Did Pres. Obama's Democrat Party Overplay It's Hand?

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 7 years ago

   I would like to take credit for this thought, but I heard it first  from a news pundit.
   
   Consider...
   
   For progress, societal change is necessary, and inevitable, (I think), but - the larger the society, and the more fundamental the change, the more necessary it is that the progress be in increments.
   
   For illustration only, consider an example of challenging  Christian values relative to sexuality - whether it be as simple as homosexuality, or as complex as the alphabet that is attached to the Lesbian/Gay community, which is now the LGBTQ?,  or this new Binary description of gender association.
   
   My thinking is that such major societal changes must come an inch at a time. Folks have to have a chance to adjust their thinking. 
   
   During Pres. Obama's eight years, I think the homosexuality issue made major strides towards at least an acceptance of the perspective that 'old'  standards of thought needed some reevaluation. Then the LGBT movement brought even more consideration of the legitimacy of 'old' perspectives. I view both of these changes as positive, but I can also understand that for those with strong Christian values - these were big bites to chew on.
   
   And then... the bathroom thing - geesh, now where you pee is a national dialog.
   
   Did the Democrats push too far too fast? Should they have celebrated their inches of progress instead of demanding a mile?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that they probably did, but at the same time have trouble with goals that are stated as one thing but the reality is that they are much grander.  The continual attempts to ban guns, the gradual chipping at abortion rights and, yes, the seemingly never ending of sexuality questions are all examples.  It's one thing to change society a step at a time, as with the sexuality, it's quite another to take small bites from things like abortion and gun rights with the ultimate goal being far different from what is stated at this point.  Maybe because the whole sex thing is continuing to evolve and we continue to discover just how ignorant most of us are of both the trials faced by some and of just how widespread it really is.
      
      Politically it may make good sense to chip at abortion a tiny bite at a time, but emotionally...well, it just seems like the fight will never end.  That compromise is not possible because as soon as we compromise then more is demanded and it starts all over.  I don't like that feeling, that if I compromise it just means that the rest of the fight is still going on - that no compromise will ever be enough.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The extreme left and extreme right always push too far. Unfortunately, they have a lot of money backing them up.

      replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   G.A.,   One ,   I think everyone agrees  at this point that the left swung way left with the Obama nomination ! It also appears that the DNC  has decided  that left of left center is the new agenda. .
   Two , America in general moves slightly back and forth  but the BIGGER problem with the lefts direction  ,    is the continued  vastly divisive" personality " WITHIN  the ideology  itself.
   
   In other words , you can't get two  people to agree on the same priorities of issues.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Live to Learnposted 7 years ago

   I think you are probably right. LGBT issues did need to be addressed. I do think the bathroom thing was a bit much when it extended into our schools. I think we probably needed time to become accustomed to adult differences . Time to become more familiar with when these differences became 'written in stone' so to speak. I'll be honest. It seems to me that the LGBT thing is being pushed harder and harder in a demand for acceptance. I don't watch a lot of tv anymore but it seemed that every show I watched had some homosexuality aspect within it. When most estimates of the rate of homosexuality within a population is 2-10 % I see 100% inclusion in all aspects of our entertainment options as an agenda, not a reflection of life.
   
   I also read an article about how to determine if your news source was unbiased. One of the criteria they listed was to make sure there were homosexuals working for the news agency. I have no idea what that has to do with fair and balanced reporting.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If someone would have told me that I would see two men kissing on broadcast standard national television just 25 years ago, I would have said that they were nuts. We seem to so quickly immerse everybody into this, what I believe is a radical change. I am still a Neanderthal about the issue surrounding what gender uses what bathroom with all this gender identity stuff, etc.
      
      It just seemed to me that the concept of racial inclusion in broader areas of national life, the commercial media for example, took longer and was not as precipitous.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Don't you see it as building on itself?  Not, of course, in more rights all the time for a specific minority, but more rights for everyone?
         
         Blacks got rights, so women decided they should have the rights that everyone else did.  Then gays made the same demand, followed by more sexuality based groups.  Everyone wants the same rights that others have, and as minorities get them it makes others realize that they can have them too!
         
         Eventually maybe we'll get to where all are considered equally worthy of being considered "just people", albeit different than ourselves.  We can hope.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            There is one  line of thought in liberal politics  "What do I get  out of it "? Simple.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               On the whole, I'd have to say that it is the right that is holding us back in the race to equality for everyone.  Certainly it is the religious right fighting to discriminate based on sexual issues.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Since when did life promise equality to everyone .    I though  It is only the agenda of the left  that believed , no demanded - wealth redistribution from those who equally or unequally earned it and those  who feel entitled to own  " their share "of all the  wealth and labors of others ?

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Neither life nor nature promises equality - indeed, both promise as much inequality as possible.  "Might makes right" and "survival of the fittest" are the law of nature, but then nature does not have morals or ethics.
                     
                     Hopefully we can do better.

                     replyreport
                  2. 79

                     Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Equality is the basis of a peaceful society or have you ever learn this simple concept in a grade school civics class?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Equality in government  representation does NOT equality in  entitlement  !

                        replyreport
         2. 79

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Ok, but but if the Right to equality and equal treatment under the law were not denied to so many on the outside in the first place, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.Shouldn't we all have equal rights from the start? Then we have avoided all the confusion later.
            
            I am not keen on all this LBGT stuff, but as long as they are my fellow citizens of the United States, I have to fight for their right to equality as vigorously as I have fought for my own.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "Ok, but but if the Right to equality and equal treatment under the law were not denied to so many on the outside in the first place, we wouldn't need to have this discussion."
               
               Yes, of course.  That should have been explained in the middle ages when it was required to be Christian.  Or in the 1600's to slave owners.  Or the 1800's to women. 
               
               Man has always discriminated against others - that we are beginning to change that is to our credit, not something to hold against us.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  "Man has always discriminated against others - that we are beginning to change that is to our credit, not something to hold against us"
                  
                  True, but it has always came at a very steep price, just need to keep moving in the correct path rather reverting backwards.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     No argument from me, and you will always find me on the side of treating everyone the same.  Almost, anyway - the legal, required discrimination of affirmative action did some good and I support what was done.  No longer, but at the time it was necessary even though people were NOT treated equally.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Commendable, Wilderness. The only problem tha remains is there still many people that have yet to get the message..
                        
                        I am glad that you were willing to admit to a place for Affirmative Action as a remedy for the seething inequities of the past.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           I "admit" to no such thing...at this time.  In the past it was a solution that produced positive results even though incredibly offensive to the ethics and morality of the question.  The ends justified the means, in other words, in this one instance.
                           
                           Yes, there are a great many people that haven't gotten the message.  The racists, the homophobes, the far right religious coalition and yes, those that determine it is a good thing to demand one give up what they have so it can be it to another.

                           replyreport
      2. 60

         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Took longer? For sure. And, even today I think there is racial inequality in the entertainment industry. Ever notice if people are going to die the black man is the first to go? In almost every show?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That is astute of you. I did not think that whites notice subtle barbs like that. But to be honest, until you told me, I did not know either. I will be watching to check for this phenomenon.

            replyreport