Liberals are Losing the Culture Wars

[KSB2424 3,174]

Interesting column from what is one of the better and more unbiased outlets out there, The Atlantic.

 

Personally, I do not agree or disagree with 100% of either sides social issues (i.e. I'm for weed and ghey marraige), but there is a popular belief on this bored and in society by liberals that conservative stances are both antiquated and in the minority. This article spells out how that isn't necessarily true.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/liberals-are-losing-the-culture-war/414175/

 

 

 

In Tuesday’s elections, voters rejected recreational marijuana, transgender rights, and illegal-immigrant sanctuaries; they reacted equivocally to gun-control arguments; and they handed a surprise victory to a Republican gubernatorial candidate who emphasized his opposition to gay marriage.

 

Democrats have become increasingly assertive in taking liberal social positions in recent years, believing that they enjoy majority support and even seeking to turn abortion and gay rights into electoral wedges against Republicans. But Tuesday’s results—and the broader trend of recent elections that have been generally disastrous for Democrats not named Barack Obama—call that view into question. Indeed, they suggest that the left has misread the electorate’s enthusiasm for social change, inviting a backlash from mainstream voters invested in the status quo.

Consider these results:

• Ohio voters rejected a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana by a 30-point margin.
• Voters in Houston—a strongly Democratic city—rejected by a 20-point margin a nondiscrimination ordinance that opponents said would lead to “men in women’s bathrooms.”
• The San Francisco sheriff who had defended the city’s sanctuary policy after a sensational murder by an illegal immigrant was voted out.
• Two Republican state senate candidates in Virginia were targeted by Everytown for Gun Safety, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s gun-control group. One won and one lost, leaving the chamber in GOP hands.
• Matt Bevin, the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Kentucky, pulled out a resounding victory that defied the polls after emphasizing social issues and championing Kim Davis, the county clerk who went to jail rather than issue same-sex marriage licenses. Bevin told the Washington Post on the eve of the vote that he’d initially planned to stress economic issues, but found that “this is what moves people.”

There were particular factors in all of these races: The San Francisco sheriff was scandal-ridden, for example, and the Ohio initiative’s unique provisions divided pro-pot activists. But taken together these results ought to inspire caution among liberals who believe their cultural views are widely shared and a recipe for electoral victory.

Democrats have increasingly seized the offensive on social issues in recent years, using opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage to paint Republican candidates as extreme and backward. In some cases, this has been successful: Red-state GOP Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost after making incendiary comments about abortion and rape in 2012, a year when Obama successfully leaned into cultural issues to galvanize the Democratic base. “The Republican Party from 1968 up to 2008 lived by the wedge, and now they are politically dying by the wedge,” Democratic consultant Chris Lehane told theNew York Times last year, a view echoed by worried Republicans urging their party to get with the times.

But the Democrats’ culture-war strategy has been less successful when Obama is not on the ballot. Two campaigns that made abortion rights their centerpiece in 2014, Wendy Davis’s Texas gubernatorial bid and Mark Udall’s Senate reelection campaign in Colorado, fell far short. In most of the country, particularly between the coasts, it’s far from clear that regular voters are willing to come to the polls for social change. Gay marriage won four carefully selected blue-state ballot campaigns in 2012 before the Supreme Court took the issue to the finish line this year. Recreational marijuana has likewise been approved only in three blue states plus Alaska. Gun-control campaigners have repeatedly failed to outflank the N.R.A. in down-ballot elections that turned on the issue. Republicans in state offices have liberalized gun laws and restricted abortion, generating little apparent voter backlash.

An upcoming gubernatorial election in Louisiana is turning into a referendum on another hot button issue—crime—with Republican David Vitter charging that his opponent, John Bel Edwards, wants to release “dangerous thugs, drug dealers, back into our neighborhoods.” The strategy, which has been criticized for its racial overtones, may or may not work for Vitter, who is dealing with scandals of his own. Yet many liberals angrily reject the suggestion that the push to reduce incarceration could lead to a political backlash based on anecdotal reports of sensational crimes.

To be sure, Tuesday was an off-off-year election with dismally low voter turnout, waged in just a handful of locales. But liberals who cite this as an explanation often fail to take the next step and ask why the most consistent voters are consistently hostile to their views, or why liberal social positions don’t mobilize infrequent voters. Low turnout alone can’t explain the extent of Democratic failures in non-presidential elections in the Obama era, which have decimated the party in state legislatures, governorships, and the House and Senate. Had the 2012 electorate shown up in 2014, Democrats still would have lost most races, according to Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist, who told me the turnout effect “was worth slightly more than 1 percentage point to Republican candidates in 2014”—enough to make a difference in a few close races, but not much across the board.

Liberals love to point out the fractiousness of the GOP, whose dramatic fissures have racked the House of Representatives and tormented party leaders. But as Matt Yglesias recently pointed out, Republican divisions are actually signs of an ideologically flexible big-tent party, while Democrats are in lockstep around an agenda whose popularity they too often fail to question. Democrats want to believe Americans are on board with their vision of social change—but they might win more elections if they meet voters where they really are.

 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Does that really read as unbiased to you?

[KSB2424 3,174]

Does that really read as unbiased to you?

 

I said it's from one of the most unbiased outlet's you can find. The Atlantic.

 

Generally speaking most people would argue that outlet is left of center if anything. I find them and Politico to be the best, most center media outlets to get news from. They're both fantastic and a breath of fresh air from NBC or FoxNews.

[BiPolarBear 495]

I didn't realize Conservatives were involved in culture. Are they taking a break from war?

[fandandy 3,313]

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/4/9669918/democrats-elections-crisis

[KSB2424 3,174]

I didn't realize Conservatives were involved in culture. Are they taking a break from war?

 

Obama has the whole war thing handled for us. Boots on the ground in Syria!@#!

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

I said it's from one of the most unbiased outlet's you can find. The Atlantic.

 

Generally speaking most people would argue that outlet is left of center if anything. I find them and Politico to be the best, most center media outlets to get news from. They're both fantastic and a breath of fresh air from NBC or FoxNews.

It's inflammatory. Most likely to get clicks and generate controversy rather than some overt bias. At any rate I wouldn't call it an even-keeled analysis as, imo, liberals aren't waging a "culture war."

 

Just as an example of how stupid this article is, take marijuana legalization. That isn't a liberal thing. It's a common sense thing that happens to be backed by a lot of libertarians. Why the hell do you think it passed in Alaska? That red state didn't suddenly turn left wing overnight.

[BudBro 183]

I live in one of the last conservative bastions in 'Murica. We elected a conservative mayor, a former State AG, and the very first thing he did in office is propose a new sales tax on the city...and it passed. Expect him to be the next Gov of Colorado.

[parrot 789]

Republican divisions are actually signs of an ideologically flexible big-tent party,

 

 

This is a laughable statement. The big "division" in the Republican Party is between the old-school Republican guard who weren't all that "ideologically flexible" to start with and the new Tea Partiers who want them to be less so. If they are so "ideologically flexible", why the divisions? They ran their own speaker right out of office because he wasn't in lockstep with the more Conservative elements of the party. Quite the "big-tent" all right.

[KSB2424 3,174]

 

This is a laughable statement. The big "division" in the Republican Party is between the old-school Republican guard who weren't all that "ideologically flexible" to start with and the new Tea Partiers who want them to be less so. If they are so "ideologically flexible", why the divisions? They ran their own speaker right out of office because he wasn't in lockstep with the more Conservative elements of the party. Quite the "big-tent" all right.

I guess you could spin it that way. OR I see a party with people who actually challenge each other. You have the Rand Pauls to the John Kasichs to the Ben Carsons. All with different ideals on certain issues.

 

I think the point was that sometimes that is a good thing - opposed to just lockstep let's all believe the same stuff and rarely question it.

 

It's a different take, sure, not laughable in the least.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,604]

 

This is a laughable statement. The big "division" in the Republican Party is between the old-school Republican guard who weren't all that "ideologically flexible" to start with and the new Tea Partiers who want them to be less so. If they are so "ideologically flexible", why the divisions? They ran their own speaker right out of office because he wasn't in lockstep with the more Conservative elements of the party. Quite the "big-tent" all right.

They learned a lot from Pelosi and Reid. Go agaisn't the party and we'll find a replacement for you. Seems to be working for both parties wouldn't you agree?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Whoever wins the culture wars we lose. One wants to bring Jesus into the classroom. The other wants to bring boys into the girls locker room.

 

Common sense loses either way.

[fandandy 3,313]

Whoever wins the culture wars we lose. One wants to bring Jesus into the classroom. The other wants to bring boys into the girls locker room.

 

Common sense loses either way.

 

Let's compromise and put Jesus in the girls locker room.

[Drizzay 745]

It's all about moderation.

[Frank M 181]

Ohio rejected marijuana legalization because it gave a monopoly to grow it to a select group of investors in 10 predetermined areas in the state, not because conservatives flocked to the polls to defeat it because MARIJUANA! !!!

 

In fact, the monopoly issue was so blatant, another group successfully got a separate, anti-monopoly issue on the ballot that would effectively negate the marijuana issue had it passed. That one passed handily.

 

And that article may have come from what KSB considers an unbiased source, but it was completely biased. Republicans are an ideologically flexible, big tent party? Republicans are the only political party to actively seek to purge their rolls of the ideologideologically impure.

 

Yeah, you can come into this big tent, as long as you're not a RINO.

 

[SUXBNME 1,596]

 

Obama has the whole war thing handled for us. Boots on the ground advisors in Syria!@#!

Fixed

 

Then again, isn't that how the whole VietNam war started? Why, yes it is. (not is Syria, obviously, you dipshits)

 

Bush - NO NEW TAXES

Obama - NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND

 

Too bad that both had to happen, but I'm pretty sure that there is a very good reason that both had to.

[SUXBNME 1,596]

Whoever wins the culture wars we lose. One wants to bring Jesus into the classroom. The other wants to bring boys into the girls locker room.

 

Common sense loses either way.

Well said

[SUXBNME 1,596]

Ohio rejected marijuana legalization because it gave a monopoly to grow it to a select group of investors in 10 predetermined areas in the state

In fact, the monopoly issue was so blatant, another group successfully got a separate, anti-monopoly issue on the ballot that would effectively negate the marijuana issue had it passed.

 

Troof

[Chronic Husker 86]

Liberals are losing the culture wars. The GOP "big tent" party.

 

In KSB's world, rape victims are better known as unwilling sperm recipients.

[Saint Elistan 106]

[Mike Honcho 5,435]

Ohio rejected marijuana legalization because it gave a monopoly to grow it to a select group of investors in 10 predetermined areas in the state, not because conservatives flocked to the polls to defeat it because MARIJUANA! !!!

 

In fact, the monopoly issue was so blatant, another group successfully got a separate, anti-monopoly issue on the ballot that would effectively negate the marijuana issue had it passed. That one passed handily.

 

And that article may have come from what KSB considers an unbiased source, but it was completely biased. Republicans are an ideologically flexible, big tent party? Republicans are the only political party to actively seek to purge their rolls of the ideologideologically impure.

 

Yeah, you can come into this big tent, as long as you're not a RINO.

 

 

I've seen in the last couple of posts from KSB is that instead of declaring himself and unbiased objective thinker, he declares biased position piece to be from the unbiased source---that confirms his views. It's a refreshing change of pace.

[hoytdwow 202]

The Atlantic is greta. I'm a subscriber.

 

That being said, I don't know that I buy the argument. Most Americans support marriage equality and stricter gun laws. That's borne out in most polls.

Also, the Democratic party is just as fractured as the Republican. There's a lunatic fringe, an establishment wing and a vast silent middle ground that is tired of it all. But there's no Super PAC for that.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

If one really reads the article with an open mind, it is more along the lines of "Progressive Issues Becoming Obscurred as they Mainstream". No longer are they cut and dry, as pieces of the pie start to be divided. Same thing happened with the Tea Party.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Liberals are losing the culture wars. The GOP "big tent" party.

 

In KSB's world, rape victims are better known as unwilling sperm recipients.

 

I didn't write the article, so its not "my world".

 

I merely found parts of it interesting (hence why I posted it), and based on your's and a few others comments it appears it struck a chord.

[KSB2424 3,174]

If one really reads the article with an open mind, it is more along the lines of "Progressive Issues Becoming Obscurred as they Mainstream". No longer are they cut and dry, as pieces of the pie start to be divided. Same thing happened with the Tea Party.

 

That's sort of what I got out of it too. It wasn't some "inflammatory" article. Rather it read to me to be check/balance on how the culture wars (i.e. social issues) are playing out in the real world as opposed to political talking points.

 

But people sure do get their panties in a wad really fast don't they.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I think the liberals are running away with the culture war.

 

Gay marriage? Done deal. Abortion? Been established law for forty years and ain't changing. Confederate flag? Gone. Marijuana? Slowly becoming legal.

 

I mean they are getting far enough down on the list to argue about transgendered issues.

 

Meanwhile the right is still whining about the same sh!t they've been whining about for forty years.

 

The only issue the right has been able to hold the line on is gun control. That's it.

[Frank M 181]

 

I didn't write the article, so its not "my world".

 

I merely found parts of it interesting (hence why I posted it), and based on your's and a few others comments it appears it struck a chord.

 

Were you surprised that an article describing Republican ideology as "flexible" would generate a response?

 

Of course you weren't, since you were doing the very thing you dislike: trolling.

[Mike Honcho 5,435]

That's sort of what I got out of it too. It wasn't some "inflammatory" article. Rather it read to me to be check/balance on how the culture wars (i.e. social issues) are playing out in the real world as opposed to political talking points.

 

But people sure do get their panties in a wad really fast don't they. [/quoote]

 

Laughing at what you think is "unbiased" <> panties in a wad.

 

Though if that is your perception of the reaction, I can see how you think that article is unbiased.

[Mike Honcho 5,435]

I think the liberals are running away with the culture war.

Gay marriage? Done deal. Abortion? Been established law for forty years and ain't changing. Confederate flag? Gone. Marijuana? Slowly becoming legal.

I mean they are getting far enough down on the list to argue about transgendered issues.

Meanwhile the right is still whining about the same sh!t they've been whining about for forty years.

The only issue the right has been able to hold the line on is gun control. That's it.

Read the article twice--failed to see mention the off-off year election and traditional voter turn outs. I guess it played no part in the results and so the author just decided it wasn't worth mentioning.

[KSB2424 3,174]

I think the liberals are running away with the culture war.

 

 

 

As did I, which is why I found the article interesting. It illustrates where this assumption may not quite be as we think. You sort of alluded to it with the transgender thing. The pendulum may have swung to far that there is majority push-back (as seen in recent elections - polling).

[KSB2424 3,174]

Read the article twice--failed to see mention the off-off year election and traditional voter turn outs. I guess it played no part in the results and so the author just decided it wasn't worth mentioning.

 

Then maybe you need to read it a third time because it was mentioned

 

 

To be sure, Tuesday was an off-off-year election with dismally low voter turnout, waged in just a handful of locales. But liberals who cite this as an explanation often fail to take the next step and ask why the most consistent voters are consistently hostile to their views, or why liberal social positions don’t mobilize infrequent voters. Low turnout alone can’t explain the extent of Democratic failures in non-presidential elections in the Obama era, which have decimated the party in state legislatures, governorships, and the House and Senate.

 

 

[Mike Honcho 5,435]

Then maybe you need to read it a third time because it was mentioned

 

k...maybe I did skim the article. My bad for trying to respond and work at the same time.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

I didn't write the article, so its not "my world".

 

I merely found parts of it interesting (hence why I posted it), and based on your's and a few others comments it appears it struck a chord.

Struck a chord of "wow I had no idea KSB was THIS stupid"

[RLLD 4,275]

The article is an example of taking factual evidence and painting the incorrect picture. Not unique, people do it every day of course, but strange for an entity like the Atlantic, who is reasonably still more conservative than it truly is liberal.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Struck a chord of "wow I had no idea KSB was THIS stupid"

 

What is so stupid?

 

It's a slightly different take on the recent elections and voter turnout that is partly due to the current social issues of the day. I found it interesting because A. it went against my own and what I thought was accepted assumptions and B. it wasn't from like FoxNews or some other outlet which I'd normally just ignore as partisan crap.

[RLLD 4,275]

 

What is so stupid?

 

It's a slightly different take on the recent elections and voter turnout that is partly due to the current social issues of the day. I found it interesting because A. it went against my own and what I thought was accepted assumptions and B. it wasn't from like FoxNews or some other outlet which I'd normally just ignore as partisan crap.

 

Stupid is an estrogen-based reaction, your position is not "stupid" but I think you are allowing the misuse of evidence by loosely connected pieces to sway you. We see this all over the place, I would suggest a more thorough review of the article, its sources and its author. I am not sure the author was not allowing themselves to be swayed by the appearance of connections that really are not present. We can see this in movements like Black Lives Matter, or the Republican party itself. I would resist the sugary output of such entities clearly intent on exploitation.

[KSB2424 3,174]

The article is an example of taking factual evidence and painting the incorrect picture.

 

How do you know for certain this picture is incorrect? Based on your own assumptions?

 

To me it helps explain (in part) why and how this is happening:

 

Since 2009 Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats.

[parrot 789]

They learned a lot from Pelosi and Reid. Go agaisn't the party and we'll find a replacement for you. Seems to be working for both parties wouldn't you agree?

 

Are you capable or responding to any criticism/ remark regarding the GOP without invoking Democrats? Pelosi and Reid could be serial killers and it wouldn't make this bullsh!t about the GOP and less bullsh!t.

 

I guess you could spin it that way. OR I see a party with people who actually challenge each other. You have the Rand Pauls to the John Kasichs to the Ben Carsons. All with different ideals on certain issues.

 

I think the point was that sometimes that is a good thing - opposed to just lockstep let's all believe the same stuff and rarely question it.

 

It's a different take, sure, not laughable in the least.

 

Yes, I'm the one spinning and not the writer who is suggesting that divisions within the GOP are a function of "ideological flexibility" when it should be obvious to anyone with three brain cells that it's exactly the opposite. I'll say it again, the GOP's leader was forced to step down because he was unable to effectively work with elements OF HIS OWN PARTY. And their big heartburn with him? Working with elements of the other party to try and do trivial things like KEEP THE GOVERNMENT RUNNING. They would rather shut it down over Planned Parenthood. Planned Focking Parenthood.

 

But this division suddenly makes the GOP "ideologically flexible".

 

You're right, it's not laughable, it's focking moronic. It would be great parody if only it was parody.

[KSB2424 3,174]

 

Are you capable or responding to any criticism/ remark regarding the GOP without invoking Democrats? Pelosi and Reid could be serial killers and it wouldn't make this bullsh!t about the GOP and less bullsh!t.

 

 

Yes, I'm the one spinning and not the writer who is suggesting that divisions within the GOP are a function of "ideological flexibility" when it should be obvious to anyone with three brain cells that it's exactly the opposite. I'll say it again, the GOP's leader was forced to step down because he was unable to effectively work with elements OF HIS OWN PARTY. And their big heartburn with him? Working with elements of the other party to try and do trivial things like KEEP THE GOVERNMENT RUNNING. They would rather shut it down over Planned Parenthood. Planned Focking Parenthood.

 

But this division suddenly makes the GOP "ideologically flexible".

 

You're right, it's not laughable, it's focking moronic. It would be great parody if only it was parody.

 

Something ain't jiving. You keep saying "they" and "their" as if the party is unified in the same beliefs. All the while in the same paragraph speak to how the party is fractured. That doesn't make sense.

 

We agree, the GOP today is fractured within. You have the hardliners, the establishment, the tea party, the libertarian wing, etc. And while this causes confusion - disruption - angst - which are all negatives.....what it also does is challenge the individuals of the party and for them to question themselves. It also hopefully gives people pause to ask what the people, the electorate, the majority, really want. Sometimes arguing is good, you get to root causes and you understand one another better. Opposed to surrounding yourself with a bunch of "YES" Men.

 

It's a different take. It is a spin, but spin that has merit.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

 

What is so stupid?

 

 

IGW uses "stupid" or similar in every post. He is limited. Explains why he sucks as a lawyer.