Friday, November 02, 2012

Courting BradK

BradK noted in our previous discussion that he is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I won't of course speak for BradK, but that phrase often translates as follows: I would vote for the Republican on fiscal issues but for the Democrat on social issues. Since you can't split your vote, you weigh the relative importance of the issues that matter to you, then you plug your nose and vote. Perhaps this is the quandary that BradK finds himself in as an undecided voter.

But are Democrats really all that socially liberal? I suppose the Dems are labelled as such because of a support for gay marriage and for the liberalization of drug laws. At first glance it would appear that the Dems are more socially liberal than the Pubs. But lets look a bit deeper.

As I stated in the most recent thread, gay marriage would involve a tradeoff with religious liberties. Would religions retain the freedoms of conscience thus far largely unchallenged, that is to fulfill their missions to serve their communities without having to, in effect, endorse behavior that they consider sinful? In a few states, Catholic Charities has gotten out of the adoption/foster care business rather than place children in same sex homes. And lately we have Obamacare which forces religions to violate core beliefs about the sanctity of life. Are the Dems behaving in a live and let live, socially liberal manner towards the major religions in the world?

And about that drug war, I am somewhat conflicted on this one. It is probably true that the Dems would lead the way in legalizing pot and other recreational drugs. But it is certainly true that the Dems have led the way in the assault on tobacco smoking. Businesses -bars and restaurants especially- are no longer free to determine their own policies on smoking. But the Dems don't want to stop there. They want to stop you from smoking in public parks here in Racine. Perhaps you are OK with all of this but this is not social liberalism in action.

And it is and will be the Dems determing the size of your slurpee, the temperature of your house, the brightness of your lightbulb and so on. 

Are the Dems really the more socially liberal party?


Anonymous said...

The hypocrisy doest stop there. I'm so SICK of Obama's
Rich versus the Poor attack. Many Dems are the ultra wealthy who are for social welfare because they are so well off and their future generations are so well off their attitude is "why not". Case in point, I have a "well off" friend who was always a conservative since we were kids. He told me out of my complete shock that he was becoming a Democrat. Let's see, his net worth has grown from a few million to North of twenty. "why not"

BradK said...

Well, I'll certainly be happy to respond to this when I am done working today.

I may not have been clear in the previous thread (and having re-read it, I was more ambiguous than intended), but I "am" neither a social liberal nor a fiscal conservative, but I "tend to lean" those directions.

One of the things I hate the most in the political conversation is the concept of labeling (with the exception of self-labeling where people can say they are whatever they want).

My comments in the last thread were to provide context around where I "tend to lean".

More as time permits.


Sean Cranley said...

Denis, your third paragraph is simply wrong. Religious orders (churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) are not, in fact cannot be, compelled to marry or recognize the marriage of anyone.

The types of religious institutions listed above are also exempt from the requirements of Obamacare with respect to contraception.

However, institutions that are affiliated with religious orders, like charities, schools, universities, hospitals that operate more like businesses, are not houses of worship and have employees cannot discriminate against those employees or impose their religious views on their employees by denying them access to services that are available in the market place, such as insurance coverage for contraception.

That being sad, my perception is that Obama has been very fiscally responsible unlike the last administration in general and Pall Ryand in particular. Furthermore, I KNOW that I can make that case with a reasoned, fact-based argument, as well as the case that he's done a good job overall considering the mess he inherited from the GOP "stewards" who were in charge.

All you guys have is Benghazzi and ludicrous labels like "socialist" which the right throws out there in place of what they'd really like to call Obama to express their extreme hatred.

Benghazzi is a tradgedy where 4 people died in a chaotic country and which that your GOPropagandists are trying, and failing to politicize. But what really amazes is that this comes from supporters of Bushyboy who in his "stewardship" of the country went on vacation when warned repeatedly before 911 that Al Qaida was determined to attack in the United States and that something was afoot nad he did nothing to prevent it. HOW do your people take these positions without the slightest hint of shame for their rank hypocrisy?

Denis Navratil said...

BradK, mine was not intended as a "gotcha" post. And regarding labels, their use can be a handy shortcut or a pejorative, mine intended as the former. By no means did I mean to pigeonhole you. By the way, I would ok with being described as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative as a starting point for a discussion. Another way to think about my post is that it need not be about you or about how you think but rather as a post about whether the Dems as a party any longer deserve the label of socially liberal. I look forward to your thoughts.

Denis Navratil said...

Well Sean, the state differentiates between, say, a Lutheran Church and a Lutheran school in ways that may be untenable for the Lutheran Church which oversees both operations. This is not religious freedom and it is not socially liberal. My point stands.

Wondering what it is I would like to call President Obama since you apparently have some insight into my mind on that subject? I sometimes wonder how you can understand what I don't say but completely miss what I do say in plain English.

Sean Cranley said...

I'm sorry Denis, just because your institution is affiliated with a religious order does not give you the right to trample on your employee's rights, religious or otherwise. So you're point is down and out for the count.

With regard to the name calling applied to Obama, I think you know very well what I mean, but it doesn't necessarily apply to you. I intentionally said "...ludicrous labels like "socialist" which the right throws out there in place of what they'd really like to call Obama to express their extreme hatred." So I didn't refer to you personally and quite frankly although I understand that you don't approve of President Obama's policies or positions, I've never gotten the impression that you hate the man like so many on the extreme right do.

My statement applies to those on the extreme right who express an irrational hatred of president Obama that is totally out of proportion to anything he has done as president and so they use irrational and totally inaccurate code words like "socialist" in place of what they really mean and would like to be able to say out loud and before the world if it were even remotely acceptable today.

Are you ready for my fiscally responsible Obama arguments yet?

GearHead said...

Actually, Sean, most of us are bored with your arguments. Because you can't get your snout out of the kool-aid. I'm too busy out on the firing line kicking your butt in this election. Your one-term president is going down. And your Burlington progressive soul-mate will get crushed by Vos.

And nobody cares about your man-hate affair with Alec, whoever he is.

At the end of the day, Brad will vote for Romney/Ryan. That's gotta grind your beans. So be it. Welcome home, Brad. The GOP tent is big enough for you as well.

GearHead said...

The rest of us see Obama as the socialist he is, and we are ending that experiment, and cutting our losses. There will be more pain extricating ourselves from his 900+ executive orders, but the USA is plenty resiliant. Just a shame we have to redisover our soul the hard way. Shouldn't have been. So long Sean. Clang your stupid cowbell in hell.

BradK said...

Well... so much for the "courting"... Not that my single vote would really have set off a party on either side.

The extreme arrogance on display here by GH's "prediction" of how I'll vote, combined with the hatred spewed from both sides (though I might state that one side tends to embrace it while the other side tries - occasionally successfully - to separate and marginalize it), combined with the vulgar amount of money BOTH sides are beholden to make it a nose-plugging endeavour either way.

But I have voted in EVERY FUCKING ELECTION I legally could since I turned 18, and I've never once felt guilty about it afterwards, and I'm not going to feel guilty about it this time whether I check the (R), the (D) or a third party or write my own damn name in there.

I'm proud of my participation in the RIGHT TO VOTE, and I will continue to do so.

I spent the night tonight dedicating my care to my 10 month old son because his mother is laid up and pretty sick. I turned off the TV, the computer, set down the newspaper (who am I kidding, those don't exist), and took care of what was important to me.

When I re-enter the "real world" and see the kind of bickering over bullshit that we call U.S. Politics, it quite frankly pisses me off. There is no reasonable discourse, there's no exchange of ideas, there's no fucking compromise. There's people telling people to go to hell, and people making up juvenile "nicknames" for people they DON'T AGREE WITH. GROW THE FUCK UP.

You want to see people with different political agendas working together? I give you Gov. Chris Christie and President Barack Obama. When it's important, it wasn't partisan. I give you former Presidents Bush and Clinton - these guys came together to raise money for Katrina relief, screw the politics.

When it's important, we're all Americans, conservative, liberal, gay, straight, black, white, native, and immigrant -- PEOPLE.


BradK said...

The current crop on both sides of the aisle on the federal and state level can't seem to remember that, and the attitude that comes from the top, from the leadership, is combative, partisan, disrespectful and it has "trickled down" to the rank and file and to the street.


We've forgotten that we are people first.

There are a few exceptions. To Sean's point, I know Denis is fairly conservative, and diametrically opposed to most of the President's policies. But he feels the issues are political and has no problem discussing them with those that disagree with him, and quite frankly, doesn't exude hatred toward liberals or the President. He respectfully disagrees.

That's a lost art - "respectfully disagreeing".

We should bring it back.

I'm done ranting.

Sorry, Denis, but the gay marriage position that the conservatives have taken is not the argument you are going to win to court me to vote for Ryan/Romney. I appreciate the argument, but I fundamentally disagree with much of it.

Do I think the NYC soda-size ban and, well, most of the big-brother laws in San Francisco are good or right or aligned with my views on liberty? No. I find it quite ironic that Democrats want government "out of the bedroom" on the issue of sexual orientation, but have no problem inserting laws into every other room in the house.

That's really not the social liberalism that I refer to. Nor is pot / recreational drugs. I honestly couldn't give two shits about that, though I think legalization of CERTAIN things could lead to a revenue generation.

What I'm typically talking about is the social safety nets. Generally speaking, the liberal position is more favorable to setting up those nets to catch as many people as possible when they need it. I would challenge them that their policies don't provide a way out of them very clearly.

Not to pigeonhole myself (and I know that wasn't your intention Denis, I was merely clarifying in my first post), I generally favor policies that give a crap about people and have a slight bleeding heart about it. I draw the line however at policies that invite or create dependency.

I've ranted enough and left a few four letter words that I don't feel like cleaning up tonight. If you want to censor my comment for family viewing, so be it.



Anonymous said...

I voted for Romney out here in West Virginia. Not because I think Romney is so great, I think he's another big government Republican. But O is so bad that I want no responsibility for giving him another 4 years to screw things up even worse.

Fiscally responsible? You've got to be kidding me. Start with GM and go down through Solyndra, Murtha International and the rest of the graft and corruption. Worst ever. No way am I going to vote Libertarian or write-in and accept the responsibility.

What were we promised? Post partisan, post-racial. Both were lies. That can't even be debated. First action by Obama on bi-partisanship: "We won". Case closed. Then come dozens of editorials at the same time in virtually the same words in different publications and different cities all accusing O's critics of being "racist". (see Journolist) (was the former J-T editor a member?) There is a racist here but it's not Obama's opponents.

Sure, Romney's no bargain, but what's the alternative? More divisive nonsense. Romney has worked with Democrats before.

Denis Navratil said...

BradK, sometimes a good rant is good for the soul. And I hope your wife is better soon.

I don't think I can persuade you from your position on gay marriage. But hopefully you realize that good people can reach a different conclusion on the issue.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if gay marriage becomes the law of the land in this country at some point. On that issue, you might be able to effect the timetable with your vote, but I think the gay marriage question will ultimately be decided by quantity of support in this country, and it does seem to be gaining support.

I respect your passion on the gay marriage issue, but it is, or would be, a head scratcher if the issue was the decider for you, insofar as, in my view, we have many more urgent matters facing us presently and in the near future.

But that each can choose the candidates and their reasons for support thereof is both the beauty and the danger of our system.

BradK said...


This is the "nut" of why I come to this site and comment on your blog: "But hopefully you realize that good people can reach a different conclusion on the issue."

I do realize that, and I look forward to future discussions where we can either agree, partially agree, or disagree.

Gay Marriage is not the "make or break" issue - in fact. It is an issue, and it is important to me for this country to strive for and work toward this type of equality and what I consider civil rights.

My current swing issues are arrogance and hate. I don't want hate-filled people in charge of this country, and I don't want arrogant people in charge of the country.

Unfortunately, that's a lot of what we have to choose from lately.

THanks Denis.


GearHead said...

@Brad: Arrogant? I don't think so. Sorry to tee you off. But maybe you aren't as savvy as I've given you credit for. Whatever.

My issues are simple: Freedom, free enterprise, liberty. I don't get hung up on the issues you find importatant because they disintegrate into dust in your hands without the three aforementioned items. I'll always vote for the guy who celebrates how the country was founded,over hoping we can hang onto the corrupted version we've become. That requires massive redefinition of what government is. For me, it is something radically smaller than what it is today, and Obama's vision for the future. It is the only sustainable path, one I will happily fight for you, if you haven't yet figured it out.

Hope your family issue resolves itself OK. As for Sean, the repugnent temper-tantrum actions of him and his ilk over the past 2 years sicken me. I know most of those he constantly insults.

Sean Cranley said...

Well Gearhead, like a lot of the info you consume the 900 Obama Executive Orders is "FALSE", complete BS. you've swallowed the bait and aloowed yourself to be lied to again, because if it's bad and it's about Obama it MUST be true, right?

I'm sure with infomation like this going in, all your wonderful predictions coming out will be spot on!

Sean Cranley said...

More back up of what is true to counter the RW lies being spread to scare Gearheads with regard to President Obama: