November 3rd

You may have seen this already; if not, the below are points that we, Democrats, should be thinking about very seriously — especially as the party’s leadership is apparently considering doing more of the same, that is, being “more moderate”.

——————————————————

Insanity is continuing to do the same things over and over again and expecting a different result.

—
XI
—
Conservatives have spent the last 40 years getting clear about the values they represent. They have even developed a “family values” brand to represent a framework that coheres traditional prejudices around prayer in school, gun rights, restricting abortion, and restricting gay rights.

—-
XII
—-
By contrast, liberal or “progressive” groups and Democrats have spent the same period of time defining themselves against conservative values, even “morality” in general.

—-
XV
—-
Candidates who intend to win should no longer hire consultants who repeatedly lose. Those who counsel caution when dealing with the indifferent, the disaffected, and the undecided do not understand American history. Consultants who advise their clients against offering a clear and compelling vision in fear that it will be attacked should find themselves without a home in the Democratic Party. The sooner they retire, the better.

—-
XV
—-
Democrats serious about returning to majority status must:

• Retire any leader who believes that we are currently on a winning path that simply needs more money and effort.
• Define and articulate a coherent set of values of our base, and be willing to lose those allies who do not share these values.
• Fight battles, win or lose, that define and advance our values and expand our political base.

——————————————————

See the complete list of articles here:
http://www.3nov.com/images/november3-big.gif

The Word of God!?

As to what I found fascinating and puzzling about the poll, which has been conducted yearly since 1976, with pretty much the same results, are the following:

• 34% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) belive that “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.”
• 25% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago.

These two percentages are simply incredible to me. The presence of such significant percentages of the U.S. population that hold such an alternate and un-factually based understanding of the natural and modern world creates conditions that ripe for exploitation.

No Wonder We’ve Got Bush(ed)

Some just refuse to accept modernity. Given the following, it appears that any candidate (read: Bush) willing to pander and wear his religion on his sleeve, starts off with a about a third of the popular vote faithfully built in:

———————————————————————

*Gallup has been asking the following for many years, here are this year’s results*

EVOLUTION

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is � [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don’t you know enough about it to say?

- Supported by evidence: 35%
- Not supported by evidence: 35%
- Don’t know enough to say: 29%
- No opinion: 1%

[...]

Yet, [evolution] is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

CREATIONISM

The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God — as stated in the Bible — essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings — [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

- Man developed, with God guiding: 38%
- Man developed, but God had no part in process: 13%
- God created man in present form: 45%
- Other/No opinion: 4%

BIBLICAL LITERACY

Although 45% of Americans believe that humans were created by God pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago — a view that corresponds to the account of creation as presented in the Bible — only 34% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible — the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?

- Actual: 34%
- Inspired: 48%
- Fables: 15%
- No opinion: 3%

BELIEF IN A LITERAL BIBLE AND IN CREATIONISM

A segmentation of Americans based on their responses to the questions about creationism and biblical literacy finds that a quarter of Americans can be considered to be true literalists — believing not only in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but also in the creationist view of the origin of humans.

25% of U.S. population is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- Women
- Age 30 and older
- No college degree
- Conservative
- Republicans
- Weekly church attendees
- Protestant

20% of U.S. population is considered to believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago, but not biblical literalists. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- 18- to 29-year-olds

9% of U.S. population are considered biblical literalists but do not believe humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- High school or less

46% of U.S. population are not biblical literalists and also do not believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):

- Men
- East and West Coasts
- Urban
- College graduates
- Higher income
- Liberal
- Independents
- Seldom, never attend church
- Catholics

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF SUPPORT FOR DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION

% Who Believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Is a Scientific Theory Well Supported by the Evidence

*Subgroup*
————————
- Postgraduate education: 65%
- Liberal: 56%
- College graduate: 52%
- West: 47%
- Seldom, never attend church: 46%
- Catholics: 46%
- 50- to 64-year-olds: 44%
- Men: 42%
- East: 42%
- 18- to 29-year-olds: 41%
- Independent: 40%
- Democrat: 38%
- Moderate: 36%

———————————————————————

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14107

PROPOSAL: Call on Democrats to Take a Principled Stand

As we’re well aware of, in the past few days and in the months and years to come, the Democratic Party will receive countless bits of solicited and unsolicited advice from: professional political consultants, media pundits, think thanks, pollsters, national advocacy organizations and, believe it or not, from Republicans. As individuals nominally aligned with the Democratic Party, we must make sure that our interests and voices are not drowned out in the fury of advice that’s sure to come the Democratic Party’s way…

With that in mind, I’d like to put forward what I hope is a simple and tangible objective that can be achieved before inauguration: Let’s make sure that OUR elected Democratic representatives know that we are out here, in the cities and towns across America, and that we expect them to STAND FOR SOMETHING — to stand for values of Hope over Fear, for values of Tolerance and Inclusion, and to stand for the promise of the America that has yet to be, but which we know it can become; let’s let them know that capitulation for the apparent sake of conciliation is too high a price to pay if it means compromising the hard-fought for gains in the civil rights arena, consumer protections, rudimentary security for our elderly, the conservation of our natural resources, worker’s rights and a couple’s right to determine their reproductive destiny.

Before laying out the proposal which I hope we can enact together, allow me a few lines to provide a bare bones description of where WE are. First, who are the WE that I speak of? I’ll answer by providing a description of who I see my self as, and by presuming that You share shades of a similar worldview. I, We, embrace inclusion and tolerance, reason and modernity; I, We, know that America works best when our burdens and bounty are shared, and; I, We, understand that at various junctions in our American family’s history, people with our worldview — Liberals, Progressives, Idealists — have had to step forward to assert and affirm our meritorious values, and in the process have made the American family ever more inclusive. As I see it, it is this very thing — our values and ideals — that’s at stake in the wake of the 2004 elections.

The following may seem alarmist and premature, but — when considered against the backdrop of our national politics — I soberly suggest that it is neither. At present, the Democratic Party is flirting with irrelevance and obsolescence as a national institution; because, the Democratic Party has been practically muscled out of all three branches of government and, too, since Republicans already have — and will continue to — amass greater influence amongst the lobbying, regulatory and bureaucratic apparatuses of Washington, DC. Of course, the future of the Democratic Party could be drastically different if two or four years from now the situation in Iraq and our economy are much worst; accordingly, if such were to be the case, as a backlash, the Democratic Party could be swept into power across the nation. However, such catastrophic outcomes in Iraq and for our economy would come at a terrible cost, and may be too high a price for all of us to pay just to see the Republican Party ejected from power. Besides, such dire scenarios are relatively unlikely, and may not necessarily result in a backlash against the Republican Party — why, just look at the evidence of the past four years.

If the preceding is even remotely true, We — the grassroots of the Democratic Party — have some hard decisions to make: 1. We may choose to do nothing and hope for the best, 2. We may choose to abandon the Democratic Party, after deeming it a weak steward of our progressive values, and then decide to join or even create an alternative party, or 3. We can choose to raise our voices now, and demand that our elected Democratic Party representatives fight for our progressive principles and, too, defend the gains we’ve made over the past century. Clearly doing nothing and hoping for the best is unacceptable and unprincipled; then, there’s the second option, which is certainly more principled than the first, though — at present — would represent a tremendous gamble, unless one is willing to let things deteriorate further still; finally, as I hope will happen, We can opt to do something to encourage the national Democratic Party to take a stand on our behalf.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is simple and attainable on or before the Presidential inauguration. Of course, this document only contains a rough outline of the proposal — as the campaign’s details can be worked out in the days ahead for optimal visibility and impact. As you may be aware of, many of our fellow citizens are planning to voice their concerns on the streets of the capital on inauguration day; of course, as was the case after the elections of 2000, their efforts may go largely unmentioned by our media — unless, of course, large scale disorder breaks out. Accordingly, either scenario — the media’s silence or disorder on the streets — jeopardizes the legitimacy of our concerns over and opposition to the policies of the Bush administration and of the Republican Party; consequently, either scenario may further calcify the national Democratic Party’s inefficacy to mount a unified and principled stand. Therefore, we should open up an immediate front that’ll force the media to air the concerns of the Democratic Party’s grassroots, and that’ll call on the national Democratic Party to take a principled stand.

THE GOAL: The goal is to galvanize the grassroots of the Democratic Party, and to call on the national party to take a principled stand for our Progressive Values.

MEANS: The immediate objective is to publish full-page newspapers ads all across America addressing the national Democratic Party — we should plan on starting with the New York Times, before or on inauguration day. Aside from calling on the Democratic Party to take a principled stand, the ads will also urge fellow Democrats to participate in the campaign by publishing similar ads in local and national newspapers and, too, to contact elected Democratic representatives to let them know that the grassroots expects the national party to STAND FOR SOMETHING, and not to capitulate for the apparent sake of national conciliation.

TOOLS: No modern campaign can operate without a Web presence, so the first actionable item ought to be to build a website to accept contributions to publish the first ad in the New York Times, and so that we can communicate with other members of the Democratic Party’s grassroots. Simultaneously, the group will need to craft the message that’s to be published in the ads, compile the talking points of the organization and form a cadre of PR representatives.

POSITIONING: Given our aims and the nature of this endeavor, this "organization" should remain, at every turn, a grassroots body to underscore the legitimacy and authenticity of our efforts.

CONCLUSION

As described in the preceding, now more than ever, We must assert ourselves, raise our voices, and demand that the national Democratic Party represent our interests; or, as many suspect, the Democratic Party risks irrelevance and eventual obsolescence as a national institution. Accordingly, I put forward the following campaign proposal forward with the hopes that more than a few of Us will enact it together:

The campaign laid out above will, hopefully, kick off with a full-page ad in the New York Times to be published on or before inauguration day:

Allow me to thank you for taking the time to contemplate this proposal and, too, I very much look forward to receiving whatever feedback or comments you’d like to provide. More importantly, it’s my sincerest hope that each and everyone of you will collaborate in and contribute to this effort.

ADDEMDUM:

Henry Kissinger on revolutionary powers:

“Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation are considered balanced and sane… But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.”
- Henry Kissinger, as quoted by Paul Krugman in his book, The Great Unraveling

If you’d like to download this doc as a PDF click here and here. If you’d like to email me your thoughts and or plans to put this into action, contact me at: voxmiablog [at] voxmia.com.

On Revolutionaries

Henry Kissinger on revolutionary powers:

“Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation are considered balanced and sane… But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.”

- Henry Kissinger, as quoted by Paul Krugman in his book, The Great Unraveling