Values or the Economy?
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 07-10-2004 - 1:41pm |
I have also read threads that address the questioned why do people vote against their own economic interest. Why are they content to see the Republicans time and again pass legislation that benefits the corporations at the expense of the people. The answer is of course they place abortion, gay marriage and school prayer ahead of their economic interests. Therefore, Ken Lay and other corporate execs can walk away with billions and a short term in prison. It’s OK that their children and grandchildren will be paying back a national debt. It’s OK that the medicare bull gives money to the corporations at the public expense with little benefit to seniors.
I saw a article in the Washington Post –the beginning is quoted below:
Rhetoric On Values Turns Personal
Attacks Sharpen In Presidential Race
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A01
BEAVER, W.Va., July 9 -- The growing debate over the presidential candidates' values turned personal Friday, as Sen. John F. Kerry blasted President Bush for laziness and lax pursuit of Enron Corp.'s Kenneth L. Lay, while the Bush campaign accused the new Democratic ticket of condoning a "star-studded hate-fest."
Kerry, who is trying to make values a centerpiece of his campaign, unexpectedly found himself on the defensive after he praised performers who called the president a "thug" and a killer during a Democratic fundraiser Thursday night at Radio City Music Hall in New York.
Friday's debate demonstrated not only how personal the attacks have become, but also the aggressiveness of both campaigns as they move toward their national conventions. With polls showing the two sides still running essentially even nationally, advisers to Bush and Kerry have made clear they are unwilling to cede any issue or any ground with so much at stake in such a competitive election. It also shows how values and cultural issues will play a prominent role in each party's strategy for victory, especially in the South and in rural communities.â€
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38595-2004Jul9.html
My first thought: Kerry is playing into Bush’s hand;Bush must be delighted, Kerry is diverting the issue to culture not the war or economics. What a way to loose, or is it?
There is a book out entitled “What is the matter with Kansas?" By Thomas Frank, It's "the same thing that's been the matter with America for so many years: the culture wars." In his book WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS Frank, a native Kansan and onetime Republican, seeks to answer some broader American riddles: Why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? Where's the outrage at corporate manipulators? And whatever happened to middle-American progressivism? The questions are urgent as well as provocative. Frank answers them by examining pop conservatism -- the bestsellers, the radio talk shows, the vicious political combat -- and showing how our long culture wars have left us with an electorate far more concerned with their leaders' "values" and down-home qualities than with their stands on hard questions of policy.
A brilliant analysis -- and funny to boot -- What's the Matter with Kansas? presents a critical assessment of who we are, while telling a remarkable story of how a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs came to convince a nation that they spoke on behalf of the People.
http://www.henryholt.com/holt/whatsthematter.htm
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/culturewars.html
Knowing the game should make the election more interesting.

Pages
"I have been interested in why people vote against their own economic interest for some time."
Me too. The press is characterized as being 'liberal' because it carries news about
More on "values".............
The Value Proposition
A theme increasingly running through President Bush's public messages these days (even more than his constant insistence that he is optimistic) is that his values are America's values.
Bush is hoping to persuade American voters that his own morality, faith and patriotism stand in contrast to Senator John F. Kerry's and more closely mirror their own. It's a powerful assertion.
But it's an assertion that is vehemently challenged by Democrats -- and it may have some risks.
Imagine what would happen if, for instance, it were to turn out that Bush was using terror warnings for political purposes; or if he shirked his National Guard duty in Vietnam; or if one of his top aides were charged with outing a CIA operative as an act of political retaliation; or if he is perceived as being part and parcel with the likes of indicted former Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth L. Lay. (See below for updates on all those stories, and more, by the way.)
The Battle Over Values
Jim VandeHei writes in The Washington Post: "Sen. John F. Kerry and President Bush escalated a fight Thursday over values that is increasingly coloring the election-year debate heading into the national conventions. . . .
"Bush, a born-again Christian, frequently speaks in religious terms and talks of how voters, especially those outside the liberal bastions of big cities and the two coasts, share his deep faith, values and sense of patriotism."
But VandeHei notes that in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, when asked whether the statement "he shares your values" applies more to Bush or Kerry, 46 percent said the president and 48 percent said Kerry.
Lots more....... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/
One of my objections to the word "values" is that it is publicly defined and "individual values". If you are pro-choice your values are demeaned, they are not moral values. However, the debate never focuses on the country's values. Our country has had values, equality, freedom, and a living wage for all. It was the quality of life issue that extablished our tax structure, our environmental and business law. There was a time when employers who exploited workers had their values questioned. This country had a feeling that privacy was valuable, and if your actions didn't hurt another the government didn't have a right to interfer. The idea of "American values" has taken an insidious and extremely meaning. What use to be noble, is now meddling.
While it is true that the south turned from Democrat to Republican over the civil rights issue. I see the national turning poing as when the RR merged with the Republican party. When the Republican's put abortion on their patform. Until the RR became motivated as "the silent majority", the abortion issue as viewe as an individual. The RR pursued their interest and turned the issue from social issue into a criminal issue based on their idea of what is moral. They wanted to enforce their beliefs on the nation--they still do. Through persistence and determination they demonstrated, gained news interview through legal and illegal demonstrations. They saw abortion began as murder and that was that. It is difficult to be reasonable when the opposition is hysterical. They have continued to use this tactic on other issues. What has happened as the RR has pushed their beliefs is that "American Values" have been twisted to a narrow religious understanding. The broad nobel values of our founders have been replaced by zealot's views.
Edited 7/11/2004 3:26 pm ET ET by hayashig
I have some what of a different view. I don't think the debate over values should be limited to Bush. If the president has no clothes but people refuse to see that fact, repeatedly pointing to evidence of nudeness will have little avail. Besides I think this issue goes beyond this election. Somehow we need to replace the severly limited focus on "individual" values with the real American values. Values that have guided this country for two centuries.
A speaker on C-Span this am said that the founding fathers were worried about a situation where industry and government got together and the Constitution was not strong enough to remedy this.
I don't know what's going to happen about honest, we have learned to accept spin and fudging the truth. We can't even say Bush lied to the country about Iraq, only that he was mislead so he mislead. In this vein, I not at all happy about the secrecy of this administration--isn't openness a value. Why do so few see/understand what's happening.
Byron Williams - byronspeaks.com
07.12.04 - Use of the word "God" is playing well with certain segments of the electorate this year. I find the majority of political discussion that invokes God does so ignorantly, using the term as a panacea for public morality. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The political left in general seems reluctant to connect public policy with morality. This reluctance allows the debate to stay within the safe confines of the head.
This would suffice if policy wonks and political junkies decided elections, but most Americans require something more meaningful.
By no means do I support the left engaging in a feeble attempt to out-God the right by enhancing the use of the almighty into their political rhetoric. But the left should not shy away from embracing public morality.
The blurring of the line between church and state is stunning, to say the least. Forty-four years ago, then-candidate John Kennedy, a Catholic, was assuring the American people that he embraced the separation of church and state and that the Vatican would have no undo influence on his administration.
Recently, President Bush was lobbying Pope John Paul II to convince U.S. bishops to become more actively involved in promoting those issues that are part of his social agenda, including a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and his opposition to abortion rights.
It has long been established that God is a card-carrying Republican. With God replacing the elephant as the symbol of the G.O.P (God's Only Party?), it wouldn't surprise me to see it rain fire and brimstone during the Democratic National Convention in Boston. Who knew that God would be such a proponent for tax cuts, the Patriot Act, pre-emptive war and noncompetitive bids for Halliburton and Bechtel?
It is a mistake to automatically associate the rhetoric of God with morality. Don't forget that Manifest Destiny invoked God in its rhetoric. I think the overwhelming majority of Native Americans would question the morality of that policy.
The contemporary use of God politically tends to be nothing more than someone's interpretation of doctrine used to subjugate those in opposition of their particular position.
Is it wrong for elected officials to have religious convictions? Absolutely not! One's personal religious convictions, however, do not equate to a public morality.
Morality, which is standards of conduct that are accepted as right, can be achieved without linear biblical misinterpretation. The basis of our public morality is found in the Declaration of Independence and the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which embrace religious foundations. But we bear the collective burden of praxis.
Instead of using morality to oppose same-sex marriages, the left could use its concept of morality to critique why the House of Representatives could pass $180 billion in tax cuts in the midst of a $500 billion deficit, and not pass $6 billion to extend unemployment benefits.
Why is universal health care not debated in moral terms? The failure to do so renders it vulnerable to charges of "socialized medicine."
Why is there no moral critique that examines the inverted order of our peculiar brand of capitalism that offers socialism for the wealthy and a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" capitalism for the poor? What does our public morality have to say about administration officials justifying torture or claiming ties between Saddam and al-Qaida when the facts state otherwise?
An authentic public morality must speak to all Americans; it is not exclusive to those who embrace a particular worship tradition. The failure of the left to articulate a public morality is in essence an abdication to the right.
Such abdications give legitimacy to what my mentor, the Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr., pastor of the Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland, calls in his new memoir, On the Jericho Road, "the rocking chair of lazy religion."
This is a belief system that is based not on compassion, forgiveness and inclusion, but on greed, narrow-mindedness and exclusion. We can do better, but the left must be willing to say so.
http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=17267
Have you thought about this....
All religions are old old and people have been following their religions for thousands of years. No religion talks abou killing other human beings. But a terrorist leader uses or twists his religion to propagate their agenda to the masses and converts them into Jihadists. In a similar fashion today's politicians also use their religion to push their agendas. DO you think they got their ideas from east? How can someone not see this? I heard on NPR news about some religious officials of church actually geting POed by the republican's intereference. This is the case every where, India, pakistan, afganistan, and now in US. Worst thing is people buying into all this. They are really going away from issues that will give them a quality life and bring world peace.
No, I don't think the idea came from the east. I happen to think that the three religions with similar roots: Jews, Christians and Muslims are very different from Asian religions or Native American beliefs. The background is deep in the religious texts--and as your say in the interpretation. It is hard to tell whether the politicians are using religious organizations or vice versa. It is a mutually beneficial to both sides. I am copying part of an article I just read to demonstrate my point.
<>
Indeed, as well as going away from a basic tenent of the founding fathers of America, i.e., the separation of church and state. This is why so many of us are uncomfortable about what is happening. I am not familiar enough with the conflict between Pakistan and India (except for the conflict over Kashmir) to understand how similar the problems resemble those of the US. The problems in the Middle East (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabis) derive from what would be a "civil conflict" if the rulers were not so repressive. The US got drawn into the conflict because of our support of these rulers.
This thread is not about the Middle East, but the article gives the interlinking of the Republicans and the RR (religious right) or the Christian Right.
The Influence of the Christian Right on U.S. Middle East Policy
By Stephen Zunes
In recent years a politicized and right-wing Protestant fundamentalist movement has emerged as a major factor in U.S. support for the policies of the rightist Likud government in Israel. To understand this influence, it is important to recognize that the rise of the religious right as a political force in the United States is a relatively recent phenomenon that emerged as part of a calculated strategy by leading right-wingers in the Republican Party who—while not fundamentalist Christians themselves—recognized the need to enlist the support of this key segment of the American population in order to achieve political power.
Traditionally, American fundamentalist Protestants were not particularly active in national politics, long seen as worldly and corrupt. This changed in the late 1970s as part of a calculated effort by conservative Republican operatives who recognized that as long as the Republican Party was primarily identified with militaristic foreign policies and economic proposals that favored the wealthy, it would remain a minority party. Over the previous five decades, Republicans had won only four out of 12 presidential elections and had controlled Congress for only two of its 24 sessions.
By mobilizing rightist religious leaders and adopting conservative positions on highly-charged social issues such as women’s rights, abortion, sex education, and homosexuality, Republican strategists were able to bring millions of fundamentalist Christians—who as a result of their lower-than-average income were not otherwise inclined to vote Republican—into their party. Through such organizations as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, the GOP promoted a right-wing political agenda through radio and television broadcasts as well as from the pulpit. Since capturing this pivotal constituency, Republicans have won four out of six presidential races, have dominated the Senate for seven out of 12 sessions, and have controlled the House of Representatives for the past decade.
As a result of being politically wooed, those who identify with the religious right are now more likely than the average American to vote and to be politically active. The Christian Right constitutes nearly one out of seven American voters and determines the agenda of the Republican Party in about half of the states, particularly in the South and Midwest. A top Republican staffer noted: “Christian conservatives have proved to be the political base for most Republicans. Many of these guys, especially the leadership, are real believers in this stuff, and so are their constituents.”
{Several paragraphs about Israel omitted}
It appears, then, that right-wing Christian Zionists are, at this point, more significant in the formulation of U.S. policy toward Israel than are Jewish Zionists, as illustrated by three recent incidents.
After the Bush administration’s initial condemnation of the attempted assassination of militant Palestinian Islamist Abdel Aziz Rantisi in June 2003, the Christian Right mobilized its constituents to send thousands of e-mails to the White House protesting the criticism. A key element in these e-mails was the threat that if such pressure continued to be placed upon Israel, the Christian Right would stay home on Election Day. Within 24 hours, there was a notable change in tone by the president. Indeed, when Rantisi fell victim to a successful Israeli assassination in April 2004, the administration—as it did with the assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin the previous month—largely defended the Israeli action.
When the Bush administration insisted that Israel stop its April 2002 military offensive in the West Bank, the White House received over 100,000 e-mails from Christian conservatives in protest of its criticism. Almost immediately, President Bush came to Israel’s defense. Over the objections of the State Department, the Republican-led Congress adopted resolutions supporting Israel’s actions and blaming the violence exclusively on the Palestinians.
When President Bush announced his support for the Road Map for Middle East peace, the White House received more than 50,000 postcards over the next two weeks from Christian conservatives opposing any plan that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The administration quickly backpedaled, and the once-highly touted Road Map essentially died.
Theological Influences: Good Versus Evil
Messianic theology is centered around the belief in a hegemonic Israel as a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ. Although this doctrine is certainly an important part of the Christian Right’s support of a militaristic and expansionist Jewish state, fundamentalist Christian Zionism in America ascribes to an even more dangerous dogma: that of Manichaeism, the belief that reality is divided into absolute good and absolute evil.
The day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush declared, “This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail.” America was targeted—according to President Bush—not on account of U.S. support for Arab dictatorships, the large U.S. military presence in the Middle East, U.S. backing of the Israeli occupation, or the humanitarian consequences of U.S. policy toward Iraq but simply because they “hate our freedom.” Despite the Gospels’ insistence that the line separating good and evil does not run between nations but rather within each person, President Bush cited Christological texts to support his war aims in the Middle East, declaring, “And the light has shown in the darkness , and the darkness will not overcome it .”
Even more disturbingly, Bush has stated repeatedly that he was “called” by God to run for president. Veteran journalist Bob Woodward noted, “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God’s Master Plan,” wherein he promised, in his own words, “to export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil.” In short, President Bush believes that he has accepted the responsibility of leading the free world as part of God’s plan. He even told then-Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas that “God told me to strike al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” Iraq has become the new Babylon, and the “war on terrorism” has succeeded the Cold War with the Soviet Union as the quintessential battle between good and evil.
Full article at
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0406christian.html
Once rights are lost, it's pretty hard to win them back. Same thing is true about values.
I've heard people say things like, "I'll vote for whoever can lower the price of gas" or "I'll vote for the Democrat because my union tells me too". They aren't looking at the big picture! There are bigger things to worry about and consider!
And about this sentence/question, "Why are they content to see the Republicans time and again pass legislation that benefits the corporations at the expense of the people." When corporations benefit, people benefit! Corporations are able to hire more people and compensate them better. Just this afternoon I was listening to an interview of a local business owner. He said because of what his company saved this past year alone, he was able to expand and hire 80 more workers just since November. Our community benefitted greatly because of the tax cuts this company experienced.
I have been interested in why people vote against their own economic interest for some time. I saw a documentary about how Alabama where a legislature wanted to raise real estate taxes on LARGE land owners.
I do not have a problem with a person voting for a person because they agree with what they are going to do in office.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
When corporations benefit, people benefit! Corporations are able to hire more people and compensate them better. Just this afternoon I was listening to an interview of a local business owner. He said because of what his company saved this past year alone, he was able to expand and hire 80 more workers just since November. Our community benefitted greatly because of the tax cuts this company experienced.
What Republicans often forget is that when workers benefit from those tax decreases to the less wealthy corporations benefit MUCH more than when they benefit directly from those tax decreases themselves.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
Pages