[FoRK] [Pigdog] Civil war (fwd from evan@bad.dynu.ca)

Jeffrey Kay jeff at k2.com
Thu Nov 4 08:10:57 PST 2004

Okay, so I think you missed my point on the Roe v. Wade and maybe on 
the entire notion of "causes".  My premise is that the people who run 
for political office are more interested in power than they are in any 
particular "cause".  If they were really interested in a "cause", then 
they would continue to fight for their cause even if they didn't get 
elected, vis a vis Evan's thoughts that started this thread.

Given that, the cynic in me says that following through completely on 
the so-called "causes" that get you elected is a self-defeating 
proposition.  My example of Roe v. Wade fits entirely.  Roe v. Wade is 
much more powerful as something to define a political candidacy and to 
fight against (for the Republicans) than it would be if it were 
overturned.  Defending Roe v. Wade isn't a powerful enough "cause" for 
the Democrats to get them into office and similarly keeping Roe v. Wade 
off the books would be a failed "cause" for the Republicans.  Thus, my 
contention here is that it won't be overturned because of the backlash 
that would occur (giving the Democrats a "cause") and that it's much 
more useful in its existing form as a "cause" for the Republicans, 
allowing them to maintain power.  (Personally I believe that the people 
against abortion rights are hypocrites -- they are the ones who will 
secretly get abortions while speaking out against it;  only those 
people who are or could be in such a situation have the right to really 
address the issue of abortion rights.)

The Democrats need a real "cause" that can rally the people on an 
emotional level.  The gay civil rights issue isn't big enough yet, but 
they have 4 years to make it big.  The Dems need to politicize it in 
such a way that it is treated like the civil rights issues of the 50s 
and 60s.  They need marches and demonstrations, lawsuits, in your face 
examples of Jim Crow-like laws.  Then they have a chance to use that 
"cause" as a means to gain power.  Perhaps something along the lines of 
civil liberty abuses (Patriot Act, for example) will give the Dems 
something to spin into a cause.

But taxes, health care, blah, blah, blah -- no one gets emotional over 
these issues and they aren't strong enough to become a "cause".  It has 
to be something that the common person can latch onto on an emotional 

jeffrey kay
weblog <k2.com> pgp key <www.k2.com/keys.htm> aim <jkayk2>
share files with me -- get shinkuro -- <www.shinkuro.com>

"first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" -- 
mark twain
"if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the window 
and locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them" -- 
a biker's guide to life
"if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X 
is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein

On Nov 4, 2004, at 10:34 AM, Cleopatra Von Ludwig wrote:

> Actually, much as I hate to say it, the next "cause" (if we're talking
> about the Democrats here) will have to be to alienate themselves
> *less* from the church-going population of the country. Clearly, the
> Republicans have won over a huge sector of the population here that
> used to be entirely for the Dems (think of the old South). 90% or so
> of people who said they go to church "regularly" voted for Bush.
> "Morality" was the top issue for most people. Religious Christians (or
> even people who just go through the motions on a regular basis) see
> the Dems as being anti-religious heathens. While I don't agree with
> them (my own personal heathenism aside), it's still an image problem
> that the Dems will have to address.
> Now, *how* this will be addressed without alienating all the people
> who believe in freedom of choice in religion and separation of church
> and state will be the interesting part... if the Dems are smart,
> they'll find a way to do it (so, I don't have much hope)...
> What it comes down to is this. Clearly, people who think like us are
> in the minority; this election proved that. Even if there was voter
> fraud, ballot mishandling, etc., etc., which I'm sure there was, the
> election still was very close -- and it *shouldn't* have been close. I
> was so mad yesterday at work that I could barely look anyone in the
> eye -- I mean, what kind of MORON would vote for Bush??? (My apologies
> to anyone on the list who is that kind of moron :-) (Some of my best
> friends are Republican!) But seriously, people saw what kind of
> president he was, and *chose* to keep him in office. If that isn't the
> scariest aspect of all of this, I don't know what is. I mean, at least
> in 2000 people had the benefit of the doubt -- they got suckered in by
> his Texas swagger, they saw him as a repentant Jesus-lover, they
> identified with his inability to use English properly, whatever it may
> have been. But in the past 4 years, Bushie hasn't exactly held back on
> his extremism, and _people_ _voted_ _FOR_ more of that!!!
> I'm so frightened of what's going to happen in the next 4 years...
> Sure, Jeff, you can flippantly remark that they might overturn Roe v.
> Wade, and that will just mobilize the Dems. BULLSHIT. You get pregnant
> with an unwanted spawn, and then we'll talk.
> -cleo
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:04:40 -0800, Elias Sinderson 
> <elias at cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>> Regina Schuman wrote:
>>> the next cause whould be removing tax-exempt status from churches, 
>>> since
>>> they have put themselves in the lobbying business.
>> or removing personhood status from the corporations, since they have
>> shown themselves to be unfit for the priviledge.
>> Regards,
>> Elias
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list