ‘moderate’ platform. Everything must balance, everything must compromise in order to be correct. Nothing could be further from the truth. If one side gets it’s way then the otherside must have a couterbalance- at all costs, regardless of the means or consequences. This ‘extreme-wing’ ideology only seems to be extreme when you disagree with it. If it’s part of the balance, then why do you oppose it?

This country would function best if we could agree on certain principles like private property and individual autonomy, and have our arguments about the degrees of these principles. Unfortunately, we have been force fed this message of ‘balance with the force’ since pre-school. Individual rights must balance with minority group rights, private property rights must balance with the rights of the needy. An ironic tribute to our school systems in the form of government representation we now have and deserve.

On the contrary, they didn’t ignore their core issues, they were trumpeted proudly. The people just didn’t buy them this time. Look at them now, their core is ‘I hate that idiot Bush’. [/quote]

You clearly didn’t pay much attention to Democrats during the 2002 election. They did not, in fact, run on an “I hate Bush” platform. Just the opposite. Most of the losses came from candidates who were running on me-too platforms. Of those few Democrats who actively opposed the war, most (all?) were re-elected.

As to the rest of your statement asserting that there’s no need for a balance of views or for everyone’s rights to be considered, I think you already know what I feel about that kind of idealogy.

You clearly didn’t pay much attention to Democrats during the 2002 election. They did not, in fact, run on an “I hate Bush” platform. Just the opposite. Most of the losses came from candidates who were running on me-too platforms. Of those few Democrats who actively opposed the war, most (all?) were re-elected.

Democrats never really deserve that much attention, but they went from Pelosi saying they were standing ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the president, to Daschle saying there was a conspiracy to discredit him, the economy was in shambles because of Bush, and the tax cuts were the cause. The war was wrong and they could have done it better through diplomacy. Their message was out there, people just didn’t buy it because it was nonsense and solutionless, and formulaic just like their ‘platform’ is now.

Daschle’s a joke, but, again, you’re confusing the 2002 campaign with the current Presidential race. Why are you doing that?

2002 wasn’t a crippling loss. It wasn’t a “large swing towards the Republicans” by any means. There were a lot of close races, and the Republicans just edged out on top in a few states.

I’ve heard that 1/10% change in votes would have resulted in the Democrats picking up a few seats in the Senate.

Yeah, not to mention that the majority of Americans elected a democratic president. :-/

He’s not confusing it, he’s clearly using it as an analogous, related situation.

Except it isn’t analagous, as the strategies are entirely different, which is precisely what I was saying. The 2002 campaign wasn’t “Bash Bush”, it was “Hey, see how much we’re backing Bush? We’re patriotic too!”

NOW it’s Bash Bush, obviously - but that wasn’t the 2002 plan.

You mean the majority of voters. The majority of Americans didn’t seem to care much one way or the other.