Thursday, January 29, 2004

Growing up outside of Boston, the democrats I knew were from an old mold: Pro-death penalty, pro life, pro union, Irish, French Canadian, Catholic, Greek. Civil rights was a very distant movement for a town of one hundred thousand that segregated beyond race into fourteen catholic parishes and one greek orthodox. These democrats cared about the day to day struggle to make a living, not the high minded movements that defined the Democratic party on a national level. The national republican party stance increasingly mirrored the very conservative social stance of most of these third and fourth generation democrats. Locally, the party mechanics of the long entrenched democratic party keeps the majority of city councilors, mayors, state representatives, and state senators democrats. However, republicans have started a bit of a dynasty in the executive branch, based largely on their stance toward social issues. Where else besides Massachusetts, could then president of the State Senate, democratic demi-god Billy Bulger, make a stand against school busing and integration? As the republicans are keen on pointing out, what exactly do democrats stand for? gay marriage? While I think that same-sex couples (that is two human beings, for all you conservative readers hoping to make the slippery slope argument) should be permitted to legally bind, it is not exactly the most morally or ethically energizing of issues. It seems more like a final step in a long progression. To the republican conservatives, however, it is the perfect bogey man. Marriage is one of the many points of state and church that seem impossible for many to disentangle. "It's a sacrement" I have heard said by the devout catholics I know. (Aside: With all due respect, that is like saying a birth certificate equates to a christening.) The point is, the issue has become a defining point of the democratic party stance because the republicans have used it as the slogan issue for how far out in left field the democrats are playing. So, I admire the article below. But I disagree. We are being forced to polarize because of the rise of a conservative movement, which is fracturing, by the way, between neo-cons and traditional conservatives (redundant I know I know). The majority of the country is in the middle on social issues like criminal justice, abortion, and civil rights. However, when it comes to education and class mobility, I don't think I have ever met a single person who thinks the current disparity and rigidity of american economic classes is ethical. So why can't we take it to the republicans on a issue everyone really cares about? Op-Ed Contributor: The Dead Center

No comments:

Post a Comment