Alan Keyes, the only true conservative in the race

[drogulus]

My suggestion would be that the U.S. democratic system is not sensitive enough to produce this "design" in its politicians. In the perfect democracy, politicians should be indeed reflections of the public will, but its very rare that they are. Consider, the decks are stacked from the beginning since you really only have two viable parties from which to choose. Furthermore, consider a pervasive media that has its own stake in the elections, and which will shape the attitudes of the populace with its often distortive coverages. Then, we have the politicians themselves, tailoring the message to fit bullet-point type speeches, manufacturing an image ("maverick", "change" etc.) that is far more important than the issues.

I would claim that these factors (and many more) diminish the selective pressure voters can exert on their politicians. In the end, due to all of the deception, the voters are electing figments that have been presented before them, not the actual values and issues that are hidden beneath the presentation. Further, I would suggest that the design of which you speak manifests itself more in these manufactured personas that the politicians assume to get votes, rather than actual policies.

If we are to draw an evolution parallel, the politicians that are most fit are not those whose actual policies reflect the wishes of the populace, but the politicians whose perceived policies can be most easily marketed. It is a case of mimicry that is more convincing than the real deal. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a form of sexual selection, where the politicians dazzle us (their potential mates) with the magnificence of their plumage (their media-manufactured images). We, of course, swoon at their bravado, and fall for their pretty lies and cheap gifts. Then of course, they cheat on us, but really, we deserve it. But it hurts, nonetheless.

BTW, I'm not necessarily saying any democracy on Earth is better than the US, that is another question for another thread.

EDIT: Silly English illustrative metaphors... and typos

   Politicians are supposed to be vulnerable to pressures. Democracy is a crude but effective control system. It's worst feature is lag, because unlike dictatorships it can't respond quickly. It does have superior error correction, which turns out to matter more than freedom from initial error in most circumstances. Besides, what protection from special interests does unrepresentative government provide? Not that I think you favor this, I'm just thinking out loud. 

   

Yeah, only homophobes are allowed to blithely disregard such questions of interpretation when they quote their favorite cherry-picked passages from Leviticus.  

    The problem is not Leviticus. It's using any document containing it as an authority for anything other than the history of a belief system. Morality can't be authorized by a book, even a "good" book. My wrong actions are properly judged by the conscience of the community, and that community is corrected by the conscience of the individual. Actually, they correct each other, and the process never ends. Democracy is preferred because it does this better than any other system, even though it's not foolproof. No heavenly or earthly absolutism can do better.

It is unfortunate that "phobia" has been attached to "homo" in trying to describe the Religious Right Wing's opinion of gays, because they are not afraid of gays. Clearly, they should be called "gayhaters," as in "Alan Keyes is such a gayhater, he disowned his lesbian daughter."

What they do, the gayhaters, should be called "gayhating" (which term can also be used adjectivally, as in "the gayhating head of Focus on the Family," or "The Religious Right met in Colorado Springs this weekend to discuss their 2009 Gayhating Agenda).

Fear of gays, you are right, has never been the issue.

     I agree. If I hate someone, I might make it more palatable by claiming that my Big Brother really loves them and wants to torture them forever for their own good. Interpretively speaking, that is.

[Joe_Campbell]

It is unfortunate that "phobia" has been attached to "homo" in trying to describe the Religious Right Wing's opinion of gays, because they are not afraid of gays. Clearly, they should be called "gayhaters," as in "Alan Keyes is such a gayhater, he disowned his lesbian daughter."

What they do, the gayhaters, should be called "gayhating" (which term can also be used adjectivally, as in "the gayhating head of Focus on the Family," or "The Religious Right met in Colorado Springs this weekend to discuss their 2009 Gayhating Agenda).

Fear of gays, you are right, has never been the issue.

To say that this person represents the majority view of of the 'Religious Right' (whatever that means) is incorrect. The term 'gayhater' is even less accurate. Even though Keyes may have disowned his daughter, many of the 'Religious Right' simply don't agree with homosexuality. To equivocate this to hatred is dishonest. There may be some to whom 'hate' might be appicable, but the term homophobe (and gayhater...a new one!) is thrown around far too much.

[scarpia]

Consider, the decks are stacked from the beginning since you really only have two viable parties from which to choose.

You miss the point.  The two parties are not static, they evolve as the values of the electorate changes as they vie for voters.  You can almost think of the republican or democratic party as a governing coalition in parliamentary system, except that the coalition is formed before the election.

[Kullervo]

To say that this person represents the majority view of of the 'Religious Right' (whatever that means) is incorrect. The term 'gayhater' is even less accurate. Even though Keyes may have disowned his daughter, many of the 'Religious Right' simply don't agree with homosexuality. To equivocate this to hatred is dishonest. There may be some to whom 'hate' might be appicable, but the term homophobe (and gayhater...a new one!) is thrown around far too much.

Let's just stick to "morons", then.

[Daidalos]

   Politicians are supposed to be vulnerable to pressures. Democracy is a crude but effective control system. It's worst feature is lag, because unlike dictatorships it can't respond quickly. It does have superior error correction, which turns out to matter more than freedom from initial error in most circumstances. Besides, what protection from special interests does unrepresentative government provide? Not that I think you favor this, I'm just thinking out loud. 

Of course, I don't favour unrepresentative government, I'm just saying that our democratic system is not very democratic, and not very representative, and not very willing to correct errors either. For a functioning democracy, we need more transparency, an unbiased media (that's the difficult one), and politicians must be made to answer for actions when it is discovered they have transgressed. Transparency and an inquisitive, nonpartisan media are prerequisites for this, I'd say.

When it comes to errors we don't seem to want so correct, you can look at Iraq. Also, I'd say this insane loop you're caught in when it comes to taxes is a grave error; it's political suicide in America, it would seem, to suggest raising taxes, but sometimes you really need to raise taxes. To finance such vast enterprises as a war, and provide basic essentials for the people, wantonly cutting taxes strikes me as unstable.

[Todd]

....but the term homophobe (and gayhater...a new one!) is thrown around far too much.

No doubt, but so are lots of terms.  The construction of "homophobia" is actually quite silly; the idea it deals with is not.  So now, why do so many conservative/fundamentalist/whatever-term-you-like Christians have such a problem with homosexuality?  It's because, based on a rather too literal interpretation of the good book, possibly combined with a lack of intellectual sharpness, they conclude that somehow "those" people are bad.  I'm not sure how rational such an outlook is, but whatever.  By the way what does "agree with homosexuality" mean?

[drogulus]

To say that this person represents the majority view of of the 'Religious Right' (whatever that means) is incorrect. The term 'gayhater' is even less accurate. Even though Keyes may have disowned his daughter, many of the 'Religious Right' simply don't agree with homosexuality. To equivocate this to hatred is dishonest. There may be some to whom 'hate' might be appicable, but the term homophobe (and gayhater...a new one!) is thrown around far too much.

     Phobia and hatred are both more generally accurate than the "loving" desire to punish. But what really gets me is the term you use here. What does disagreeing with homosexuality mean in the context it appears in at these rallies? To me it looks like a rather polite way of saying these are the people we are against and they can expect no consideration from us when we're in power. And that's exactly how it has worked. Disagreeing with homosexuality is actually more euphemistic and distorting than hate or fear. It makes it look like a dispassionate policy dispute instead of the workings of emotion.

Of course, I don't favour unrepresentative government, I'm just saying that our democratic system is not very democratic, and not very representative, and not very willing to correct errors either. For a functioning democracy, we need more transparency, an unbiased media (that's the difficult one), and politicians must be made to answer for actions when it is discovered they have transgressed. Transparency and an inquisitive, nonpartisan media are prerequisites for this, I'd say.

When it comes to errors we don't seem to want so correct, you can look at Iraq. Also, I'd say this insane loop you're caught in when it comes to taxes is a grave error; it's political suicide in America, it would seem, to suggest raising taxes, but sometimes you really need to raise taxes. To finance such vast enterprises as a war, and provide basic essentials for the people, wantonly cutting taxes strikes me as unstable.

     The Iraq war has its own error correction going on. The war evolves away from the opinions of both supporters and opponents. The next president will not answer the question the election hinged on, but a different question: What do we do now?

[Jay F]

To say that this person represents the majority view of of the 'Religious Right' (whatever that means) is incorrect. The term 'gayhater' is even less accurate. Even though Keyes may have disowned his daughter, many of the 'Religious Right' simply don't agree with homosexuality. To equivocate this to hatred is dishonest. There may be some to whom 'hate' might be appicable, but the term homophobe (and gayhater...a new one!) is thrown around far too much.

That's so much disingenuous horseshit, and you know it, that the Religious Right doesn't hate gays. Just because you cherry-pick parts of a book to use as religious justification for -- well, what do you call gayhating if it's neither gayhating nor homophobia? -- discriminating against a class of people, it doesn't mean you're right--correct, that is. And you certainly don't get to call it anything other than what it is.

If Alan Keyes' gayhating doesn't represent the majority view of the RR, well, then four televisions have lied to me since 1980 (when I first discovered Jerry Falwell).

If you really loved gays, you would leave them alone, and not make this noxious stink about their being able to get married. I pray that gays' being unable to marry will go the way of slavery before long.

[Daidalos]

You miss the point.  The two parties are not static, they evolve as the values of the electorate changes as they vie for voters.  You can almost think of the republican or democratic party as a governing coalition in parliamentary system, except that the coalition is formed before the election.

Certainly, they're not static, but they do not really exhibit as wide a variation of political opinion when compared to other nations. Almost always, both parties fall quite to the right on the spectrum when compared to European political parties. The system is also rather self-perpetuating, since any move to the left, even if it is towards the centre (again, from a European standpoint), opponents cry "liberal", "commie", and the media are happy to oblige. Seriously, we see on the news people at rallies mistake Obama for a socialist.

And even if the parties evolve, which they certainly do, it's always within boundaries. The question becomes, do these boundaries encompass the majority of American political opinion? It is a difficult question to answer, since to my biased eyes it appears Americans base their decisions more on the personality of the candidate, rather than issues for which he or she stands. It is unquestionable that in America, elections are driven more by personality than in Europe (at least Sweden). Since the elections are so personality-driven (the same for the primaries, that's my observation), do the "evolving" values of the parties really cover such a wide span?

[drogulus]

And even if the parties evolve, which they certainly do, it's always within boundaries. The question becomes, do these boundaries encompass the majority of American political opinion? It is a difficult question to answer, since to my biased eyes it appears Americans base their decisions more on the personality of the candidate, rather than issues for which he or she stands.

      The parties do represent in a general way the various constituent parts they are formed by. So it's a matter of regions, urban versus suburban and/or rural, as well as expressly ideological for those who see things that way. I don't think it's that different from what Europeans are used to. The biggest differences concern the nature of our constitutional order with a Bill of Rights, and of course our ongoing tradition of dissenting religion, which are rather odd from a distant perspective, I imagine.

[Joe_Campbell]

No doubt, but so are lots of terms.  The construction of "homophobia" is actually quite silly; the idea it deals with is not.  So now, why do so many conservative/fundamentalist/whatever-term-you-like Christians have such a problem with homosexuality?  It's because, based on a rather too literal interpretation of the good book, possibly combined with a lack of intellectual sharpness, they conclude that somehow "those" people are bad.  I'm not sure how rational such an outlook is, but whatever.  By the way what does "agree with homosexuality" mean?

Christians I know (I won't speak for fundamentalists...) would never consider a homosexual person "bad." It's a "loving the person but not agreeing with what the do." Anyone who's had kids would know this. If your kid does something wrong, you usually reprimand them, but don't stop loving them. I don't agree with reprimanding homosexual people, but I do think it's possible to separate people from their sexual identity. Certainly, there are those out there who do actually don't like homosexual people, but that hardly represents the majority, despite what Jay F's TV says.

Phobia and hatred are both more generally accurate than the "loving" desire to punish. But what really gets me is the term you use here. What does disagreeing with homosexuality mean in the context it appears in at these rallies? To me it looks like a rather polite way of saying these are the people we are against and they can expect no consideration from us when we're in power. And that's exactly how it has worked. Disagreeing with homosexuality is actually more euphemistic and distorting than hate or fear. It makes it look like a dispassionate policy dispute instead of the workings of emotion.

I'm not sure who you're saying has a "'loving' desire to punish?" You seem to be unable to separate a person from their actions, since that's, after all, the only thing that separates heteros from homos.

...

If you really loved gays, you would leave them alone, and not make this noxious stink about their being able to get married. I pray that gays' being unable to marry will go the way of slavery before long.

I believe I already responded to essentially the same posts above, so I'll just comment on this. In Canada, common law partners and married couples are afforded the nearly same benefits . Now, since 1999, same-sex partnership has been included under common law. Now marriage as well. However, given that marriage is a religious practice (which unfortunately has legal implications, something I think is ridiculous) why would homosexual people want so hard to be bound under a contract which contains the whiff of 'hatred' (as you call it) towards their union? Is common law not good enough? I think there are a couple of issues:

a)common-law relationships and marriages need to be made indistinguishable, so that,
b)the separation between church and "state" (province?) can be complete. This way, fundamentalists can keep their 'sacred institution of marriage' and perhaps then maybe the whole world won't have the homosexual minority under a microscope.

[scarpia]

I believe I already responded to essentially the same posts above, so I'll just comment on this. In Canada, common law partners and married couples are afforded the nearly same benefits . Now, since 1999, same-sex partnership has been included under common law. Now marriage as well. However, given that marriage is a religious practice (which unfortunately has legal implications, something I think is ridiculous) why would homosexual people want so hard to be bound under a contract which contains the whiff of 'hatred' (as you call it) towards their union? Is common law not good enough? I think there are a couple of issues:

a)common-law relationships and marriages need to be made indistinguishable, so that,
b)the separation between church and "state" (province?) can be complete. This way, fundamentalists can keep their 'sacred institution of marriage' and perhaps then maybe the whole world won't have the homosexual minority under a microscope.

Even if you think marriage is essentially religious, there is no reason to think that homosexuals can't be just as religious as heterosexuals, and there is no basis for assuming that a certain group of homophobic religious right idiots should have to power to declare that the religious sentiments of homosexuals are invalid.  In the second place, "marriage" is not limited to religious people, since marriage is just as common among non-believers and believers, and was certain sanctioned by overtly atheist regimes such as the Soviet Union.  The fact that religious right people feel they have to prevent gay people from getting married to "protect marriage" shows that they are motivated by hate, pure and simple.

Reminds me of the big stink the religious right morons made when Disney extended health insurance to same-sex partners, boycotting Disney movies, etc, in an effort to "protect marriage."  As if health insurance companies are in charge of sanctifying marriage. 

[scarpia]

Certainly, they're not static, but they do not really exhibit as wide a variation of political opinion when compared to other nations. Almost always, both parties fall quite to the right on the spectrum when compared to European political parties. The system is also rather self-perpetuating, since any move to the left, even if it is towards the centre (again, from a European standpoint), opponents cry "liberal", "commie", and the media are happy to oblige. Seriously, we see on the news people at rallies mistake Obama for a socialist.

And even if the parties evolve, which they certainly do, it's always within boundaries. The question becomes, do these boundaries encompass the majority of American political opinion? It is a difficult question to answer, since to my biased eyes it appears Americans base their decisions more on the personality of the candidate, rather than issues for which he or she stands. It is unquestionable that in America, elections are driven more by personality than in Europe (at least Sweden). Since the elections are so personality-driven (the same for the primaries, that's my observation), do the "evolving" values of the parties really cover such a wide span?

It appears that form your opinions of the US by watching television.  Under the democrat banner are the Green party, the liberal party, liberal religions types, the Ralph Nader crowd (which would be considered left of center, even in Europe, I think).  The republicans include fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, southern racists, religious right idiots, and neo-fascists such as we see on this thread.  Of course the presidential candidate represents the median of each group, but there are diverse interests represented.

[Joe_Campbell]

Even if you think marriage is essentially religious, there is no reason to think that homosexuals can't be just as religious as heterosexuals, and there is no basis for assuming that a certain group of homophobic religious right idiots should have to power to declare that the religious sentiments of homosexuals are invalid. 

I'm surprised to hear this coming from you, considering in other threads you've indirectly said that all religious sentiments are invalid.

[drogulus]

I'm not sure who you're saying has a "'loving' desire to punish?" You seem to be unable to separate a person from their actions, since that's, after all, the only thing that separates heteros from homos. 

     Wha?? I don't think anything separates gays and straights in regards to rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Heteros are not, in this manner, the parents of the homos, except biologically, of course Adult homos have the same right to petition the gov't as anyone else, and the question of what constitutes special rights that are properly denied and what are general rights that must be granted is one that must be decided on a case by case basis. I want the deciders, the ones I vote for, to consider the good of those who face the brunt of thinly disguised prejudice, and not just the majority. The rabble-rousers do not look promising from that perspective, and they have a history, too, that tells against them.

[scarpia]

I'm surprised to hear this coming from you, considering in other threads you've indirectly said that all religious sentiments are invalid.

People are welcome to believe in the Easter Bunny if they wish, as long as they don't seek to base government policy on such fairy tales.

[adamdavid80]

It is unfortunate that "phobia" has been attached to "homo" in trying to describe the Religious Right Wing's opinion of gays, because they are not afraid of gays. Clearly, they should be called "gayhaters," as in "Alan Keyes is such a gayhater, he disowned his lesbian daughter."

What they do, the gayhaters, should be called "gayhating" (which term can also be used adjectivally, as in "the gayhating head of Focus on the Family," or "The Religious Right met in Colorado Springs this weekend to discuss their 2009 Gayhating Agenda).

Fear of gays, you are right, has never been the issue.

To continue this same wordthink, I've always found the term "anti-semitic" to be misrepresentative towards, say, Nazis, and that ilk.  "Semites" aren't necessarily Jews, and Nazis specifically hated Jews.  And not just hated, but wanted and attempted to eradicate them.  To call that "Anti-Semitic" is completely misrepresentative.  A new term, "Judenhass" (Jew hatred) has begun to circulate.  I think it's valid and appropriate.

[adamdavid80]

Even if you think marriage is essentially religious, there is no reason to think that homosexuals can't be just as religious as heterosexuals,

Exactly.  And what makes you think marriage was EVER really so much about religion?  Arranged marriages were always REALLY about the dowry, sometimes about stregthening upper class elements even further. 


So, J, since you don't beleive that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, does that mean they shouldn have to be bound to the same laws and principles?  Should they be free from having to pay taxes?  After all, they're a different class, somehow difficient, right?  Who wants their dirty money anyway?  They probably made it by doing heinous, sinful acts in the first place.

[Daidalos]

It appears that form your opinions of the US by watching television. 

Actually, I form my opinions of the US by reading books about it, and articles in newspapers and magazines. Admittedly, the last couple of books I read might've been slightly biased (Noam Chomsky being the author and all), but I try to balance it as good as I can.

Under the democrat banner are the Green party, the liberal party, liberal religions types, the Ralph Nader crowd (which would be considered left of center, even in Europe, I think).  The republicans include fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, southern racists, religious right idiots, and neo-fascists such as we see on this thread.  Of course the presidential candidate represents the median of each group, but there are diverse interests represented.

Oh, I know there are different factions within each party, but can you really go so far that the Greens and Ralph Nader crowd fall under the democrat banner? Certainly, the democrats might be closer to them, and when push comes to shove, the more left-leaning vote for the Democrats rather than the Republicans, but the actual policies of the Democratic party (mostly the fiscal policies, granted) fall categorically right of centre by a large margin. Those to the left don't have much of a choice, a vote for a third party candidate seems to be regarded as a wasted vote, so they must choose the "lesser evil" and go democrat. Are they really represented by the democratic candidate? Just as long as the Democrats are slightly less to the right than the Republicans, don't they in essence secure the leftist vote by default?

I'm curious about the American system and I wish to learn about it, since whomever you choose to lead you will affect the rest of the world profoundly. If you can correct any misconceptions I might have, I would only be happier.

[Jay F]

Who wants their dirty money anyway?  They probably made it by doing heinous, sinful acts in the first place.