This graphic really shows how deep in do-do the Democrat Party is. And this a party that once upheld political and religious values of our Judeo Christian nation and refused to cater to atheists and agnostics and immoral, amoral ideologies. It is sad indeed, but it is the rise and fall of a once great political party:
The Democratic Party has a choice. It can change or it can find a different country. When you can't beat a convicted felon, lose really excellent public servants like Senators Bob Casey and Jon Tester, and watch your margins shrink in virtually every demographic, you need to do some serious soul-searching.
Currently, the Democrats are engaged in a round of finger-pointing and counterfactuals. What if Joe Biden had not dropped out? Can't know for sure, but my bet is the country would have tired of the anxiety that swept the nation every time he went to a microphone. What if he had dropped out earlier and the Dems had found a different candidate? Looking at the losses in down-ballot races, it is hard not to conclude that the problem is the brand.
Read the whole dang thing there by pressing HERE!
12 comments:
Without getting into the merits or lack thereof of either candidate, this election screams at us regarding what kind of strategy definitely does not work.
It has become painfully clear that Americans are fed up with being told reality isn't real. Telling voters crime is down when it's worse than ever doesn't play in Peoria. Telling a population that is pretty tolerant already that we have to not only encourage sex changes in young people, but subsidize it and hide the process from their parents evidently doesn't resonate with voters. Turning abortion into a sacrament of holy feminism is a surefire alienation of anyone with a modicum of conscience.
Voters are tired of being told they are bad. If you love your country, you are backward. If you support the first amendment against the Marxist dogma of "stopping misinformation", you are the enemy. If you think merit is more worthy of promotion than DEI, then you are automatically a racist.
Further, having leftists wave their college degrees around like certificates of superiority and talking down their noses to the working classes smacks of an elitism that Americans have resented for generations.
And regardless of what one thinks about Donald Trump, Americans witnessed the Democratic party completely overplay their hand by relentlessly hounding him with charges that anyone can see are quite selective. They impeached him twice, and many expressed regrets that two assassination attempts failed. A lot of people, even many who don't particularly like Trump, can't help but notice such hatefulness and are loathe to elect it.
And finally, the last resort of calling one's opponent "Hitler" and his supporters "garbage" is definitely, definitively NOT a winning strategy.
Perhaps this could be a teachable moment for the rabid left. Then again, I wouldn't bet on it.
I originally posted this as a reply to Mark J's letter which he said was prompted by my post of what I had sent out to some friends the morning after the Elections!The title of Fr. Mc Donald's Blog Entry was "thank you Pope Francis for Framing the American election as a Choice Between the Lesser of two Evils" dated November 6. However, I don't think Mark saw it because I posted it so late on November 10th! So I hope Fr. McDonald will allow me to repost it below!
"Greetings, Mark (J)! It still amazes me that despite the keen intellect and the gift of Faith with which you have been blessed, your intellect continues to be so darkened and your conscience so deformed that you once again voted for the Democrat Party as your "lesser of two evils"! My "lesser of two evils" will prevent your choice from imposing the destruction of a tremendous amount of good on our Beloved Nation! The issues, the policies of both the Republican Trump/Vance Team and the Democrat Party Harris/Waltz Team were (and still are) at the heart of any discussion, however civil or not civil those discussions may be. But I am not at all surprised that you refused to touch those-after all obfuscation is essential in a "slam dunk " situation like this given the actual issues! The Harris/Waltz Team planned to impose Extreme Abortion on all 50 States! In fact that was their core promise and would help to "get out" their base-especially female voters! Apparently Blue States weren't killing enough pre-born babies to satisfy them, they wanted that level of murder (another of Pope Francis' 8 strongest statements on abortion) to be imposed on every State! Their stance on abortion, and the treatment of gender-confused children with harmful drugs and permanently mutilating surgeries ought to have been more than enough to stop any faithful Christian from voting for the Harris/Waltz team but there was a whole list of other reasons not to-if the strengthening of our Country rather than it's weakening was their goal! I will forever be indebted to that soft-spoken, Faithful, orthodox, Shepherd, Cardinal Leo Burke for so accurately, for obvious reasons, predicting as far back as 2008 that the Democrat Party "risks transforming themselves into a 'Party of Death' " Well, they completed that transformation well over 10 years ago!
But I am all for your posting your letter on social media as an "Open Letter" to the Democrat Party and its supporters, since they have been guilty of the most egregious, inflammatory, demonizing and most importantly, false comments about Mr. Trump and his supporters! For example, they insist on calling Mr. Trump names like Hitler and Fascist, although there is not even a scintilla of evidence in the 4 years of his previous governance, that he has acted in ways which would have earned him either of those titles! On the other hand, there is more than ample evidence during the Democrats' nearly 4 years of current governance, that they have behaved in ways which qualify them for the designation, Totalitarian! The most obvious, although not the only one of which is the weaponization of the DOJ and other government agencies to go after their political enemies -not just Mr. Trump who obviously got the brunt of it, but also people who were associated with him, as well as peaceful, prayerful protesters at abortion clinics and others. Their FBI also placed faithfully practicing Catholics ( and undoubtedly other Faithfully practicing Christians like the Evangelicals) on a "Watch list ", and infitrated their organizations with spies from without or by recruiting from within!
Besides, Mr. Trump is already leading the way! I suggest that you listen to his full Victory Speech-it will surely brighten your day!!! Then, listen to VP Harris' Concession Speech and I am sure you will agree with my suggestion!
When I read your letter Mark, this quote of Archbishop Chaput immediately came to mind: "Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it seeks to silence good" (University of Toronto, 2009)!
Pax and have a truly Blessed week- I mean this sincerely! We all need this!"
Sophia,
I did see your previous posting of your Comment yesterday evening but was otherwise occupied and unable to respond then. Also, I am not quite sure how you want me to respond, partly because you make the matter so personal, with some rather harsh judgments about me, both explicit and implicit. But you clearly want me to respond; therefore, this Comment is an attempt to at least begin a response. I would like to make several related points.
First, I wish you could look past the difference in our voting preferences to see what I was trying to do in my draft letter to the Washington Post. The fact that you seem unable to do so is itself evidence of my point in that letter. I am interested in trying to build bridges between people who think and vote differently, including finding common ground, rather than building walls or making existing walls higher between them.
Second, I have the distinct impression that you see at least some of the issues dividing MAGA Republicans and Democrats in terms of a cosmic war between good and evil. I agree that we are engaged in such a war, but I see the “enemy” rather differently than you appear to do. For me, the “enemy” are those very forces that seek to divide and alienate us from one another.
Third, to engage in mature and honest political conversation as adults practicing republican self-rule, rather than as juveniles engaged in labeling and name calling (not to mention demonization) more reminiscent of the school playground, requires some ground rules and a commitment to exhibiting certain fundamental virtues, both of which seem to be sorely lacking at present except in those grass roots initiatives such as Braver Angels. For example, honest conversation requires the virtue of honesty and a commitment to facts and truth.
Fourth, one reason I regret the outcome of the election is that it means President-elect Trump will most likely completely escape legal accountability for his transgressions. What he, and I imagine you, would characterize as defeating a “witch hunt” I regard as a severe blow to the rule of law by a “scofflaw” who has a well-deserved reputation for cheating and seeking to act with impunity.
Finally, if you haven’t already done so, please read my multi-point response to Father McDonald’s post on November 8 “Political Elitism and Secular Clericalism.” Then perhaps we can communicate again.
Mark J.
Mark J,
In attempt to find common ground, can you and I agree on these general principles?
* We should strive to change hearts and minds related to abortion, but we still need laws to protect the unborn. We would like to see each state enact the most restrictive limits on abortion that its electorate will support (e.g., no abortions after x weeks with exceptions for when mother’s life is at risk).
* Minor children should not undergo gender-altering procedures.
* Young women should not be subjected to competing in sports against biological males, and biological males should not be in women’s locker rooms or bathrooms.
* Our politics is broken and seriously corrupt. Power is wielded by various kinds of exclusionary elites (both elected and unelected) who have lost touch with the sovereign people.
Dave:
Thank you for your constructive approach!
I agree with your first principle, with two qualifications. First, my understanding is that the electorate in some very liberal states appear to have approved abortions right up to birth without any restrictions at all. So, even though that is what the electorate may want, some additional restrictions are necessary. It is beyond barbaric to allow abortions in the third trimester unless there exists a truly compelling reason, such as the baby having no brain, dying, or posing a threat to the life of the mother. On the other hand, some states with restrictive abortion laws need to make sure that their legislation guarantees protection for medical professionals treating mothers suffering miscarriages, for example, so that they do not endanger the life of the mother. These are the disadvantages of reversing Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood and returning the matter to the states. It is an example of the venerable adage—be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Instead, I wish Chief Justice Roberts had succeeded in persuading Justice Kavanaugh in Dobbs not to overrule these cases simpliciter but to uphold Mississippi’s fifteen-week ban with the exceptions it provided.
I have no reservations about assenting to the fourth principle.
In principle, I also agree with the second and third principles. But I do want to learn more about the perspectives of those who experience gender dysphoria as well as the perspectives of others involved in these situations. In other words, I feel the need to better understand all the relevant facts.
Of course, I also accept the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding both issues. What I write above concerns political realities and what is realistically possible politically.
Mark J.
Dave,
I cannot recall if I have mentioned this before, but I was just reminded about the USCCB Civilize It initiative, which our priest mentioned in a homily several weeks ago and which you may know about already. This initiative and the Civilize It Pledge that I have just signed up for reflect my values and approach perfectly, and I encourage everyone reading this Blog to prayerfully consider taking the Pledge as well.
https://www.usccb.org/civilizeit
The Civilize It approach is, I believe, a far more Christian and Catholic approach than the approach of the “culture warriors” who see themselves as waging a cosmic war of good against evil—a misidentified evil, in my view, in a war that I also believe risks succumbing to the third temptation of Christ by seeking the utmost use of political power to impose their views on others. And by “utmost” I mean a willingness to go beyond the limitations on the use of power inherent in democracy by refusing to engage in a peaceful transfer of power when they lose at the ballot box as was the case when so many Christians, including Catholics (even including some posting here), supported the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen, although hopefully any such support by followers of this Blog was the result of being duped by the Great Deceiver in his attempt to win by cheating rather than a deliberate and conscious choice to thwart the will of the electorate.
Mark J
Thanks for the responses. I will not be responding to your last paragraph of your recent post as I do not see it as promoting tenets of the Braver Angels Way. With respect to your previous post, yes, we both want to have abortion restricted to the greatest extent possible.
I am not surprised that we agree that “our politics are broken and seriously corrupt” as I essentially borrowed your words from another discussion topic! Building on that, do you agree that our media is complicit in this corruption as it has failed to bring light to the corruption of exclusionary elites?
Dave:
In defense of my last paragraph, I do not understand Braver Angels to be opposed to the importance of facts and truth. In fact, the following article on the Braver Angels website by one of their “national leader[s],” John Wood, addresses the importance of intellectual humility premised on the need to search for the truth together:
https://braverangels.org/intellectual-humility-and-braver-angels/
Each party to the conversation must be willing admit they might be wrong and be willing to change their mind as a result of the respectful exchange in which each puts forth their differing views, even though neither side is trying to “persuade” the other. Even more robustly, the Civilize It Pledge requires a pledge “[t]o engage in critical examination to ensure that my perspectives are rooted in truth, that my sources of information are unbiased, and that I do not open myself to manipulation by partisan interests.”
For example, if one party says the Earth is flat and the other says the Earth is round, it just cannot be the case that they listen to one another respectfully and then each one leaves with the same view with which they entered the conversation. Instead, the assumption surely is that, if each one exhibits intellectual humility, they will both likely agree on the truth of the matter, i.e., the Earth is round, because the more accurate view expressed will persuade due to its own inherent power. I have a similar view about the 2020 election because the evidence is overwhelming that it was not stolen, and that Trump knew this but perpetrated the Big Lie anyway.
The Braver Angels Way requires that “We treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity, and respect” and “We seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes.” These principles would seem to exclude deliberate lying and deception, so that a party to a conversation who deliberately and consciously promotes what they know to be false is not following the Braver Angels Way (as I indicated in my post, it is different if they were duped, and honestly and sincerely believe a falsehood). This said, I would respectfully listen to the views and reasons of someone who honestly and sincerely believed the “Big Lie” and then state my own views and reasons why I disagree. Perhaps I might even be persuaded that the 2020 election was indeed stolen (or that the Earth is indeed flat), although I would be very surprised if that turned out to be the case. All of this is, of course, an application of the venerable adage that we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.
[continued]
Regarding the complicity of the media in failing to highlight the corruption of exclusionary elites, some in the media are finally beginning to focus on this. Here is one example—an August 2023 article by David Brooks in the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/trump-meritocracy-educated.html
For a longer treatment, see his November 2024 article in The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/
And for some responses to the New York Times article, see:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/opinion/elite-anti-trump.html
In Chapter 6 of my own book, I endorse Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s judgment:
“And so MacIntyre concludes that ‘[p]olitically, the societies of advanced Western modernity are oligarchies disguised as liberal democracies,’ with most inhabitants excluded from membership in the wealthy and powerful ‘set of interlocking. . . political, financial, cultural, and media elites’ who are really in control. The result is that ‘a small minority of the population . . . make politics their active occupation and preoccupation’ and a cadre of ‘professional and semiprofessional politicians’—the ‘political elites’—mobilize ‘a huge, largely passive majority . . . only at periodic intervals, for elections or national crises.’” (see pages 215-16).
But the oligarchy includes members from across the political spectrum. Indeed, Donald Trump and Elon Musk are themselves part of it. In my view, Trump is a symptom of the disease of our corrupt politics, not a cure. Perhaps I will be proven wrong; we will see. But if not, for a real cure, we must look to ourselves, not a populist political “savior” like Trump. And so, I argue in the book for the creation of a “republic of virtue” through an indirect process in which excellence and virtue are nurtured within the professions and other occupations and spread outward into the rest of society, including improved grass roots political conversation, thereby leading to a gradual virtuous leavening of society. And in due course, this leavening may also result in legislation aimed at the promotion of excellence and virtue. One sympathetic Amazon reviewer—in the interests of full disclosure, a former colleague—wrote that “while primarily addressing the professions (with an emphasis on the legal ones) and politics, [it is] the book of moral philosophy most needed in these times. And the astonishing thing is that as a morality it is dependent upon little more than the internal motivation each of us has to do our work well.”
Mark J.
Mark J,
My issue was in the way you used your support of the Civilize It approach to pivot and cast an unfavorable light on participants of this blog who have a different perspective than you on the spiritual warfare going on. This pivot was especially puzzling to me given that I have not participated in any of these spiritual warfare discussions.
I have attempted to propose general topics for discussion and frame them in the way to find common ground for further discussion. Turning this thread into a Trump-centric dialog does not align with my interests. Again, I am puzzled by this pivot given that I did not mention Trump in any of my posts of this thread and do not recall defending Trump in other blog posts.
In reality, my time for participation in this blog is going to be significantly limited in the near term anyway. I am dealing with a family crisis that emerged over the weekend and soon will be dealing with the inconveniences associated with major work done on my house to repair Helene damage. Maybe we can try again in the future to find common ground to discuss a topic of mutual interest.
Dave:
The “pivot” was not directed at you at all but made for illustrative purposes. Moreover, if directed at anyone, it was directed at those who have regularly, relentlessly, and uncharitably cast me and some others in an extremely unfavorable light for daring to follow voting guidance provided by the U.S. Bishops and to question the veracity of their preferred candidate (see, for example, Sophia’s references in this thread to my “darkened intellect” and “deformed conscience,” with the added implication, for good measure, of participating in evil aimed at silencing good). Perhaps if you had been on the receiving end of such characterizations for as long as I have, you would better understand the “pivot” which, again, was not directed at you at all. It was, rather, an appeal to those perpetrating such characterizations to transcend and rise above them and the partisan opposition that prompted them, and to embrace the approaches promoted by such initiatives as Civilize It and Braver Angels.
But enough of that. I am sorry to learn about the family crisis and the damage caused by Helene and wish you all the very best regarding both. And I look forward to further discussion with you at a more opportune time.
Mark J.
Post a Comment