Republican Conservatism as a Social Movement

[welsh]

Well, VD, the lack of jadedness on my part has something to do with a few comments that said, "Welsh, you're to fucking jaded. Mend your evil democratic liberal ways or we'll send the department of homeland security after you. Go to church damn you to hell!" Or something of that order.

I think this is a good time to take stock of ourselves. For the democrats, we need to own up to why we lost this election to a Bush. I think a lot of it comes down to the way we approached the issues. Running on the "hate bush" logan just didn't work. You got to be more constructive.

But there is more to it. The democrats ran, for all accounts, a basic campaign of trying to get people to vote in what was a very politically tight election. But the republicans outperformed in part because they had better mobilization. They had better mobilization in part because they broke the rules- including the "thou shalt not campaign in a church" rule. They also did this by buying the votes.

As if "faith based initiatives" wasn't a way to buy the churches.

And Tone, really, you don't think the salary increase to men in uniform didn't get turned to votes?

As for Bob's comment- that we will not have peace until the second coming of Christ, might help explain why certain religious folks want to see that second coming in our life time, and some actually believe it's on the way.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind putting armageddon off for a little while. I'd like to have children and see them raised into this world, seeing both the good and evil of it, because I think the world is still a pretty good place- regardless of the man in the whitehouse. I also think that in life we should work to build the kind of world that Christ might have wanted- and not by bombing the bejesus out of some Muslim desert country.

To me, and the good Christians/Mormons can disagree, Christianity begins with you, and how you live your life. It doesn's espouse violence but turning the other cheek, it's not about war but about peaceful resolution, and it's certainly not about taking the Lord's name as your justification. When I think of good Christians I think of people living the life of Christ in the way he wanted- to take care of the poor and needy, to seek justice and equality, to be kind and tolerant of others. It's about appreciate the life you're given and trying to make the world a better place.

Lo but behold those who would raise banners of war in Christ's name. It's an old business that goes back to the beginning, and is ther reason perhaps that so many of us can find so much of the problems of the world traced to the religions we have.

And sorry for the late post- I was posting pics of hot Italian supermodels on the "who's sexy thread."

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

And Tone, really, you don't think the salary increase to men in uniform didn't get turned to votes?

The Republicans have been getting the military vote for a long time and it has to do with more than pay increases. Democrats have found one way or another to piss off the military.

To me, and the good Christians/Mormons can disagree, Christianity begins with you, and how you live your life. It doesn's espouse violence but turning the other cheek, it's not about war but about peaceful resolution, and it's certainly not about taking the Lord's name as your justification. When I think of good Christians I think of people living the life of Christ in the way he wanted- to take care of the poor and needy, to seek justice and equality, to be kind and tolerant of others. It's about appreciate the life you're given and trying to make the world a better place.

Christianity doesn't espouse violence but that doesn't mean you stand by and watch the helpless get raped without intervening. Sometimes violence is required. How did Jesus deal with the money changers in the temple? (See Mark 11:15) If a helpless victing is being attacked, is the Christian thing to do to help or to simply "turn the other cheek"?

You talk about taking care of the poor and needy, the U.S. gives more in charity than the rest of the world combined last time I saw the statistics. Look at all the other sacrifices the U.S. has made. There are a lot of U.S. troops buried in foreign countries who helped make the world a better place.

Removing Saddam from Iraq is one step in making the world a better place. Sure, it's not peaches and cream over there now but you don't have Saddam's rape squads in action.

 

[Briosafreak]

the U.S. gives more in charity than the rest of the world combined last time I saw the statistics

I don`t know what "charity" means in International relations, but if one is talking about aid- in the american sense- or cooperation and development, in the British/european sense, then that`s silly. Check the figures again.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Monetary value of aid given for charitable means (which wouldn't count military). Money, food, medical supplies, etc...

Why don't you check out the numbers and report what you find?

 

[welsh]

Actually I am not sure of these numbers although US aid is generally a very small portion of the overall budget- but it's a big budget.

Ah the culture wars! Faith vs. values. Or is it which faith and what values.

But let the healing begin- or not.

From the BBC-

Campaign ends, but battles go on
By Richard Allen Greene
BBC News


The most heated US election campaign in a generation has finally drawn to a close, but George W Bush's narrow victory has not healed deep divisions in the country.

In the days following the election, ordinary Americans I met during a September road trip voiced radically different opinions about the results - from the mother of a marine who said the whole world was safer with Mr Bush back in office, to the Protestant minister who called the president's policies insane.


Jeremy Bled took two months off from work in the run-up to the election to run a voter-registration effort.
He was pleased at "the sheer number of people who turned up at the polls" - turnout was the highest since 1968 - but concluded "we are more divided than ever as a nation."

"This is perhaps the worst thing for America. The Republicans barely won and they will have a hard time trying to convince those who opposed their candidate that they are truly willing to find a middle ground.

"On the other side, the Democrats lost a race they fought hard to win and there is every indication they will continue to fight after they finish licking their wounds."

Mr Bled, a Kerry supporter, said he himself was insulted on election day - "called a faggot, a coward and a baby killer" - in a way that reminded him of being at school "with bullies, nerds, teams and generally juvenile behaviour".

No end in sight

Post-election polling suggests that many Americans share Mr Bled's fear that the end of the campaign does not mean the end of partisan rancour.

A Gallup poll found that 51% of Americans were pleased with the outcome - exactly the same percentage that voted for Mr Bush.


Thirty-eight percent of respondents said they were upset with the result.
A slim majority - 57% - thought the president would unite the nation in the next four years, while 39% expected him to be divisive.

Rowland Huddleston, who campaigned as a veteran for Kerry, has very low hopes indeed.

"It's a total disaster," he said of the result - which he said he suspected had been rigged via electronic voting machines.

He accused the Bush administration of a lack of compassion for the less fortunate.

"They live in such a bubble that they think people who are struggling [do so] because of their ineptitude - but the [less well off] didn't have the leg up that [Mr Bush and his allies] had.

He was equally vehement about Mr Bush's environmental policies, saying the president had "trashed pages and pages of environmental laws and regulations".

And he said the president was a warmonger: "As a Christian, I resent that they have turned [Jesus], my prince of peace into a war god."

Safer with Bush

Martha Morris, who lives just a few miles from Mr Huddleston in Nashville, Tennessee, could not disagree more.

The mother of a US marine who has fought in Iraq, Mrs Morris said her country had been forced into war - and that the world was safer because of Mr Bush's willingness to fight it.


"We must protect our own people and the people of this world who have stood with us against the terrorists. No-one can predict what mad men will do, but we can stop them if the world will work with us," she said.
"With this president, we will always do the right thing. Just ask the Iraqi people who are learning to live in freedom."

She was proud of the US election result, saying it showed "we are still the people our forefathers believed us to be - good and solid people who will die to protect the land and the freedom of those who will fight evil with us".

Cynthia Guerra, a small-business owner in Mr Bush's home state of Texas, also backed the president, but cited more practical reasons.

"I think that we need to keep a president in office that knows what is going on," she said.

She said Mr Kerry's Iraq policy would have been similar to Mr Bush's, but that he would have needed time to get up to speed on the situation there.

Social issues

Mrs Guerra, a political independent, also agreed with Mr Bush's position on abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage - all of which he opposes.

"This part of his platform apparently has been supported by many Americans. Since we are living in a time where values need to be revisited and taught again to our younger generation, President Bush will be the right leader to continue to stress those points," she said.

Not all Americans agree.

James White is senior minister of the First Congregational United Church of Christ, a mainstream Protestant church in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

He said the Christian conservative focus on abortion and gay marriage was "absolutely sickening".


US ELECTION ROAD TRIP
Kevin Anderson and Richard Greene travelled across the US to get to the heart of the issues in this year's election. They sent back regular in-depth reports telling us what they found


He said his congregants "think that honesty and care for the poor ('the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner in your midst'), the environment, health provision, and peace are weightier matters of Christian ethics, not bedroom behaviours."

He predicted "more tax cuts for the rich and welfare cuts on the poor, more money to the military-industrial complex and the insane space war, lowered protection of the environment ... In short, I see very little positive" in the election result.

And he said Mr Bush's foreign policy had alienated friends and driven enemies into "deadlier acts of terrorism".

Evangelical Christian preacher Ted Haggard, on the other hand - also of Colorado Springs - said re-electing Mr Bush sent an important signal to his country's enemies.

"It communicates to Osama Bin Laden and people who think like him that America won't back down in the middle of a difficult war. The whole world will be more peaceful and safer," he said.

Culture wars?

Pastor Ted, as his thousands of congregants call him, downplayed the alleged divisions in American society.

"The culture wars are exaggerated. It's not nearly as divided in America as it was during Vietnam or the civil rights era."


I agree with what Mr Kerry said in his concession speech, 'We are all winners because in the morning we all wake up and we are all still Americans'
Ana Vasquez

He said the liberal media in particular overemphasised the idea of culture wars.
"They're saying this deep divide is insurmountable, but they can't remember history. They can't remember 30 years ago."

But Ana Vasquez has seen the national divide at first hand.

She is the youngest of four sisters - two of whom are Democrats and one of whom is a Republican. She is an independent who backed Mr Kerry.

"Half of America is really sad and upset that Mr Bush won re-election, and that statement in itself is very sad. I have never witnessed the type of passion for or against a candidate such as with this election."

But she said she remained optimistic for America.

"I will continue to be positive and hopeful for the future of our country. I love my city, state and country, and I agree with what Mr Kerry said in his concession speech, 'We are all winners because in the morning we all wake up and we are all still Americans.' "


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3993161.stm

Published: 2004/11/10 12:52:54 GMT

 

[Briosafreak]

That`s not charity, but that`s beside the point.

Of course i`ll provide the figures

Things are a bit better after 2002, but far from the idea you had about US aid. remember that for the US administration the money imigrants and others send to their homes is considered aid (really...) wich no one else uses to their statistics, and they divert money from military co-operation to the country to country statistics to aid statistics, so those figures should be actually lower, while the european figures talk about the aid and cooperation effort from the countries, with the aid and co-operation from the EU, that uses money from those countries budgets, not beeing counted, wich would make the European effort even bigger. Japan cut aid fopr development and humanitarian aid quite a bit in the last four years, but they still are the most important country for that matter, since any country in wich they have investments becomes a recipient of aid (with the exception of the really developed ones).

I have worked on these matters before, therefore my reaction, sorry for calling it silly but it is quite untrue, as you can see.

 

[Jebus]

It's a sad thing the maximum anyone is spening on aid is 1% of the GNP.

Wasn't there some agreement to raise it to 2.5% made quite recently?

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Actually I am not sure of these numbers although US aid is generally a very small portion of the overall budget- but it's a big budget.

Ah the culture wars! Faith vs. values. Or is it which faith and what values.

But let the healing begin- or not.

From the BBC-

James White is senior minister of the First Congregational United Church of Christ, a mainstream Protestant church in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

He said the Christian conservative focus on abortion and gay marriage was "absolutely sickening".

I wonder if this guy ever bothered to read the New Testament-the end of the first chapter of Romans...

I'm glad to see other countries are giving too. Does this include contributions solely from the U.S. government or the total of this plus what the citizens give? I'm thinking it is just the U.S. government.

 

[welsh]

Briosa- these are the figures for national contributions to foreign aid, yes?

Arguing as does Tone that the US, by sending it's boys over to fight the good fight, is contributing in blood as well as dollars.

That said, do you have the figures for private donations?

This would touch less on the issue of foreign aid being given as a percentage of GNP- a political issue, but on the generosity of societies.

So you have any figures on charity?

 

[Briosafreak]

There aren`t reliable numbers on that, on one side, because of the way the data is processed in the States:

In 2000 nearly 9 of 10 U.S. households gave to domestic or foreign charities. Americans also give generously of their time: in 1999 a record 56 percent of U.S. adults over 18 volunteered at home or abroad. In 2000 that share dropped to 44 percent because the revised survey considered only adults over 26. Still, volunteers provided work equal to more than 9 million full-time employees, with a value of $239 billion. In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA. Remittances from U.S. immigrants to their homelands exceeded ODA from Japan-the largest provider (in dollar amounts) of government aid to developing countries.

In the States volunteer work or donations to homeland projects show up in the aid figures, no one knows why. Also having foreign students, even if their countries or families pay for the tuitions, housing and food are placed in the aid numbers. And yet again remittances are considered aid, wich is a reason of many jokes in the governments or international organizations that deal with this issues...that could help a few countries reaching the 0.7 gdp goal for co-operation and development that was stated in the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, at this moment only four are inside that limit (Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway).

And there`s the problem of comparing the private Foundations from America with the Private Foundations from Europe, for instance, that still receive money from the state budget. And there`s the problem that many international ONGs are that, international, so it`s hard to make a compare with strict national foundations like those from the States. And to compare the religious organizations figures with those from Europe it´s also tough, since the Vatican figures, and the major German and Dutch protestant charities aren`t well known.

Basically the importance of privately owned foundations helping in aid for development or humanitarian aid in the States is an interesting figure, if one knew exactly what it is, but you have to understand that humanitarian aid for instance is basically an european and japanese thing, and in general terms the ONGs have a bigger importance and are much more state financed (without those figures showing in the statistics) in Europe than in the States. Look at Kharn, what he`s doing thousands of european kids do it also.

Things were different in the 40s, when the Marshall plan was a terrific success, and the Kennedy years, that helped molding how development and humanitarian aid are seen today.

With the end of the cold war the States slowly went away of the Softpower, not having a clear enemy, while Europe and Japan continued in that path, because they couldn`t compete with american hardpower. And there`s some idealism in the picture too, in the northern europe part, with protestant ethics having a great role. Of course they don`t call it charity, that`s considered insulting. But americans don`t quite grasp the subleties of the speech in the international panorama, they`re a bit french about that

When a private group offers to build a few wells in Africa they accept it and are genuinely thankful. But it`s seen as charity, and doesn`t have an effect outside the local region. If a government or international institution makes that same effort with the development of the region in mind, that is seen as a good thing in nacional terms.

If the american government helps with those wells, but demands they must be built by american companies, as it happens many times, then it doesn`t have much effect in the goal of establishing good relations and a good perspective regarding the States.

That`s why the United Kingdom aid philosophy was created as a response against the american way in the seventies and eighties.
The UK government helps with a full grown Ministerial budget, and only asks for the recipients to develop themselves or to get away from the humanitarian problems they are, since that helps the local economy, wich helps the british companies that might be interested in investing there, with no special position, just with their competitiveness, and that way everyone wins. To countries like Norway, the more developed and wealthiest in per capita figures country in the world there`s not even that motivation, aid is just a moral obligation.

Again putting military aid or remittances is cheating, and even then the States aren´t as helpful as one might think. But i don`t want anyone to have the idea that i don´t understand the relevance of private american aid, not at all, and that was pointed to me many times when i was going deeper in these issues by very experienced people.

But that also happens in the Arab countries, in Japan or in Europe, don´t think it´s that relevant anymore.

For the opposite view of what i just said you can read this http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/objectives.htm


P.s.: see why i don´t post much about these things here welsh? I talk/write too much about them, and spend too much time dwelling into these issues in the rest of the day, when i come here i like to put my mind on other less important things.

 

[4too]

Parallel Spin

Parallel Spin



welsh's B.B.C. article above:

... "They live in such a bubble ...

Thanks for reminding me.

In the midst of this talk of foreign aide, and how it's tallied to reflect
it's relation to ""politics by another means"", (from marshaling armies to the Marshal Plan), I wish to spin off on another take on how point of view, and congenital ulterior motives hamper the success of doing the " right thing".

... "They live in such a bubble ...

It would be this 'pattern of behavior' that would cloud the decision making of any Administration.
The " garbage in - garbage out "
reality of information processing is never so clear as the assessment of Sadam's Iraq - NUCLEAR - WMD threat.

The fundamental AMERICAN policy demanded nailing Sadam in a box, either by - - aggressive - - containment via unconditional weapon's inspection, or running him to ground in his spider hole.

The nuclear WMD threat was deemed as immediate and that helped determine the chosen invasion timetable. That timetable was justified , in part, by false intelligence, while less marketable information, - poor fodder for media 'mind candy' - that could not be packaged in consumer sound bites, was available. And, it would have led to the same resolve and eventual conclusion. Sadam in a box. Not "if", but "when". Whether the "Coalition of the Willing" would have had more military diversity is pure speculation, It is the likelihood of a broad based plan of victory and the diplomatic isolation of Sadam apologists and graft takers in the U.N. and in the surrounding mid east states, that I spin out of the air, any 'what if'.

The "living in a bubble" has dysfunctional consequences that go beyond single events and policies.
We have an American Administration that enforced its Party Line by the character assassination of former Ambassador Joe Wilson. Who now being a "whistle blower' of this incorrect intelligence is marginalized as a partisan, a pariah.
The Party Line of covering ass, emitted the calculated leak of Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, from this Administration famous or infamous for secrecy. Secrecy Laws supported by Bush Senior would brand Columnist Novak as a conduit for treason. This scandal may qualify as more a disinformation ploy to misdirect then as the media 'red meat' of a "cover up'.
So the drama here is being passed by and we may never have to be bothered by the details of ""Who's 0n First "'. Who lied first. Who leaked, and who authorized this and the other leaks in the Justice Department when this political road kill was 'news worthy".


I think we should be concerned with this pattern of cherry picking intelligence and the ruthless covering of the ass when the poop hits the fan.

Perhaps the media marketing of WMD will go into the same dust bin of history as: the sinking of the Maine, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Oil Embargo of Japan and then the "shock - shock" of Pearl Harbor, and the ever loving Gulf of Tonken Resolution.

According to the Administrations chosen sources,

America was to be greeted as liberators, with 'songs and flowers'.


Hardly the indicator that we have the best and the brightest in this closed loop of "The Bush Bubble".

If it takes a S.O.B. to play hard ball politics and pursue the "'politics by another means", that intellectual euphemism for war, than I demand a higher quality of S.O.B. that can push beyond the envelope of "The Bush Bubble" and create winning policies by design, and not trial and error.



4too

 

[welsh]

Thanks Briosa, and please, don't be reticent about speaking. You're posts may be long, but so are mine. It's nice to have informed opinions about a topic.

I also tried to find out more about US private AID but so far the folks at my library are throwing up their hands in dismay. I did this search a year or two ago and they don't think I can produce more contemporty data.

4too-
It's one thing for a president to pull the same kind of bullshit as the last president when they try to push us to war. But I would say there are two main difference.

This regime takes things personally. The Novak- Wilson issue is one matter, but there are others were whistle blowers get labelled as traitors for going against the president. Is it a wonder the CIA gave crappy intellegence when that is what was demanded by Cheney?

So I would think that this group takes it further- government by secrecy does not equal democracy. ANd this is where the unwillingness for people to hold them to account is disturbing.

WHy? Maybe it's 9-11, or maybe it was the Anthrax attack (another terrorist who got away), or maybe it was the war, or the orange alerts. I don't know. But people are willing to forgive.

But yes, we deserve a better SOB.
And that's where the problem lies. Because we can expect the president to play the same types of games when leading a democratic state to war.

But we should learn something as a society and be savy to the game being played. Afterall, those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat the mistakes- how many times do we need to be led to war before the country gets wind that someone isn't quite honest.

But then again, on those nights when conspiracy theories crawl out from under from where the boogie men sleep, I wonder if the whole Iraq thing wasn't planned to way back, perhaps before the US Ambassador answered Saddam's "Do you mind if we get a bit rough with Kuwait?" with, "Sure, not a problem Saddam." On those nights I wonder if what seemed to be a big political blunder wasn't quite the blunder we believe. Maybe it's just part of the plan.

 

[Briosafreak]

I also tried to find out more about US private AID but so far the folks at my library are throwing up their hands in dismay. I did this search a year or two ago and they don't think I can produce more contemporty data.

There isn`t much, but from a few talks with my african sources it remains important. My point was that it doesn`t make a real diference when one talks of comparisions about general aid levels, or "generosity", the issue is more complex than that these days.

Still i`ve been pointed out one thing i left out and it´s important. The USA money going to Iraq is putting the levels of aid much higher than they were two years ago, one of the reasons this administration organized the donors conferences and talked more about multilateral intervenction in the region.

The problem is that most of the money is going to USA companies, like the Halliburton subsidiaries, that aren`t employing Iraquis, and large construction and energy companies. So the money goes to Iraq, some part is staying with the local authorities, but for the most part it comes back to the bank accounts of american companies, wich is making many in the international arena to be sceptic about if it is indeed aid. Well it`s not really the Marshall plan the region needs, nor it´s creating the economic conditions to help the stabilization, but with your debt you couldn`t afford it anyway, so it´s better than nothing, until the World bank and the UN can help out with a more organized and productive development effort. Strange, i don`t usually talk about the UN beeing very productive, oh well.

Still the idea that in the 80s there were all those problems because of the dealings with Iran to help the Contras, and now a company that again broke the embargo to Iran not only doesn`t suffer a thing and on top gets so many millionaire contracts in Iraq isn`t reassuring.

Sorry for this off topic folks.