View Full Version : Ending the Culture War ( God-fearing patriots vs. atheist peacenick hippies )
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 07:56 AM
We're at least a full generation from the Vietnam debate of the Baby Boomers, but many say the Dem vs. Republican battles are just rehash versus rehash.
I wonder if anyone who has faught on one side of this culture war (patriotism, nationalism, America is the best, God-fearing, traditional family values, free market, small government, low taxes vs. international cooperation, America's foraign policy is complicit to murder, corporate responsibility, governmental safety-net programs, separate church and state, abortion and gay rights) who has abandoned the battle, who thinks their own side winning won't be good for America.
And how many are still fighting. And if so, how sure are you that your side is soon going to win?
I live in the midwest, we don't have a culture war as far as i know.
...
We're kinda complacent about everything where i live actually.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 08:07 AM
In describing how long this battle has gone on and how it polarizes everything, I found this article very much on point:
The traces of our long journey to this juncture can be found all around us. Its most obvious manifestation is political rhetoric. The high temperature—Bill O’Reilly’s nightly screeds against anti-Americans on one channel, Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” on the other; MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” on the one side, Ann Coulter’s Treason on the other; Michael Moore’s accusation of treason at the core of the Iraq War, Sean Hannity’s assertion of treason in the opposition to it—is particularly striking when you examine the generally minor policy choices on the table.
Something deeper and more powerful than the actual decisions we face is driving the tone of the debate.
Take the biggest foreign-policy question—the war in Iraq. The rhetoric ranges from John McCain’s “No Surrender” banner to the “End the War Now” absolutism of much of the Democratic base. Yet the substantive issue is almost comically removed from this hyperventilation.
Every potential president, Republican or Democrat, would likely inherit more than 100,000 occupying troops in January 2009; every one would be attempting to redeploy them as prudently as possible and to build stronger alliances both in the region and in the world.
Every major candidate, moreover, will pledge to use targeted military force against al-Qaeda if necessary; every one is committed to ensuring that Iran will not have a nuclear bomb; every one is committed to an open-ended deployment in Afghanistan and an unbending alliance with Israel. We are fighting over something, to be sure. But it is more a fight over how we define ourselves and over long-term goals than over what is practically to be done on the ground.
On domestic policy, the primary issue is health care. Again, the ferocious rhetoric belies the mundane reality. Between the boogeyman of “Big Government” and the alleged threat of the drug companies, the practical differences are more matters of nuance than ideology.
Yes, there are policy disagreements, but in the wake of the Bush administration, they are underwhelming. Most Republicans support continuing the Medicare drug benefit for seniors, the largest expansion of the entitlement state since Lyndon Johnson, while Democrats are merely favoring more cost controls on drug and insurance companies. Between Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan—individual mandates, private-sector leadership—and Senator Clinton’s triangulated update of her 1994 debacle, the difference is more technical than fundamental.
The country has moved ever so slightly leftward. But this again is less a function of ideological transformation than of the current system’s failure to provide affordable health care for the insured or any care at all for growing numbers of the working poor.
Even on issues that are seen as integral to the polarization, the practical stakes in this election are minor. A large consensus in America favors legal abortions during the first trimester and varying restrictions thereafter. Even in solidly red states, such as South Dakota, the support for total criminalization is weak. If Roe were to fall, the primary impact would be the end of a system more liberal than any in Europe in favor of one more in sync with the varied views that exist across this country.
On marriage, the battles in the states are subsiding, as a bevy of blue states adopt either civil marriage or civil unions for gay couples, and the rest stand pat. Most states that want no recognition for same-sex couples have already made that decision, usually through state constitutional amendments that allow change only with extreme difficulty. And the one state where marriage equality exists, Massachusetts, has decided to maintain the reform indefinitely.
Given this quiet, evolving consensus on policy, how do we account for the bitter, brutal tone of American politics? The answer lies mainly with the biggest and most influential generation in America: the Baby Boomers. The divide is still—amazingly—between those who fought in Vietnam and those who didn’t, and between those who fought and dissented and those who fought but never dissented at all. By defining the contours of the Boomer generation, it lasted decades. And with time came a strange intensity.
The professionalization of the battle, and the emergence of an array of well-funded interest groups dedicated to continuing it, can be traced most proximately to the bitter confirmation fights over Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, in 1987 and 1991 respectively. The presidency of Bill Clinton, who was elected with only 43 percent of the vote in 1992, crystallized the new reality. As soon as the Baby Boomers hit the commanding heights, the Vietnam power struggle rebooted.
The facts mattered little in the face of such a divide. While Clinton was substantively a moderate conservative in policy, his countercultural origins led to the drama, ultimately, of religious warfare and even impeachment. Clinton clearly tried to bridge the Boomer split. But he was trapped on one side of it—and his personal foibles only reignited his generation’s agonies over sex and love and marriage. Even the failed impeachment didn’t bring the two sides to their senses, and the election of 2000 only made matters worse: Gore and Bush were almost designed to reflect the Boomers’ and the country’s divide, which deepened further.
The trauma of 9/11 has tended to obscure the memory of that unprecedentedly bitter election, and its nail- biting aftermath, which verged on a constitutional crisis. But its legacy is very much still with us, made far worse by President Bush’s approach to dealing with it.
Despite losing the popular vote, Bush governed as if he had won Reagan’s 49 states. Instead of cementing a coalition of the center-right, Bush and Rove set out to ensure that the new evangelical base of the Republicans would turn out more reliably in 2004. Instead of seeing the post-’60s divide as a wound to be healed, they poured acid on it.
With 9/11, Bush had a reset moment—a chance to reunite the country in a way that would marginalize the extreme haters on both sides and forge a national consensus. He chose not to do so. It wasn’t entirely his fault. On the left, the truest believers were unprepared to give the president the benefit of any doubt in the wake of the 2000 election, and they even judged the 9/11 attacks to be a legitimate response to decades of U.S. foreign policy. Some could not support the war in Afghanistan, let alone the adventure in Iraq. As the Iraq War faltered, the polarization intensified. In 2004, the Vietnam argument returned with a new energy, with the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry’s Vietnam War record and CBS’s misbegotten report on Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard. These were the stories that touched the collective nerve of the political classes—because they parsed once again along the fault lines of the Boomer divide that had come to define all of us.
The result was an even deeper schism. Kerry was arguably the worst candidate on earth to put to rest the post-1960s culture war—and his decision to embrace his Vietnam identity at the convention made things worse. Bush, for his part, was unable to do nuance. And so the campaign became a matter of symbolism—pitting those who took the terror threat “seriously” against those who didn’t. Supporters of the Iraq War became more invested in asserting the morality of their cause than in examining the effectiveness of their tactics. Opponents of the war found themselves dispirited. Some were left to hope privately for American failure; others lashed out, as distrust turned to paranoia.
It was and is a toxic cycle, in which the interests of the United States are supplanted by domestic agendas born of pride and ruthlessness on the one hand and bitterness and alienation on the other.
Which brings us to:
This is the critical context for the election of 2008. It is an election that holds the potential not merely to intensify this cycle of division but to bequeath it to a new generation.
A Giuliani-Clinton matchup, favored by the media elite, is a classic intragenerational struggle—with two deeply divisive and ruthless personalities ready to go to the brink.
Giuliani represents that Nixonian disgust with anyone asking questions about, let alone actively protesting, a war.
Clinton will always be, in the minds of so many, the young woman who gave the commencement address at Wellesley, who sat in on the Nixon implosion and who once disdained baking cookies. For some, her husband will always be the draft dodger who smoked pot and wouldn’t admit it. And however hard she tries, there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do about it. She and Giuliani are conscripts in their generation’s war.
To their respective sides, they are war heroes.
Except for the small group of people who have a stake (usually financial) in stoking the flames of one, there is no culture war.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 08:13 AM
Except for the small group of people who have a stake (usually financial) in stoking the flames of one, there is no culture war.
And yet Ann Coulter's books sell. In fact numerous books calling the other side horrible names like "treason" sell. And Bill Clinton was indeed impeached.
And look at Hillary's eggshell walk:
Hillary Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. As a liberal, she has spent years in a defensive crouch against triumphant post-Reagan conservatism. The mau-mauing that greeted her health-care plan and the endless nightmares of her husband’s scandals drove her deeper into her political bunker. Her liberalism is warped by what you might call a Political Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Reagan spooked people on the left, especially those, like Clinton, who were interested primarily in winning power.
She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives. And so the less-adept ones seem deceptive, and the more-practiced ones, like Clinton, exhibit the plastic-ness and inauthenticity that still plague her candidacy. She’s hiding her true feelings. We know it, she knows we know it, and there is no way out of it. Clinton smells of political fear.
There are few areas where this Democratic fear is more intense than religion. The crude exploitation of sectarian loyalty and religious zeal by Bush and Rove succeeded in deepening the culture war, to Republican advantage. Again, this played into the divide of the Boomer years—between God-fearing Americans and the peacenik atheist hippies of lore.
The Democrats have responded by pretending to a public religiosity that still seems strained. Listening to Hillary Clinton detail her prayer life in public, as she did last spring to a packed house at George Washington University, was at once poignant and repellent. Poignant because her faith may well be genuine; repellent because its Methodist genuineness demands that she not profess it so tackily. But she did. The polls told her to.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 08:15 AM
We're at least a full generation from the Vietnam debate of the Baby Boomers, but many say the Dem vs. Republican battles are just rehash versus rehash.
I wonder if anyone who has faught on one side of this culture war (patriotism, nationalism, America is the best, God-fearing, traditional family values, free market, small government, low taxes vs. international cooperation, America's foraign policy is complicit to murder, corporate responsibility, governmental safety-net programs, separate church and state, abortion and gay rights) who has abandoned the battle, who thinks their own side winning won't be good for America.
And how many are still fighting. And if so, how sure are you that your side is soon going to win?
Well, I'm still fightin' the war, but I don't think either side will ever fully win it unless we get to the point where 1 side actually makes it a thought-crime, punishable by death or "rehabilitation", to believe the other. And at that point the opposing side still won't disappear, it'll just go underground.
I think we need some sort of balance, but of course I think it should be rather weighted toward patriotism, America is great, God-fearing but respectful of other beliefs, traditional family values, free market, small government, and low taxes...
Samurai
11-13-2007, 08:17 AM
Except for the small group of people who have a stake (usually financial) in stoking the flames of one, there is no culture war.
I very much disagree. I have no financial stake in it at all, it's simply my belief that the values I listed above are important and good for this country, so I try to promote them and defend them from those who oppose them daily. The culture war is going on right now, and while not everyone is a "warrior", that doesn't mean the "war" doesn't exist.
Winslow
11-13-2007, 08:18 AM
Looks like Andrew Sullivan's article from the Atlantic.
When news became entertainment, we saw the rise of the pundits and culture wars, and the displacement of critical thinking with sound bytes and rhetoric.
Anyway, that's my take.
And yet Ann Coulter's books sell. In fact numerous books calling the other side horrible names like "treason" sell.
Yeah, but that's not so much a culture war as it is partisan politics.
Dreadstar
11-13-2007, 08:25 AM
I live in the midwest, we don't have a culture war as far as i know.
...
We're kinda complacent about everything where i live actually.
Yep, that pretty much sums up the tenor here in the heartland.
I very much disagree. I have no financial stake in it at all, it's simply my belief that the values I listed above are important and good for this country, so I try to promote them and defend them from those who oppose them daily. The culture war is going on right now, and while not everyone is a "warrior", that doesn't mean the "war" doesn't exist.
And you represent the absolute tiniest portion of the population. The fact is, Sam, most people don't think like you or care about the things that fire you up.
Except for the small group of people who have a stake (usually financial) in stoking the flames of one, there is no culture war.
totaly agree with tom here.
As to magentos point of, ann coulters book sells, how many copies has it sold?
Lets say it sold a million(which i assume is way more then it takes to get a bestseller), and we assume all million copies were bought by fanatical right wingers.
Thats, in a country of 300 million, nothing. More people then that read comics.
How many people do you know who wake up everyday, have their coffee, and then go off to fight the culture war, which in itself is a term popularized by Bill O'reilly...who was selling a book.
People are always going to disagree, particularly the two groups you brought up.
But they aren't the majority of americans, they are the fringes. Americans prove time and again that they tend to be moderate, and moderates don't give a toss about most of this hyped up nonsense.
Gordon Smith
11-13-2007, 08:30 AM
Yeah, but that's not so much a culture war as it is partisan politics.
And not even particularly viscous partisan politics at that.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 08:32 AM
And you represent the absolute tiniest portion of the population. The fact is, Sam, most people don't think like you or care about the things that fire you up.
I'm not sure you meant that in a good way, but I'll take it as a badge of my exceptional nature... ;)
And I think there are quite a few people, on both sides, who honestly believe that America would be much better off if a lot more people believed as they do, or at the very least if more people understood why they believe as they do. Many of them just don't have the time or interest in posting on message boards. I'm one of the vocal few.
In the same way that there are many thousands more comic readers out there who never get on a forum to talk about the latest issues, what is an artist doing next, etc, but they are still out there, buying and reading the books, and may care just as deeply as them some of us around here.
I'm not sure you meant that in a good way, but I'll take it as a badge of my exceptional nature... ;)
And I think there are quite a few people, on both sides, who honestly believe that America would be much better off if a lot more people believed as they do, or at the very least if more people understood why they believe as they do. Many of them just don't have the time or interest in posting on message boards. I'm one of the vocal few.
And you are correct.
Thats why there is no culture war.
People don't care enough to actively try and change others minds. If they do care, they tend to fight against those who care about the flipside, and those are the two groups who will never change their stance, because they are the only ones who care enough to try.
I'm not sure you meant that in a good way, but I'll take it as a badge of my exceptional nature... ;)
And I think there are quite a few people, on both sides, who honestly believe that America would be much better off if a lot more people believed as they do, or at the very least if more people understood why they believe as they do. Many of them just don't have the time or interest in posting on message boards. I'm one of the vocal few.
In the same way that there are many thousands more comic readers out there who never get on a forum to talk about the latest issues, what is an artist doing next, etc, but they are still out there, buying and reading the books, and may care just as deeply as them some of us around here.
Sam, for it to be a "war," there have to be people willing to fight it. By virtue of the fact that almost all Americans are NOT interested in the fight, there is no culture war. Sure, everyone thinks the world would be better if everyone else shared their views. That's human nature; not a war.
Mark this date on your calendars. Alex and I are giving nearly identical answers in a political thread.
Mark this date on your calendars. Alex and I are giving nearly identical answers in a political thread.
I don't think it counts as a political thread.
I don't think it counts as a political thread.
"God-fearing patriots vs. atheist peacenik hippies" doesn't count as a political thread?
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 08:39 AM
Sam, for it to be a "war," there have to be people willing to fight it. By virtue of the fact that almost all Americans are NOT interested in the fight, there is no culture war. Sure, everyone thinks the world would be better if everyone else shared their views. That's human nature; not a war.
Semantics. Call it what you will. Struggle? Whichever, it has been defining most political issues for decades.
totaly agree with tom here.
As to magentos point of, ann coulters book sells, how many copies has it sold?
Lets say it sold a million(which i assume is way more then it takes to get a bestseller), and we assume all million copies were bought by fanatical right wingers.
Thats, in a country of 300 million, nothing. More people then that read comics.
How many people do you know who wake up everyday, have their coffee, and then go off to fight the culture war, which in itself is a term popularized by Bill O'reilly...who was selling a book.
People are always going to disagree, particularly the two groups you brought up.
But they aren't the majority of americans, they are the fringes. Americans prove time and again that they tend to be moderate, and moderates don't give a toss about most of this hyped up nonsense.
We have 20-30% of American voters being culture warriors on the right and 20-30% being culture warriors on the left. The rest includes some fairweather allies of the right and left, and plenty of actual moderate independents, and plenty of oddities too. But those dyed-in-the-wool culture warriors on each side, those who listen to Rush and Fox news and the NRAers, warhawks, pro-lifers and Christian rights, those who listen to Al Franken, NPR and Michael Moore and those who work for labor, housing, abortion or eco groups, they don't have even have to be a majority to keep a culture war going on for over forty years. And the media will promote them (get one of each to debate each issue) because it's easy and "good tv"! They will continue this war until some event unites us (like 911 could have) or a candidate steals a chunk of either (or both) sides supporters away while uniting the moderates who so far have just vacilated between the two poles.
"God-fearing patriots vs. atheist peacenik hippies" doesn't count as a political thread?
When we are trying to say that it isn't really there on a scale large enough to be called a war, yeah.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 08:42 AM
Sam, for it to be a "war," there have to be people willing to fight it. By virtue of the fact that almost all Americans are NOT interested in the fight, there is no culture war. Sure, everyone thinks the world would be better if everyone else shared their views. That's human nature; not a war.
So, because only 160,000 Americans, out of a population of over 300 million, are fighting in Iraq, there really is no war over there either?
Maybe you agree with the notion of a battle between competing values in this (and every) country, you just don't like the term "culture war"? Or do you disagree that there is any kind of struggle between competing values going on in the world?
We have 20-30% of American voters being culture warriors on the right and 20-30% being culture warriors on the left. The rest includes some fairweather allies of the right and left, and plenty of actual moderate independents, and plenty of oddities too. But those dyed-in-the-wool culture warriors on each side, those who listen to Rush and Fox news and the NRAers, warhawks, pro-lifers and Christian rights, those who listen to Al Franken, NPR and Michael Moore and those who work for labor, housing, abortion or eco groups, they don't have even have to be a majority to keep a culture war going on for over forty years. They will do it until a candidates steals a chunk of either (or both) sides supporters away while uniting the moderates who so far have just vacilated between the two poles.
I occasionaly listen to rush limbaugh when driving to class, and i watch all of micheal moores movies.
I don't consider myself a part of a war.
If you can somehow prove to me that your percentages are true, and that by virtue of being registered with a party you are actively involved in it, and share all the viewpoints of said party, then you will have a point.
So, because only 160,000 Americans, out of a population of over 300 million, are fighting in Iraq, there really is no war over there either?
Maybe you agree with the notion of a battle between competing values in this (and every) country, you just don't like the term "culture war"? Or do you disagree that there is any kind of struggle between competing values going on in the world?
Different situation and you know it.
An actual war and a cultural war that is apprently affecting the entire population of our country on an idelogical basis are two different things.
So, because only 160,000 Americans, out of a population of over 300 million, are fighting in Iraq, there really is no war over there either? No, I think all the blood and explosions classify it as a war.
Maybe you agree with the notion of a battle between competing values in this (and every) country, you just don't like the term "culture war"? Or do you disagree that there is any kind of struggle between competing values going on in the world?
There's always competing values in any culture. Always have been. But considering most Americans aren't seeing fit to get involved in it, it's way overblown to call it a "war."
Ed Cunard
11-13-2007, 08:45 AM
"God-fearing patriots vs. atheist peacenik hippies" doesn't count as a political thread?
Maybe it belongs in Rumbles.
Dreadstar
11-13-2007, 08:45 AM
Basically, it's not so much a culture war as it is a (relatively small) bunch of folk nursing a grudge against a bunch of other folk.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 08:47 AM
I occasionaly listen to rush limbaugh when driving to class, and i watch all of micheal moores movies.
I don't consider myself a part of a war.
If you can somehow prove to me that your percentages are true, and that by virtue of being registered with a party you are actively involved in it, and share all the viewpoints of said party, then you will have a point.
You don't need to be registered, or share ALL the values of a party, to be a warrior. If you demonstrated in an anti-war rally or pro-life vigil, you are a warrior. If you feel strongly about any cultural issues, and talk about that with others in order to spread your views, or help others at least understand them better, you are a warrior.
Basically, it's not so much a culture war as it is a (relatively small) bunch of folk nursing a grudge against a bunch of other folk.
More people went to see The Grudge then hold that grudge.
Gordon Smith
11-13-2007, 08:47 AM
Maybe it belongs in Rumbles.
No thanks.
You don't need to be registered, or share ALL the values of a party, to be a warrior. If you demonstrated in an anti-war rally or pro-life vigil, you are a warrior. If you feel strongly about any cultural issues, and talk about that with others in order to spread your views, or help others at least understand them better, you are a warrior.
Well, we can ignore the protest bit because, again, we are talking about a small number of people.
If all you need to do to be a culture warrior is hold beliefs, then yes, we are in a culture war.
And it has exsisted in every country since people started building huts, and it is a war that has no end.
Dreadstar
11-13-2007, 08:48 AM
No thanks.
Yeah.. Besides, everyone knows that the Hawks take the Hippies in a curbstomp.
Ed Cunard
11-13-2007, 08:49 AM
You don't need to be registered, or share ALL the values of a party, to be a warrior. If you demonstrated in an anti-war rally or pro-life vigil, you are a warrior. If you feel strongly about any cultural issues, and talk about that with others in order to spread your views, or help others at least understand them better, you are a warrior.
That's really a strange definition of warrior.
If anything, the "culture war?" It's a skirmish--a long, drawn out one--at best.
Yeah.. Besides, everyone knows that the Hawks take the Hippies in a curbstomp.
Patriots support guns, guns kill people.
Also, jesus rapes you with smite.
Jeff Brady
11-13-2007, 08:50 AM
Of all the stupid phrases...
Al Queda vs the West is a Culture War.
Red vs Blue is a Culture Discussion.
Of all the stupid phrases...
Al Queda vs the West is a Culture War.
It's also an actual war.
Making it a WAR WAR.
Which sounds like baby talk and makes me giggle.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 08:53 AM
No, I think all the blood and explosions classify it as a war.
There's always competing values in any culture. Always have been. But considering most Americans aren't seeing fit to get involved in it, it's way overblown to call it a "war."
Let's move on. The semantics of the name isn't the main question here.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 08:53 AM
Different situation and you know it.
An actual war and a cultural war that is apprently affecting the entire population of our country on an idelogical basis are two different things.
Of course, but the point is, pure numbers are not necessarily the greatest determinant. 2 people arguing about issues is not a culture war, but multiply that by a million, and IMO it is. And I think you guys are severely undercounting the number of people involved. You need not be a full-time, die-hard partisan to be a culture warrior, just someone who feels strongly about one or more cultural issues, from abortion to gay marriage to the war to environmentalism to illegal aliens to more intangible things like patriotism and religion, and you express your beliefs with non-believers with at least a little regularity, I'd say you are a warrior.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 08:54 AM
Of course, but the point is, pure numbers are not necessarily the greatest determinant. 2 people arguing about issues is not a culture war, but multiply that by a million, and IMO it is.
Let's move on. The semantics of the name isn't the main question here. Who cares what you call this loud back and forth about "personal responsiblity, market freedom, god and America" vs. "governmantal and corporate responsibilty, civil liberties, peace and equality" call it a "tiff" or a "cosmic collission" for all I care as a name.
In describing how long this battle has gone on and how it polarizes everything, I found this article very much on point:
The traces of our long journey to this juncture can be found all around us. Its most obvious manifestation is political rhetoric. The high temperature—Bill O’Reilly’s nightly screeds against anti-Americans on one channel, Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” on the other; MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” on the one side, Ann Coulter’s Treason on the other; Michael Moore’s accusation of treason at the core of the Iraq War, Sean Hannity’s assertion of treason in the opposition to it—is particularly striking when you examine the generally minor policy choices on the table.
Something deeper and more powerful than the actual decisions we face is driving the tone of the debate.
Take the biggest foreign-policy question—the war in Iraq. The rhetoric ranges from John McCain’s “No Surrender” banner to the “End the War Now” absolutism of much of the Democratic base. Yet the substantive issue is almost comically removed from this hyperventilation.
Every potential president, Republican or Democrat, would likely inherit more than 100,000 occupying troops in January 2009; every one would be attempting to redeploy them as prudently as possible and to build stronger alliances both in the region and in the world.
Every major candidate, moreover, will pledge to use targeted military force against al-Qaeda if necessary; every one is committed to ensuring that Iran will not have a nuclear bomb; every one is committed to an open-ended deployment in Afghanistan and an unbending alliance with Israel. We are fighting over something, to be sure. But it is more a fight over how we define ourselves and over long-term goals than over what is practically to be done on the ground.
On domestic policy, the primary issue is health care. Again, the ferocious rhetoric belies the mundane reality. Between the boogeyman of “Big Government” and the alleged threat of the drug companies, the practical differences are more matters of nuance than ideology.
Yes, there are policy disagreements, but in the wake of the Bush administration, they are underwhelming. Most Republicans support continuing the Medicare drug benefit for seniors, the largest expansion of the entitlement state since Lyndon Johnson, while Democrats are merely favoring more cost controls on drug and insurance companies. Between Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan—individual mandates, private-sector leadership—and Senator Clinton’s triangulated update of her 1994 debacle, the difference is more technical than fundamental.
The country has moved ever so slightly leftward. But this again is less a function of ideological transformation than of the current system’s failure to provide affordable health care for the insured or any care at all for growing numbers of the working poor.
Even on issues that are seen as integral to the polarization, the practical stakes in this election are minor. A large consensus in America favors legal abortions during the first trimester and varying restrictions thereafter. Even in solidly red states, such as South Dakota, the support for total criminalization is weak. If Roe were to fall, the primary impact would be the end of a system more liberal than any in Europe in favor of one more in sync with the varied views that exist across this country.
On marriage, the battles in the states are subsiding, as a bevy of blue states adopt either civil marriage or civil unions for gay couples, and the rest stand pat. Most states that want no recognition for same-sex couples have already made that decision, usually through state constitutional amendments that allow change only with extreme difficulty. And the one state where marriage equality exists, Massachusetts, has decided to maintain the reform indefinitely.
Given this quiet, evolving consensus on policy, how do we account for the bitter, brutal tone of American politics? The answer lies mainly with the biggest and most influential generation in America: the Baby Boomers. The divide is still—amazingly—between those who fought in Vietnam and those who didn’t, and between those who fought and dissented and those who fought but never dissented at all. By defining the contours of the Boomer generation, it lasted decades. And with time came a strange intensity.
The professionalization of the battle, and the emergence of an array of well-funded interest groups dedicated to continuing it, can be traced most proximately to the bitter confirmation fights over Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, in 1987 and 1991 respectively. The presidency of Bill Clinton, who was elected with only 43 percent of the vote in 1992, crystallized the new reality. As soon as the Baby Boomers hit the commanding heights, the Vietnam power struggle rebooted.
The facts mattered little in the face of such a divide. While Clinton was substantively a moderate conservative in policy, his countercultural origins led to the drama, ultimately, of religious warfare and even impeachment. Clinton clearly tried to bridge the Boomer split. But he was trapped on one side of it—and his personal foibles only reignited his generation’s agonies over sex and love and marriage. Even the failed impeachment didn’t bring the two sides to their senses, and the election of 2000 only made matters worse: Gore and Bush were almost designed to reflect the Boomers’ and the country’s divide, which deepened further.
The trauma of 9/11 has tended to obscure the memory of that unprecedentedly bitter election, and its nail- biting aftermath, which verged on a constitutional crisis. But its legacy is very much still with us, made far worse by President Bush’s approach to dealing with it.
Despite losing the popular vote, Bush governed as if he had won Reagan’s 49 states. Instead of cementing a coalition of the center-right, Bush and Rove set out to ensure that the new evangelical base of the Republicans would turn out more reliably in 2004. Instead of seeing the post-’60s divide as a wound to be healed, they poured acid on it.
With 9/11, Bush had a reset moment—a chance to reunite the country in a way that would marginalize the extreme haters on both sides and forge a national consensus. He chose not to do so. It wasn’t entirely his fault. On the left, the truest believers were unprepared to give the president the benefit of any doubt in the wake of the 2000 election, and they even judged the 9/11 attacks to be a legitimate response to decades of U.S. foreign policy. Some could not support the war in Afghanistan, let alone the adventure in Iraq. As the Iraq War faltered, the polarization intensified. In 2004, the Vietnam argument returned with a new energy, with the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry’s Vietnam War record and CBS’s misbegotten report on Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard. These were the stories that touched the collective nerve of the political classes—because they parsed once again along the fault lines of the Boomer divide that had come to define all of us.
The result was an even deeper schism. Kerry was arguably the worst candidate on earth to put to rest the post-1960s culture war—and his decision to embrace his Vietnam identity at the convention made things worse. Bush, for his part, was unable to do nuance. And so the campaign became a matter of symbolism—pitting those who took the terror threat “seriously” against those who didn’t. Supporters of the Iraq War became more invested in asserting the morality of their cause than in examining the effectiveness of their tactics. Opponents of the war found themselves dispirited. Some were left to hope privately for American failure; others lashed out, as distrust turned to paranoia.
It was and is a toxic cycle, in which the interests of the United States are supplanted by domestic agendas born of pride and ruthlessness on the one hand and bitterness and alienation on the other.
Which brings us to:
This is the critical context for the election of 2008. It is an election that holds the potential not merely to intensify this cycle of division but to bequeath it to a new generation.
A Giuliani-Clinton matchup, favored by the media elite, is a classic intragenerational struggle—with two deeply divisive and ruthless personalities ready to go to the brink.
Giuliani represents that Nixonian disgust with anyone asking questions about, let alone actively protesting, a war.
Clinton will always be, in the minds of so many, the young woman who gave the commencement address at Wellesley, who sat in on the Nixon implosion and who once disdained baking cookies. For some, her husband will always be the draft dodger who smoked pot and wouldn’t admit it. And however hard she tries, there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do about it. She and Giuliani are conscripts in their generation’s war.
To their respective sides, they are war heroes.
Let's move on. The semantics of the name isn't the main question here.
Kinda is.
The term culture war is something invented to sell books, the term political discussion has been around since politics were invented.
Political discussion is real!
Samurai
11-13-2007, 08:56 AM
Well, we can ignore the protest bit because, again, we are talking about a small number of people.
If all you need to do to be a culture warrior is hold beliefs, then yes, we are in a culture war.
And it has exsisted in every country since people started building huts, and it is a war that has no end.
2 parts: Hold beliefs, and try to spread them (or at least discuss and defend them) to those who don't know or don't agree with you.
A hermit with strong beliefs, but who never talks to anyone all his life, would not count.
And yes, I believe it has existed since humans developed a culture, and will always continue.
Ed Cunard
11-13-2007, 08:58 AM
2 parts: Hold beliefs, and try to spread them (or at least discuss and defend them) to those who don't know or don't agree with you.
How is discussing and spreading and defending positions war-like?
How is discussing and spreading and defending positions war-like?
Yeah, thats kinda where i'm coming from.
And mags, the reason i would actually argue semantics, is because there seems to be this fiction that's developed that whats going on is new.
And it isn't, it didn't recently come up. The biggest change in this issue isn't people, it's cable news channels.
mattx110
11-13-2007, 09:04 AM
There's always competing values in any culture. Always have been. But considering most Americans aren't seeing fit to get involved in it, it's way overblown to call it a "war."
I guess it's kinda stupid to call them "democratic elections" too.:o
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 09:08 AM
Hillary Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. As a liberal, she has spent years in a defensive crouch against triumphant post-Reagan conservatism. The mau-mauing that greeted her health-care plan and the endless nightmares of her husband’s scandals drove her deeper into her political bunker. Her liberalism is warped by what you might call a Political Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Reagan spooked people on the left, especially those, like Clinton, who were interested primarily in winning power.
She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives. And so the less-adept ones seem deceptive, and the more-practiced ones, like Clinton, exhibit the plastic-ness and inauthenticity that still plague her candidacy. She’s hiding her true feelings. We know it, she knows we know it, and there is no way out of it. Clinton smells of political fear.
So ... a way out of the back and forth struggle?
Samurai
11-13-2007, 09:10 AM
How is discussing and spreading and defending positions war-like?
This is a "culture war", not a real one. A warrior is someone who advances the cause, or spreads/discusses/defends the culture and beliefs with others. Colonialism was taking the home culture to other shores, and American media and business spreading American culture (music, movies, TV, beliefs, etc) is a modern extension of that (in a cultural sense only).
Look, when you read a Japanese manga, you learn about Japan, it's traditions, beliefs, expressions, and life. It is helping to spread and popularize Japanese culture to an international market, even if that isn't its intent.
Paradox
11-13-2007, 09:10 AM
If there's a culture war, there's a HELLUVA LOT more than two sides.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 09:11 AM
If there's a culture war, there's a HELLUVA LOT more than two sides.
There are, the sides Mags outlined are 2 common ones within the US, but there are many more.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 09:11 AM
The "culture war" and "not really a real war" is a ridiculous and un-winnable argument.
And, therefore, it is an ironic analogy to the topic it is avoiding.
Let's move on. The semantics of the name isn't the main question here.
Kinda is.
The term culture war is something invented to sell books
Let's take a step back and think about useful names. If you want to read an article linking Nixon vs. the Vietnam war protesters, Reagan vs. welfare moms, the Bork nomination, Rush Limbaugh, Air America, and Bill Clinton's impeachment, could you type "culture war" into Google? However accurate (French fries are from Belgium but why spend an hour convincing the Mcserver that? ), it is a useful term, you know what I'm talking about, so leave it at that. Sheesh.
As for the concepts:
In terms of foreign realtions:
In normal times, such division is not fatal, and can even be healthy. It’s great copy for journalists. But we are not talking about routine rancor. And we are not talking about normal times. We are talking about a world in which Islamist terror, combined with increasingly available destructive technology, has already murdered thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists could pose an existential danger.
The terrible failures of the Iraq occupation, the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, the progress of Iran toward nuclear capability, and the collapse of America’s prestige and moral reputation, especially among those millions of Muslims too young to have known any American president but Bush, heighten the stakes dramatically.
Perhaps the underlying risk is best illustrated by our asking what the popular response would be to another 9/11–style attack. It is hard to imagine a reprise of the sudden unity and solidarity in the days after 9/11, or an outpouring of support from allies and neighbors.
It is far easier to imagine an even more bitter fight over who was responsible (apart from the perpetrators) and a profound suspicion of a government forced to impose more restrictions on travel, communications, and civil liberties. The current president would be unable to command the trust, let alone the support, of half the country in such a time. He could even be blamed for provoking any attack that came.
Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf. Polling reveals Obama to be the favored Democrat among Republicans. McCain’s bipartisan appeal has receded in recent years, especially with his enthusiastic embrace of the latest phase of the Iraq War.
And his personal history can only reinforce the Vietnam divide. But Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism.
It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.
What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm.
A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
The other obvious advantage that Obama has in facing the world and our enemies is his record on the Iraq War. He is the only major candidate to have clearly opposed it from the start. Whoever is in office in January 2009 will be tasked with redeploying forces in and out of Iraq, negotiating with neighboring states, engaging America’s estranged allies, tamping down regional violence. Obama’s interlocutors in Iraq and the Middle East would know that he never had suspicious motives toward Iraq, has no interest in occupying it indefinitely, and foresaw more clearly than most Americans the baleful consequences of long-term occupation.
This latter point is the most salient. The act of picking the next president will be in some ways a statement of America’s view of Iraq.
Clinton is running as a centrist Democrat—voting for war, accepting the need for an occupation at least through her first term, while attempting to do triage as practically as possible. Obama is running as the clearer antiwar candidate.
At the same time, Obama’s candidacy cannot fairly be cast as a McGovernite revival in tone or substance. He is not opposed to war as such. He is not opposed to the use of unilateral force, either—as demonstrated by his willingness to target al-Qaeda in Pakistan over the objections of the Pakistani government. He does not oppose the idea of democratization in the Muslim world as a general principle or the concept of nation building as such. He is not an isolationist, as his support for the campaign in Afghanistan proves. It is worth recalling the key passages of the speech Obama gave in Chicago on October 2, 2002, five months before the war:
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
The man who opposed the war for the right reasons is for that reason the potential president with the most flexibility in dealing with it.
Clinton is hemmed in by her past and her generation. If she pulls out too quickly, she will fall prey to the usual browbeating from the right—the same theme that has played relentlessly since 1968. If she stays in too long, the antiwar base of her own party, already suspicious of her, will pounce. The Boomer legacy imprisons her—and so it may continue to imprison us. The debate about the war in the next four years needs to be about the practical and difficult choices ahead of us—not about the symbolism or whether it’s a second Vietnam.
And domestically:
A generational divide also separates Clinton and Obama with respect to domestic politics. Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. Obama, simply by virtue of when he was born, is free of this defensiveness. Strictly speaking, he is at the tail end of the Boomer generation. He is not of it.
He did not politically come of age during the Vietnam era, and he is simply less afraid of the right wing than Clinton is, because he has emerged on the national stage during a period of conservative decadence and decline.
And so, for example, he felt much freer than Clinton to say he was prepared to meet and hold talks with hostile world leaders in his first year in office. He has proposed sweeping middle-class tax cuts and opposed drastic reforms of Social Security, without being tarred as a fiscally reckless liberal. (Of course, such accusations are hard to make after the fiscal performance of today’s “conservatives.”)
Even his more conservative positions—like his openness to bombing Pakistan, or his support for merit pay for public-school teachers—do not appear to emerge from a desire or need to credentialize himself with the right.
He is among the first Democrats in a generation not to be afraid or ashamed of what they actually believe, which also gives them more freedom to move pragmatically to the right, if necessary. He does not smell, as Clinton does, of political fear.
The only chance this election to change the back and forth culture-struggle dialogue?
Ed Cunard
11-13-2007, 09:13 AM
So ... a way out of the back and forth struggle?
No.
Let's not forget Hilary began her political aspirations as a Young Republican.
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 09:18 AM
No.
Let's not forget Hilary began her political aspirations as a Young Republican.
And despite party affiliations, she's stayed true to her roots.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 09:23 AM
I see Magneto_X agrees with me on the importance of the culture war (or culture struggle, debate, whatever you wanna call it)
It's also a great concept in terms of politics. Politics that failed for Kerry and Gore (along with vote counting issues) was of "messaging." Getting the message right, and they both seemed insincere to moderates and independents. The question is should Democrats get principled, or should they hide what they really intend to do in office. Should the Dem nominee have the audacity to stand up for issues clearly. I think Dems can probably win an election by pandering to the right, dodging straight answers, and being unclear of what they believe. But to move the country on issues in the long run, you have to convince them. You have to admit you are at two places, that you respect their intelligence, and that you intend to convince them either that your position is correct or that they can at least respect where you are coming from and believe you are being straight with them. I think this would be a breath of fresh air for our politics.
By the way, I also feel that one of Bush's biggest failures has been a horrendous lack of both ability and willingness to really articulate and defend his positions, at home and abroad.
Michael P
11-13-2007, 09:41 AM
Actually, changing the name would probably go a long way towards ending it. A war is a protracted, all-out engagement that only ends when one side is completely and utterly defeated. A "culture disagreement," on the other hand, we could have that wrapped up by dinnertime.
mattx110
11-13-2007, 09:43 AM
I see Magneto_X agrees with me on the importance of the culture war (or culture struggle, debate, whatever you wanna call it)
By the way, I also feel that one of Bush's biggest failures has been a horrendous lack of both ability and willingness to really articulate and defend his positions, at home and abroad.
Maybe he's awesome at defending them, and they're just completely inane, retarded, geo-politically harmful decisions?
If you've gotten to the level of complaint against Bush that you're aware of his inability to explain his actions, you're missing the first 150 pages of your "what not do as president" hand-book and are basically trying to distract from your inability to see what a horrible job the president has done.
The only other people I see do this, are basically republican yes-men who have trouble being honest and open when appearing on political pundit and news shows, and want to pretend they agree with their host on something, even though it's irrelevent.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 09:45 AM
In terms of foreign realtions:
In normal times, such division is not fatal, and can even be healthy. It’s great copy for journalists. But we are not talking about routine rancor. And we are not talking about normal times. We are talking about a world in which Islamist terror, combined with increasingly available destructive technology, has already murdered thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists could pose an existential danger.
The terrible failures of the Iraq occupation, the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, the progress of Iran toward nuclear capability, and the collapse of America’s prestige and moral reputation, especially among those millions of Muslims too young to have known any American president but Bush, heighten the stakes dramatically.
Perhaps the underlying risk is best illustrated by our asking what the popular response would be to another 9/11–style attack. It is hard to imagine a reprise of the sudden unity and solidarity in the days after 9/11, or an outpouring of support from allies and neighbors.
It is far easier to imagine an even more bitter fight over who was responsible (apart from the perpetrators) and a profound suspicion of a government forced to impose more restrictions on travel, communications, and civil liberties. The current president would be unable to command the trust, let alone the support, of half the country in such a time. He could even be blamed for provoking any attack that came.
Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf. Polling reveals Obama to be the favored Democrat among Republicans. McCain’s bipartisan appeal has receded in recent years, especially with his enthusiastic embrace of the latest phase of the Iraq War.
And his personal history can only reinforce the Vietnam divide. But Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism.
It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.
What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm.
A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
The other obvious advantage that Obama has in facing the world and our enemies is his record on the Iraq War. He is the only major candidate to have clearly opposed it from the start. Whoever is in office in January 2009 will be tasked with redeploying forces in and out of Iraq, negotiating with neighboring states, engaging America’s estranged allies, tamping down regional violence. Obama’s interlocutors in Iraq and the Middle East would know that he never had suspicious motives toward Iraq, has no interest in occupying it indefinitely, and foresaw more clearly than most Americans the baleful consequences of long-term occupation.
This latter point is the most salient. The act of picking the next president will be in some ways a statement of America’s view of Iraq.
Clinton is running as a centrist Democrat—voting for war, accepting the need for an occupation at least through her first term, while attempting to do triage as practically as possible. Obama is running as the clearer antiwar candidate.
At the same time, Obama’s candidacy cannot fairly be cast as a McGovernite revival in tone or substance. He is not opposed to war as such. He is not opposed to the use of unilateral force, either—as demonstrated by his willingness to target al-Qaeda in Pakistan over the objections of the Pakistani government. He does not oppose the idea of democratization in the Muslim world as a general principle or the concept of nation building as such. He is not an isolationist, as his support for the campaign in Afghanistan proves. It is worth recalling the key passages of the speech Obama gave in Chicago on October 2, 2002, five months before the war:
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
The man who opposed the war for the right reasons is for that reason the potential president with the most flexibility in dealing with it.
Clinton is hemmed in by her past and her generation. If she pulls out too quickly, she will fall prey to the usual browbeating from the right—the same theme that has played relentlessly since 1968. If she stays in too long, the antiwar base of her own party, already suspicious of her, will pounce. The Boomer legacy imprisons her—and so it may continue to imprison us. The debate about the war in the next four years needs to be about the practical and difficult choices ahead of us—not about the symbolism or whether it’s a second Vietnam.
And domestically:
A generational divide also separates Clinton and Obama with respect to domestic politics. Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. Obama, simply by virtue of when he was born, is free of this defensiveness. Strictly speaking, he is at the tail end of the Boomer generation. He is not of it.
He did not politically come of age during the Vietnam era, and he is simply less afraid of the right wing than Clinton is, because he has emerged on the national stage during a period of conservative decadence and decline.
And so, for example, he felt much freer than Clinton to say he was prepared to meet and hold talks with hostile world leaders in his first year in office. He has proposed sweeping middle-class tax cuts and opposed drastic reforms of Social Security, without being tarred as a fiscally reckless liberal. (Of course, such accusations are hard to make after the fiscal performance of today’s “conservatives.”)
Even his more conservative positions—like his openness to bombing Pakistan, or his support for merit pay for public-school teachers—do not appear to emerge from a desire or need to credentialize himself with the right.
He is among the first Democrats in a generation not to be afraid or ashamed of what they actually believe, which also gives them more freedom to move pragmatically to the right, if necessary. He does not smell, as Clinton does, of political fear.
The only chance this election to change the back and forth culture-struggle dialogue?
Are we more invested in winning the battle by name (either the left or right wins) or in winning a majority of the issues we care about even if our "side" doesn't get credit for ultimate victory?
Royal
11-13-2007, 09:48 AM
"culture war" is just a bunch of words to sell books and exaterbate Mean World Syndrome to the point of a second possible "scare" set up by followers of Straussian and Paleoconservative philosophy.
gary bolt
11-13-2007, 09:53 AM
Are we more invested in winning the battle by name (either the left or right wins) or in winning a majority of the issues we care about even if our "side" doesn't get credit for ultimate victory?
Magneto X, could you please use the quote tag when you feed us whole pages of other peoples words? Samurai obviously thought he was quoting you a few posts ago but he was quoting part of one of your extremely long quotes.
It would be more obvious if you stuck your quotes in a box like this.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 09:59 AM
I am soooo glad a dozen people have chimed in to brilliantly say that "culture war" is not a real war and/or helps sell books. I suppose if we called this thread "personal responsibility clash" or "sexual revolution debate" or "family values tangle" then there would be a unified politic in this country? Sheesh, move on the naming thing already. Names not perfect? It's been said already.
Magneto X, could you please use the quote tag when you feed us whole pages of other peoples words? Samurai obviously thought he was quoting you a few posts ago but he was quoting part of one of your extremely long quotes.
Actually, that IS me (from a different thread) that he's quoting.
"It's also a great concept in terms of politics. Politics that failed for Kerry and Gore (along with vote counting issues) was of "messaging." Getting the message right, and they both seemed insincere to moderates and independents. The question is should Democrats get principled, or should they hide what they really intend to do in office. Should the Dem nominee have the audacity to stand up for issues clearly. I think Dems can probably win an election by pandering to the right, dodging straight answers, and being unclear of what they believe. But to move the country on issues in the long run, you have to convince them. You have to admit you are at two places, that you respect their intelligence, and that you intend to convince them either that your position is correct or that they can at least respect where you are coming from and believe you are being straight with them. I think this would be a breath of fresh air for our politics." - Magneto X
Rattlehead
11-13-2007, 10:01 AM
Here's your damn culture war:
FAUX NOOZE tells people their values are right and everybody else is wrong.
MSNBoreC tells people their values are right and everybody else is wrong.
CNN has no clue one way or the other.
The Daily Show and Colbert Report show how much of a sham it all is.
The majority of Americans ignore all of them and continue to vote for the next American Idol.
It's not semantics to point out that there's no such thing as a culture war. It gets to the very heart of the issue. It's a term dreamed up and propogated by people who have a vested interest in getting people to believe that there's some sort of life and death struggle for the soul of America when in fact, there's no such thing. It's dressed-up political differences. That's it.
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 10:09 AM
Fort here to be a "culture war", there would have to be a pervasive "American" culture. And there isn't.
There is no "melting pot". The US is one big "tossed salad".
Royal
11-13-2007, 10:10 AM
I am soooo glad a dozen people have chimed in to brilliantly say that "culture war" is not a real war and/or helps sell books.
You didn't read the rest of the paragraph I put out then, proving this point is moot.
It's a term built by people who can't get over the fact that they can't play cowboys and indians any more.
Move on.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 10:11 AM
It's not semantics to point out that there's no such thing as a culture war. It gets to the very heart of the issue. It's a term dreamed up and propogated by people who have a vested interest in getting people to believe that there's some sort of life and death struggle for the soul of America when in fact, there's no such thing. It's dressed-up political differences. That's it.
<sigh>
If it didn't start out as mere semantics (which we can debate) it certainly isn't contributing any new ideas the fifth time you say it.
There are politicians and the interest groups and people who support them who have been nursing gripes since the 60s including Bill Clinton being called a draft-dodging pot smoker and getting impeached for perjury because of his lack of "family values". All you've contributed to is that you hope some day the media stops call those nursing of gruges a "culture war". Check. Gottcha on that. Loud and clear. And ... ?
mattx110
11-13-2007, 10:12 AM
God-fearing patriots go "we're right and god loves the best country the world has ever known."
atheists go "we'll be proven correct when rational people run this country, and since we can't convince you anyway, we're just gonna treat you like children."
It might not be so much a "war" as a "we're fucked"
When letting an "intellectual" run the country is something that 50 percent of the voting public is against... something's not right with the culture.
If it didn't start out as mere semantics (which we can debate) it certainly isn't contributing any new ideas the fifth time you say it.
Right. I keep forgetting. You don't want to have discussions. You want a soapbox.
Carry on then.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 10:35 AM
Right. I keep forgetting. You don't want to have discussions. You want a soapbox.
And was my soapbox created the term "culture war?" Did I build the Heritage Foundation and Air America, Drudge Report, Rush Limbuagh, Fox News, and the competing legal arms, the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society? Did I term "Borking" as a means of blocking a Supreme Court Justice from the wrong side? Was it right after I coined "tearing the social fabric" for my fear of welfare, the lack of school prayer and "abortion on demand" and amended the CONSTITUTIONS OF TWELVE STATES just to ban gay marriage, and wrote a hundred books with treason or the like in the title, the backlash against Nader's run, Karl Rove's plan for a permanent Republican majority by dedicating the party to the Christian-right, and Farhenheit 911?
But, no, the Culture Blank is not an actual pheonomenon, but a thin media creation, and an insubstatial one at that so, No, go right ahead. It's not a culture war by any means, that's the important thing to repeat, so .... I'll check back in ten pages when folks get to anything, anything at all, beyond replacing a name we collectively understand to some degree with one we can't even google with.
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 10:38 AM
There has to be a culture war, it seems, so that you can justify your own partisan politics.
Rattlehead
11-13-2007, 10:41 AM
It was my soapbox created the term "culture war?" Was it right after I coined "tearing the social fabric" for my fear of gay marriage, lack of school prayer and abortion and the "general betray us" campaign, or when I produced Rush Limbaugh, Drudge Report, a hundred books with treason or the like in the title, and Farhenheit 911 and Air America? But, no, this is not an actual pheonomenon, but a media creation, and an insubstatial one at that so, No, go right ahead. It's not a culture war .... And I'll check back in ten pages when folks get beyond the name. :(
The problem here is, outside of fringe groups, nobody in the real world thinks like that. The majority of America is struggling to get by, and are spending more time thinking about how to get the bills paid than about some "culture war". Most people in this country don't even care about politics one way or the other. You can get millions of people to vote on reality TV shows, but very few to vote in an actual election. The majority of America simply doesn't care about this kind of stuff.
Magneto, two things and then I'm out because you are without a doubt one of the most obtuse posters I've encountered in a long time.
1) Just for shits and giggles, try having a conversation where you make points and then (and this is the really important part) you LISTEN TO THE POINTS OTHER PEOPLE MAKE IN RESPONSE, rather than decide what it is they're saying and argue based on that.
2) When discussing political phenomena that are solely created by the media, it's important to acknowledge that these things are y'know, solely created by the media. Otherwise, you're not looking at things as they actually are, but at things as the media would like you to see them. You are, in fact, accepting the media's framing on this issue. You see a "culture war" that has an "end" to it and as I and almost everyone else in this thread keep pointing out to you, there is no war and subsequently there is not going to be any ending to it. It's people having political differences and bickering over them. It's pretty much the hallmark of democracy.
Drew Van T.
11-13-2007, 10:46 AM
If there is a "culture war" (and by that I understand politics as it relates to abortion, family values, gays, religion, and other such issues, and the polarization and manipulation thereof) then it's about to be kicked onto the backburner for a looong time. At least that's how things are shaping up.
War, healthcare, deficits, debt, energy, and the economy are the real issues (you might say that it's the "reality" war) that will be kicking the culture war's ass.
It's hard for people to care too much about "Culture" when everyday reality is constantly punching them in the gut.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 10:52 AM
When discussing political phenomena that are solely created by the media, it's important to acknowledge that these things are y'know, solely created by the media.
But hasn't that been acknowledged yet?
Now, I doubt too many huge political phenomena are SOLEY created by the media (especially pheonoma that drove millions of formerly-Democratic Catholics in this country to side with the Protestant groups they formerly feared in order to create the pro-life movement and end Democratic control of Congress until recently) but even if so, you can't unbreak that egg if the media was succesful at convincing millions. Regardless, believe both the media soley created it and it can be undone. Fine. Then we must acknowledge it before we discuss.
Everyone: Do not mistakenly discuss the Culture WarTM without knowing it is purely a media creation! That would only confuse you into thinking one might exist!
Also, do not say "Sexual Revolution" without proving it was a true revolution!
But hasn't that been acknowledged yet?You mean all that arguing was your version of acknowledging something?
Regardless, believe both the media soley created it and it can be undone.
OHMIGOD. Pay attention. It CAN'T be undone because there is NOTHING TO BE UNDONE. It's political disagreement dressed up to sell books, get ratings and put money in the pockets of politicians. As such, it SHOULD BE IGNORED.
And guess what? EVERYBODY except for a small minority DOES ignore it. This is what pretty much everyone on this thread has been trying to say to you.
Justin Davis
11-13-2007, 11:05 AM
Mark this date on your calendars. Alex and I are giving nearly identical answers in a political thread.
I've found that more people agree with Alex than they think. It's still a bizarre feeling.
Sure, everyone thinks the world would be better if everyone else shared their views. That's human nature; not a war.
That's the most succinct and apt way I've ever read that put. Superbly done, Tom.
Reptisaurus!
11-13-2007, 11:10 AM
<sigh>
If it didn't start out as mere semantics (which we can debate) it certainly isn't contributing any new ideas the fifth time you say it.
No.
Your premise implicitly implies a false duality. Tom et. al are questioning this false duality, and if we don't accept that your premise falls apart.
Michael P
11-13-2007, 11:10 AM
Allow me the use of a crude metaphor.
The construct of the "culture war" is a dinner plate piled high with bullshit.
Magneto, you are attempting to hold a discussion on whether the bullshit would taste better with mustard or with ketchup.
Justin Davis
11-13-2007, 11:15 AM
OHMIGOD. Pay attention. It CAN'T be undone because there is NOTHING TO BE UNDONE. It's political disagreement dressed up to sell books, get ratings and put money in the pockets of politicians. As such, it SHOULD BE IGNORED.
And guess what? EVERYBODY except for a small minority DOES ignore it. This is what pretty much everyone on this thread has been trying to say to you.
Let me help Mags out here, if I can.
How do we, or can we, get the media to stop reporting on a culture war?
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 11:23 AM
Let me help Mags out here, if I can.
How do we, or can we, get the media to stop reporting on a culture war?
Stop talking about it?
Justin Davis
11-13-2007, 11:30 AM
Stop talking about it?
. . .
hyzmarca
11-13-2007, 11:31 AM
There is a very easy way to end the culture war. Round up all of the Conservative politicians and pundits and shoot them execution style. Round up all of the Liberal politicians and pundits and behead them. Round up all of the politicians and pundits who describe themselves as "centrists" and crucify them on the Tree of Woe.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 11:34 AM
1st rule of Culture War: Don't talk about Culture War! ;)
And Mags, unlike the rest, I agree there is one, but it's a never-ending debate of personal beliefs, opinions, and morality. That's not a bad thing.
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 11:36 AM
The funny part about Mags and Samurai agreeing on the existence of "the culture war' is that they are diametrically opposed in it, if it should exist.
Heh. I laugh.
Matt Algren
11-13-2007, 11:41 AM
The funny part about Mags and Samurai agreeing on the existence of "the culture war' is that they are diametrically opposed in it, if it should exist.
Heh. I laugh.
The political continuum is a circle, not a line.
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 11:42 AM
The political continuum is a circle, not a line.
You know, Politicians are the only group that form a firing squad in a circle.
Michael P
11-13-2007, 11:42 AM
The political continuum is a circle, not a line.
Hence his use of the term "diametrically opposed."
Justin Davis
11-13-2007, 11:43 AM
1st rule of Culture War: Don't talk about Culture War! ;)
And Mags, unlike the rest, I agree there is one, but it's a never-ending debate of personal beliefs, opinions, and morality. That's not a bad thing.
A debate is not a war. That is not semantics, but the underlying root of many problems.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 11:44 AM
The funny part about Mags and Samurai agreeing on the existence of "the culture war' is that they are diametrically opposed in it, if it should exist.
Heh. I laugh.
True, and who should know better that it exists than those who fight it?
But if he was sincere in his Obama comments, then we also both agree that while it exists and is important, it can and should be "fought" with open, sincere, and frank discussions of the issues, sharing our beliefs and thoughts with each other, rather than the attacks and smears of some other "warriors" preferred methods. We can at least agree on that. And if that reduces it from a "war" to a skirmish, debate, whatever, that's fine, but the battles will never stop, just change in location and method.
Let me help Mags out here, if I can.
How do we, or can we, get the media to stop reporting on a culture war?
We go around pointing out to people its non-existence.
Do people disagree on may issues? Absolutely. Do those issues break down to crude ideas of left/right, urban/rural, patriots/hippies? Not even remotely. Framing them that way ensures that all sides of the issues remain in constant battle while the issues themselves never progress in either direction.
Matt Algren
11-13-2007, 11:45 AM
Hence his use of the term "diametrically opposed."Like Typo knew that.
A debate is not a war. That is not semantics, but the underlying root of many problems.How dare you, sir? Semantics is war! One must win, all others must lose! No quarter asked, none given!
Gordon Smith
11-13-2007, 11:46 AM
A debate is not a war. That is not semantics, but the underlying root of many problems.
Perhaps we need to demilitarize political rhetoric.
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 11:47 AM
True, and who should know better that it exists than those who fight it?
That's right. And it doesn't matter what the men who found you on the Island said... the war is not over.
Long live the Empire of the Sun!
Reptisaurus!
11-13-2007, 11:48 AM
Or let me put it this way: Anyone who buys either the republican or democratic party platform wholeheartedly and without reservation is very stupid, so who cares about them?
Samurai
11-13-2007, 11:49 AM
A debate is not a war. That is not semantics, but the underlying root of many problems.
Really, at it's most basic level, what is a war if it's not a clash of beliefs, values, and opinions, taken tio the level of killing the opposition? Those beliefs may be over religion, or who owns some land, or who will rule the territory under what flag and political system, or whatever, but that's still all it is.
Michael P
11-13-2007, 11:50 AM
A debate is not a war. That is not semantics, but the underlying root of many problems.
Among them, the stubborn refusal to give ground.
Michael P
11-13-2007, 11:51 AM
Really, at it's most basic level, what is a war if it's not a clash of beliefs, values, and opinions, taken tio the level of killing the opposition?
A bunch of scared young men bleeding to death in the dirt. Which is yet another reason we should stop equating debate with war: It cheapens the cost of war.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 11:51 AM
Or let me put it this way: Anyone who buys either the republican or democratic party platform wholeheartedly and without reservation is very stupid, so who cares about them?
Almost no one does... those platforms are put together by consensus, so even those who wrote it probably disagree with some of it!
But that has nothing to do with engaging in the Culture Debate (tm).
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 11:53 AM
Really, at it's most basic level, what is a war if it's not a clash of beliefs, values, and opinions, taken tio the level of killing the opposition? Those beliefs may be over religion, or who owns some land, or who will rule the territory under what flag and political system, or whatever, but that's still all it is.
Everything is war, if you look at it that way.
Work is war.
Sex is war.
Commuting is war.
Really, at it's most basic level, what is a war if it's not a clash of beliefs, values, and opinions, taken tio the level of killing the opposition? Those beliefs may be over religion, or who owns some land, or who will rule the territory under what flag and political system, or whatever, but that's still all it is.
Firstly, wars are at their heart more about the acquisition of resources than they are about the clash of ideologies. Always have been.
Secondly, by virtue of the fact that Americans HAVEN'T taken their disagreements over abortion and school prayer to "the level of killing" pretty much disproves your point.
hyzmarca
11-13-2007, 12:00 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F._Griffin
Its been at the level of killing for some time now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F._Griffin
Its been at the level of killing for some time now.
Who knew it took one person to make a war?
Typo Lad
11-13-2007, 12:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F._Griffin
Its been at the level of killing for some time now.
Who'se daddy's little poop-stirrer? You is! You is!
Remember the "extreme elements" we were talking about?
That's not a culture war. That's a murder by a nutjob.
Justin Davis
11-13-2007, 12:03 PM
Firstly, wars are at their heart more about the acquisition of resources than they are about the clash of ideologies. Always have been.
Secondly, by virtue of the fact that Americans HAVEN'T taken their disagreements over abortion and school prayer to "the level of killing" pretty much disproves your point.
Let me tackle this one before someone else does. Just because a few nutjob assholes have taken to killing doctors, nurses, and whomever else over abortion isn't the same thing as a war. It's a crime. Again, not the same thing.
Samurai, your boiling down does not work. Morts had it right. Your definition of war means any time any person disagree with another person, it's a war.
A debate among people is good. A war between countries can even have its benefits. A war among people is never good.
EDIT: Damn, not fast enough. I declare a war on my fingers!
Tadhg Adams
11-13-2007, 12:03 PM
Who knew it took one person to make a war?
Jack Kirby did.
Winslow
11-13-2007, 12:03 PM
I don't have a problem with war being used as a metaphor to describe the political climate in the United States.
I didn't finish Sullivan's article. But I thought his thesis was that we need to get intelligent discourse back into political discussions.
Justin Davis
11-13-2007, 12:06 PM
I don't have a problem with war being used as a metaphor to describe the political climate in the United States.
I didn't finish Sullivan's article. But I thought his thesis was that we need to get intelligent discourse back into political discussions.
The problem is that those two ideas often oppose each other.
Paradox
11-13-2007, 12:07 PM
I was being too subtle for Samurai:
There are, the sides Mags outlined are 2 common ones within the US, but there are many more.
Actually, my point was more that "sides" and such are illusory. There aren't "sides" and the "two common ones" are merely extreme ends. Most people are combinations of stuff.
The "more" sides I mean is 300,000,000 of them.
Winslow
11-13-2007, 12:08 PM
The problem is that those two ideas often oppose each other.
Today is seems that way, agreed.
But if you read the Lincoln - Douglas debates, or even listen to the Kennedy and Nixon debates, it seems we've fallen a long way.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 12:09 PM
Let me tackle this one before someone else does. Just because a few nutjob assholes have taken to killing doctors, nurses, and whomever else over abortion isn't the same thing as a war. It's a crime. Again, not the same thing.
Samurai, your boiling down does not work. Morts had it right. Your definition of war means any time any person disagree with another person, it's a war.
A debate among people is good. A war between countries can even have its benefits. A war among people is never good.
EDIT: Damn, not fast enough. I declare a war on my fingers!
As I and Mags said a long time ago, if you don't like the term, we can call it a cultural debate, if you prefer. Unless you feel there is no debate, nationally and internationally, about cultures, values, beliefs, ideas, and morals, and which should prevail and proliferate...
I don't have a problem with war being used as a metaphor to describe the political climate in the United States.
I didn't finish Sullivan's article. But I thought his thesis was that we need to get intelligent discourse back into political discussions.
Sullivan's about the last person I'd listen to regarding intelligent discourse seeing as how he was one of the very first pundits after 9/11 to point at liberals and scream "traitor!"
I do find this to be enlightening:
The traces of our long journey to this juncture can be found all around us. Its most obvious manifestation is political rhetoric. The high temperature—Bill O’Reilly’s nightly screeds against anti-Americans on one channel, Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” on the other; MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” on the one side, Ann Coulter’s Treason on the other; Michael Moore’s accusation of treason at the core of the Iraq War, Sean Hannity’s assertion of treason in the opposition to it—is particularly striking when you examine the generally minor policy choices on the table. Something deeper and more powerful than the actual decisions we face is driving the tone of the debate.
All the examples coming from the right side of the aisle have to do with conservatives vilifying large segments of the population while all the examples coming from the left have to do with liberals criticizing specific people. This is something so many modern conservatives have a problem understanding.
Paul McEnery
11-13-2007, 12:12 PM
We go around pointing out to people its non-existence.
Do people disagree on may issues? Absolutely. Do those issues break down to crude ideas of left/right, urban/rural, patriots/hippies? Not even remotely. Framing them that way ensures that all sides of the issues remain in constant battle while the issues themselves never progress in either direction.
If this country actually had a left, I might be ready to agree with this. But the whole problem is that it doesn't. The left was eliminated 80 some years ago. Since then -- with the possible but not really exception of the Depression -- it hasn't been about political economics, it's been exactly about culture.
Which is to say, the formation of tribes around arbitrary rules, sacred texts, taboo behaviours, the exclusion of the other, and so forth.
While the country has made great strides towards universal suffrage -- and how sad it is that the Great Democracy had to be forced to end racial discrimination, and still discriminates by wealth and by sexual identity -- the issues have all been framed culturally instead of through the lens of economic control.
The liberals are bought off with cultural gewgaws while politics remains in the hands of the same economic class. Equally, the conservatives are rallied by the exclusion of their cultural enemies -- blacks, women, gays, immigrants, and the heathens.
Which neatly keeps issues of socialized infrastructure off the table.
One can look directly at faux issues like Creationism, Global Warming, Abortion, Gay Marriage -- and I say faux because the science is done on each of these issues -- to discern cultural politics at work. The aim is to keep people squabbling about empty issues so the genuine command structure remains invisible and unchallenged.
That's why they call it cultural hegemony.
VanEyck
11-13-2007, 12:13 PM
For what it's worth, I agree with the term "culture war." To me, these issues are very similar to the "Cold War." The Cold war was a war. It was not fought with weapons, but with finance and ideas and the goal was to completely eradicate an entire way of life.
I think much of the same is going on here. There are gays who are struggling to maintain their way of life while others are seeking to criminalize it. There are Muslims who are trying to practice their religion, while others are seeking to criminalize it. There are conservatives trying to preserve the sustained advantages enjoyed by huge corporations and the affluent elites, while there are liberals trying to end such sustained, multi-generational advantages. It is a war.
Granted, in this case it is most likely that none of the myriad groups involved will completely be wiped out, but that doesn't change the fact that the other side actually IS seeking to wipe them out (not physically, but culturally - to produce a world where that culture no longer exists).
As an American Muslim, I fear that my right to freely practice my religion will be taken away any day now. And to me that's even worse than a war with bombs and missles. A bomb can only affect this life. But interfering in religion affects the next life and there is no end (literally) to the magnitude of its impact. The stakes are far greater when one's soul is on the line.
The Cold War was most definitely fought with weapons. Plenty of people on both sides of the conflict died attempting to prevent or defend the spread of communism.
Justin Davis
11-13-2007, 12:28 PM
As I and Mags said a long time ago, if you don't like the term, we can call it a cultural debate, if you prefer. Unless you feel there is no debate, nationally and internationally, about cultures, values, beliefs, ideas, and morals, and which should prevail and proliferate...
That last part doesn't make any sense, so I'm only addressing the first sentence.
Yes, call it a debate. Of course, if you call it a debate, it puts everything else said by those who want to call it a war into question. Instead of "Ending the Culture War," it will be "Ending the Culture Debate". The debate shouldn't end. It should just be done with more honesty, less ad hominem attacks, and more intelligently. Thank you for proving the point of everyone who tried to explain why choosing the word war to characterize political and social debate and discussions is more damaging than not though.
Fenris
11-13-2007, 12:29 PM
So long as we have politics, we're going to disagree about something, because that's what politics is: the expression and conflict and compromise of domestic disagreements.
So regarding Mags' original point, I'd say that the conflict in general will never end; though the present issues may fade away in time, to be replaced by other ones.
Side note:
Firstly, wars are at their heart more about the acquisition of resources than they are about the clash of ideologies. Always have been.
I disagree. Wars are a complex interaction of national interest, security, and honor. Economics is usually a component, but it's not at all the only important part.
Secondly, by virtue of the fact that Americans HAVEN'T taken their disagreements over abortion and school prayer to "the level of killing" pretty much disproves your point.
But this I'd agree with. "War" in general- on drugs, poverty, or whatever- is a poor political metaphor.
õ
Not that there's a shortage of these!
Paradox
11-13-2007, 12:31 PM
Samurai isn't getting it:
As I and Mags said a long time ago, if you don't like the term, we can call it a cultural debate, if you prefer. Unless you feel there is no debate, nationally and internationally, about cultures, values, beliefs, ideas, and morals, and which should prevail and proliferate...
It's not that there's not debate, it's that there's not SIDES! Two sides aren't clashing, millions of them are mushing together.
Paul McEnery
11-13-2007, 01:22 PM
It's not that there's not debate, it's that there's not SIDES! Two sides aren't clashing, millions of them are mushing together.
But Dox, you know that there's two kinds of people.
I disagree. Wars are a complex interaction of national interest, security, and honor. Economics is usually a component, but it's not at all the only important part.
That's pretty much the Bizarro version of my point of view. Exactly the opposite. At the heart of almost all wars is the acquisition of power and/or resources and they're dressed up in notions of honor and national interest in order to get people willing to line up and fight in them.
Tish-the-Scorpion
11-13-2007, 01:43 PM
hey what about the liberals who loves guns....such as myself.and i'm not a hippy.
Slam_Bradley
11-13-2007, 01:44 PM
Seems to me if we can have Cola Wars we can have Culture Wars.
The "culture war" is almost as significant.
mattx110
11-13-2007, 01:48 PM
Seems to me if we can have Cola Wars we can have Culture Wars.
The "culture war" is almost as significant.
"New USA" sucked balls.
Michael P
11-13-2007, 01:49 PM
Seems to me if we can have Cola Wars we can have Culture Wars.
The "culture war" is almost as significant.
Where does the Bud Bowl fit in?
Comic_Mobsta
11-13-2007, 02:11 PM
hey what about the liberals who loves guns....such as myself.and i'm not a hippy.Still....gun toting liberals have almost nothing in common with gun toting conservatives.
Samurai
11-13-2007, 02:20 PM
It's not that there's not debate, it's that there's not SIDES! Two sides aren't clashing, millions of them are mushing together.
Well, I disagree with that. Debates have sides. Issues have sides. People of a like mind on a particular issue or debate, even if they disagree on other issues, form a "side" of that issue. Sides tend to have some variation of opinion within them, though... "pro-life" and "pro-choice", for instance, may have include people who are generally one or the other, except in certain cases. But very minor differences don't constitute a whole other side.
Tish-the-Scorpion
11-13-2007, 02:22 PM
Still....gun toting liberals have almost nothing in common with gun toting conservatives.eh..i always thought "gun toting" liberals carried guns to protect themselves from the "gun toting" rednecks,and god-fearing patriots"..at least that was the idea behind the panthers,and the BLA.
Magneto X
11-13-2007, 03:14 PM
Isn't race is an "illusion" if some races have more chormosomes in common with other races than with their own? Any talk of race should be replaced with a zen like hum of silence so, if we stop believing (along with just a few billion others) it will just vanish as a cultural norm! No longer will the media cover it or politicans stumble on the concept, right Tom? So why should Republicans even bother to notice that 90% of blacks vote Democratic. They can take heart that black people simply don't exist, like you seem to take heart that the far right and far left don't either, and that Clinton was impeached because of his policies or his perjury and not his relationship to a pheonemon you don't believe in. Isn't it the most obtuse philosophy "How do we exist?" "What is thought?" here? Neither Hillary or any major media outlet even saying their is no culture war, so it's something candidates will be asked about, if you don't mind us asking here. Are you so desperate to protect Hillary from discussion of one of her weakspots that you would try to suddenly raise the bar of conceptual entry to require more evidence that a concept is influencial in pollitics than:
thousands (if not millions) of newspaper articles naming "culture war" or "values voters" or "family values debate", millions of books sales, twelve states amended their Constitution (when was the last time that happened, dude?), numerous pro-life and pro-choice polls, legislation, protests and rallies, and 21 communities covering 18 states had a controversy and litigation or legislation regarding creationism in the public schools
--- to conceed that, whether you think it shouldn't be a cultural concept that the media IS GOING TO COVER and since it is, and the media has some role to play in elecions, we can now proceed to get your input on how well Hillary and the other candidates will do addressing it? I can't beleive you are making me "prove" a well known issue before "deeming" to address how well candidates will do at addressing it, but fine, here:
Myth: The culture war is over—or never happened.
This is an issue that extends well beyond religion, including broader questions about values, morality, politics, education, and the arts, and yet religion is at its core. In 1988, when I published The Restructuring of American Religion, I documented with both quantitative and historical evidence what I termed a growing fracture or division between self-identified religious conservatives and self-identified religious liberals.[17] I did not term the division a culture war but wrote that there were developments in religion, politics, and the media that were reinforcing it in ways that had not been present during the 1950s and 1960s.
Three years later, at about the same time that Pat Buchanan delivered his widely viewed address about culture wars, the sociologist James Davison Hunter published the widely read book arguing that there was indeed a culture war between those with orthodox religious worldviews and those with progressive views.[18] Other books and popular articles made a similar point, and ongoing debates within denominations about abortion, homosexuality, and related issues underscored the point that the nation was divided culturally.
However, the image of a culture war never sat comfortably with many observers who saw the debate being fomented more by special-interest groups than at the grassroots and who thought there was a large segment of the population in the middle who either did not care or held less polarized views. By the late 1990s, the pendulum among scholarly experts had swung decidedly in the other direction to the point that it became popular to argue that there was no culture war at all. If one appeared to exist, the critics said, it was either concerned with a very narrow range of issues—perhaps only one— and probably was being exploited cynically by political operatives.[19] In the past year or two, a new line of argument has become popular; namely, that there was a culture war in the 1980s and 1990s, but that was the divisive politics of the baby-boom generation and is now being transcended by a new generation of political and religious leaders.[20]
Forecasting is always risky, but there are reasons to question the view that culture wars are simply a relic of the past. For one thing, some of the data collected during the 1980s and 1990s did show increasing polarization. This was the case for opinions about abortion. It was also the case on self-report questions about religious identity in which more people identified themselves on the extreme right or extreme left than identified themselves in the middle.
A second reason to suggest that culture wars may continue is the evidence we just considered about religious affiliation: Evangelicals, who are most likely to espouse conservative moral views, are at least holding their own; the nonreligious, who are most likely to hold liberal moral views, are becoming a larger segment of the society; and mainline Protestants, who have held moderate or mixed views, are declining. Catholics are holding their own as a percentage of the population, but traditional Catholics hold quite different views from liberal Catholics.
A third consideration is that evangelical Protestants in their 20s and 30s, who are relatively moderate or mixed in their views about homosexuality, have become more conservative in their views about abortion.
Finally, data on the two largest immigrant groups—Latinos and Asian Americans—suggest that they are religiously divided on moral issues in much the same way that white European Americans are.[21] Naturally, much about how salient these issues will be is likely to depend on who the candidates are in 2008 and what other issues are on the table, but it is quite reasonable to imagine that religious divi*sions about moral issues will still be important.
Robert Wuthnow, Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University. These remarks were delivered as part of a conference on "Religious Practice and Civic Life: What the Research Says," with research partners Child Trends and the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion and funding provided by the John Templeton Foundation, held in Arlington, Virginia, on October 4, 2007.
How do the candidates differ at this not-to-be named cultural debate?
I've put down some opinion for Obama and McCain, any of the other candidates prepared to defuse this back and forth?
mattx110
11-13-2007, 03:22 PM
eh..i always thought "gun toting" liberals carried guns to protect themselves from the "gun toting" rednecks,and god-fearing patriots"..at least that was the idea behind the panthers,and the BLA.
actually, most of them girly bastards carry a gun to match their tote bags.
howyadoin
11-13-2007, 03:24 PM
Impressive use of large type there.
Slam_Bradley
11-13-2007, 03:26 PM