American Politics - Social Issues v. the Economy
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-29/american-politics-social-issues-v-economy
Recent polls show that the economy remains the number one issue on the minds of most voting-age Americans. But lately social issues have been grabbing a lot of the headlines. Last week New York became the sixth state to approve same-sex marriage. Dozens of states have placed new restrictions on abortion rights this year. And Kansas just moved to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. Politicians, of course, have taken notice. As the first round of presidential primaries draws closer, candidates are keen to take the nation's pulse and respond accordingly. Social issues versus the economy in American politics.
Guests
Carroll Doherty
associate director, editorial, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Michele Swers
associate professor of government, Georgetown University.
Reid Wilson
editor-in-chief of National Journal Hotline.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I definately think the economy and the wars abroad should trump the social issues.
The topic is started here with homosexuals celebrating new found freedom, OK, I can dig that. Even though I recoil in disgust at the sight of two mustaches grinding in public view, freedom is freedom. These tax payers deserve to be treated equally because I do believe their sexual preference was not a choice. Here's the rub! After a group of minorities get what they want in the form of "rights" they are more than willing to put rights as defined by the Constitution in a pillow case with a rock and throw it in the river. "What we got here is failure to communicate". That being said social issues are personal matters best solved unseen from public view. Gods and monsters have no place on the political stage in a "civilized" society. Unfortunately we are closer to cave dwellers than we are to the truth seekers of a civilized society. If personal choices do not add to the burden of the tax payer, let freedom reign. If your having children on public aid or some other activity that forces others to pay for your irresponsibility, big difference. Public scorn and the shame that comes from it is the best remedy we have for such behavior, public funding supporting irresponsible behavior should be on the table. Subsidizing Planned Parenthood should not be tax payer funded even though I support the right to choose. Government needs to get back to basics and let those who choose the hard road take it. Collectively we have forgotten the power of the family, forcing families to deal with self inflicted hardship is the best teacher for responsible behavior of the next generation.
With Obama's NLRB do its best to stifle economic growth and freedom, it's clear the president is only using social issues to distract us from his continual error-making on economic issues.
Social issues are important issues but there is no way they should take precidence over the problems of the economy....especially the social issue of "gay rights." Were talking about people who feel they have a right to be married vs people loosing their homes, cars and savings because they can't find a job. Truly hard times we are living in.
Besides this is "gay rights" really even an issue? What rights are they being denied of? The right for them to marry seems to be the main issue they are concerned with. And as many agree with them they feel they have a right to love and marry who they choose. If the courts decide to let them marry so be it.
But here is a bigger question for the LGBT community if they recieve their rights to marry does this mean that the lifestyle they are living should be accepted as ok? I say that because there even if they receive this right but there are still plenty of people that feel the sexual lifestyle they have chosen is not right and they can't figuer out why this issue is even in court?
As Americans don't we have a right to disagree with this lifestyle and not be treated as someone who hates gays? Again I ask is the gay rights issue really a issue? If they feel they have a right to marry and they are being denide the union of who they love, then American need to also open the door for Brother's and Sisters to get married; Father's and daughters and on on. I I definitely don't agree with incest but where does it stop and why is the gay rights issue in the courts?
The economy is a bigger issue!
I applaud Diane's expedient handling of the discourse on the Fracking issue yesterday and I hope she will assert her fair and experienced judgment again today.
There are issues of privacy and access (human and civil rights) that are being violated by the amplification of wedge issues by those who fancy themselves cavemen and cavewomen. There were nascent band level societies hundreds of thousands of years ago but in a complex technological world that is no longer possible. Look at how people must live by no choice of their own. They are dependent on the economy to provide gainful employment and on shopping at retail to obtain most everything else. We are truly on the reservation. And there are so many of us in relation to available resources that the survivalist mode is not viable for anyone except the criminal or the billionaire as a temporary lark.
And now after some workers have paid a premium toward benefits of 30 or even 40 years and sacrificed their health to produce for employers the cavepeople say we should deny them their entitlements so that the dream of becoming wealthy under capitalism can be kept on life support. Now it is only the wealthy and the powerful who could benefit from such insanity. Except that a deluded minority prefer to embrace the cave-in lifestyle and believe in shadows on the wall to the exclusion of the material truth in daylight.
One poor fascist lamented on here the other day that people should take control of their lives. No individual can do that under present circumstances because we are interdependent. Now this selfish and immature caveman might try predation, but without government and business help in his perversion he will not persist for long. Cave days are over. (Michelle Bachmann's Neanderthal brow is showing, more bangs please.)
The existence of a parallel universe came to my notice recently. In this universe the inhabitants worship Free Market; they apparently have their own Holy Book, savior and apostles. They have wonderfully amalgamated the issues which the other universe considers to be demarcated. We are in for a clash of axioms in the upcoming election year; if you were to anticipate meaningful arguments on the approaches to solve a problem, then you are allowed to excuse yourself as soon as you can.
bc4npr: Gay rights would not be an issue except for discrimination in employment and other opportunity access, the unrecognized legal status of these unions as far as taxes and medical issues and home ownership and raising children, and the "lesser" social recognition of relationships that boast just as much love and devotion and interdependence as any man-woman bond.
And it is the ignorers of vital environmental and economic issues, the opponents of gender role choice, who emphasize an issue that would otherwise remain mostly private. They invade LGBT homes and privacy just as they invade women's bodies and children's minds (Creationist education) in order to enforce their own ignorance. Some go so far as to deny medical care in order to have their way (destroying Planned parenthood).
A person who cannot see that same sex unions are harmless to society is truly ignorant. Save these wedge issues for when you visit Hell and Heaven. Quit trying to make Hell on Earth for others.
rdb: I heard David Koch replaced "The Maestro" as Pope.
How long can they keep comatose capitalism breathing and warmed over in that deep coma? It's like Lenin's tomb, isn't it?
Rebecca Blank, an economist at the Department of Commerce, was nominated by Obama to lead the Council on Economic Advisers. The president is apparently going to nominate a senior economic adviser who has testified on record before a congressional committee in support of the protracted Gulf drilling moratorium, a major economic policy decision that wasn't based on any economic analysis whatsoever.
So politics gets in the way of the economy yet again.
I have never seen such clashing of rights and opinions as we have today (and I'm OLD!) BALKANIZATION seems to be what's happened.
We do not have a "melting pot" - instead we have more of a smorgasbord in which each group is quite separate and non-blending with the others. Our "rich cultural diversity" is really a nasty clash of groups when it comes to politics. (Appreciation of different culture's music, food and the like are unimportant and irrelevant.)
We have a large segment in America who want Spanish as the 2nd official language - a very divisive idea; we have Muslims who want to have their beliefs trump traditional American beliefs and traditions - even laws. This Muslim aggression is playing out big time in France and England right now. America is just a little behind Europe in the Islamization of our country, but all indications are that it's coming.
I've never seen such hate between left and right politics. It's because so many today only see their "rights", and forget their "responsibilities". They expect Big Government to take care of them.
Isn't this all rather against that famous Federalist #10 notion of protection against factions? Social issues seem to be the most devisive creators of factions in the US today.
The only reason that "social issues" (let's be honest gay rights) are a buzz word in the US national discource is their use by the right in order to galvanize their base to come to the polls. Why being socially conservative and fiscally have to be interlinked is completely beyond me.
But what rights are being infringed? Well, for example, I can't move back to the US with a significant other because though my home state recognises a foreign civil union/marriage, I.C.E. does not, because of DOMA.
These rights should be granted as soon as humanly possible, considering even the former apartheid state is ahead of us on this, in order to quickly get to the most important aspects of the economy and foreign entanlgements.
And on a lighter note-- wouldn't local economies improve if gays get to marry? I mean, come on, we've planned your weddings for years, lord knows the extravagance of so many weddings could be a boost! (kidding, mostly.)
Wow, hainc, thanks for letting me know that I should not waste time reading your posts. You and monte are good for wasting space in here. I guess you were not born with Bush and company started the Iraq war, added to the national debt with unsustainable unpaid for lowered taxes for the richest Americans, and generally wrecked the American economy. Here is an idea, listen to the program before making ignorant comments.
Once again, here is a major media program prematurely talking about the Presidential election. These issues should be discussed in the context of how they effect people not how they effect the election.
Programs like this only promote extending the election period from to 9 months to 18 months.
Regarding the economy and the debt ceiling:
I've read that Great Britain's austerity program has tanked their economy, not improved it.
1-Is that correct?
2-Could we expect the same thing here if we cut spending and don't increase income in order to get the debt ceiling raised?
I ask from the perspective of one unemployed for over a year.
How refreshing to hear Ms. Swers refer to those who oppose abortion as "anti-abortion" rather than the disingenuous "pro-life." There is nothing pro-life about those people. Have you ever heard any of them demand that all pregnant women get pre-natal care? Have you ever heard any of them demand that all infants get pediatric care? If they really loved babies as they claim, they would certainly want to ensure that miscarriages are avoided, that all babies are born healthy, and that they get the early care necessary to grow up healthy. Of course there are a few in the movement who would support such policies but by and large these people are silent at best on health care for pregnant women and babies.
It is a continued surprise to me that in the 21st century, we are still denying individual citizens their basic civil rights. My fear is that no one understands the basic documents that our nation was founded upon. There is no mention in the Constitution that only heterosexual, white men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The term "men" was once commonly used to indicate all mankind, and if my history is correct, the original meaning was a narrower definition that was appropriate to the era of the Founders.
Just as the interpretation of the Constitution has been modified as our society has evolved and changed, we must alter our understanding of what it means to live in the United States of America today, where we must embrace all people who are legal citizens, whether they are gay or straight, Muslim or Christian or atheist, rich or poor, libertarian or socialist. This wonderful diversity is the ultimate strength of our country and that is what will save us in the face of all threats, whether from terrorists or our own greed.
Yep. His High Holiness David Koch is our pope. Comatose capitalism is what some like to say; in the alt-univ, there is still hope for a miracle, as long as one believes that Regulation is our Satan. It is an eternal fight (not jihad) for salvation.
Most folks knew that the next election would more than likely be about the economy. Can anyone explain why Obama and team did not put together a new improved WPA at least a year ago?
Congratulations to the gay rights movement in NY, but here's something of interest. In Michigan, where I live, I cannot have my girlfriend of 10 years (I am a man) put on my health insurance. However, were I a woman, THEN she could be. Not sure what to make of this.
I think Romney is formidable. One of the most perfect Robert Young Fathers Knows Best, Fred MacMurray My Three Sons, Ward Cleaver Leave it to Beaver personalities. Hell he even looks like Alex Betz the father on the Donna Reed show. Steady family man, economically successful, reasonable. I think his stance on health care for all with a mandate is one of the most compassionate conservative stances I have ever witnessed. Think he should use it as a plus. Call the fake Christians out. Jesus would want everyone to have health care and pay for it at reasonable prices.
your discussion is an exercise in trivial pursuits... as compared to the serious choices the country faces on energy, environmen,t economy jobs...
its the right wing conservatives who have choosen these issues to dominate the conversion,,,,and i have no doubt that ,,,if they discuss sex with martians
this panel would be talking THAT up rather than the real problems.
enough with abortion & same sex marriages.
call it for what it is the hypocritical domination and control of others freedom!
How do these allegedly conservative Christian Republican candidates get away with calling themselves pro life? Bachman does not support health care for all, equity in education or higher wages. She and the others may be pro fetus but they are clearly not pro life
She and the other fake Christian candidates hide behind their religions while they step over the less fortunate on their way into their churches etc I am so disgusted by this hypocrisy.
If these folks are going to run on how allegedly "Christian" they are. If they are going to use Christianity like a protective shield to hide selfish non humanitarian values...when is the press going to call these fake Christians out?
pro fetus does not mean pro life
Why is this term pro-life used to describe to the conservatives when in fact they are pro fetus. Once these children are born the GOP takes food from their mouths, cut their finding for education, an economy where there's little hope of finding a good job. Pro-life to me means caring about all life on this Earth not just the unborn.
Bachman and her ilk do not support health care for all, equity in education, living wages ...which are all pro life stances.
If these candidates are going to parade their alleged Christian faith on the national stage when are you MSM folks going to call them out? These are people who hide behind these alleged Christian values stepping over the less fortunate on their way into their churches.
Being pro fetus does not mean these candidates are pro life.
Challenge them...please
I agree with Robin. I'm no Biblical scholar but I do believe that Jesus spent his time on Earth healing the sick, feeding the people and helping the poor. Time for the Republicans to "put their money where their mouth is" and follow the teachings of their Savior.
The rich ruling class is doing extremely well at diverting the attention of others from what is actually happening. Critical thought is largely absent now. Focus on making social and other issues more and more divisive accomplishes the goal of diverting attention from the rich laughing all the way to the bank while the remainder of us have less and less. It is laughable to think that Republicans truly care about non-whites having abortions; they care only about maximizing white votes that support the rich ruling class robbing the remainder of us blind.
there’s a concerted effort being made in states from New Hampshire to North Carolina to Ohio to make sure fewer people vote in 2012.: In some crucial battleground states, more than 50 percent of ballots are cast as part of early voting, which makes voting an easier and more flexible process. In 2008, a third of voters nationwide cast their votes before Election Day. These voters tend to be working families and young people, and a whole lot of them voted for Barack Obama.
So Republican-controlled legislatures are cutting the amount of time people have to vote early, restricting when and how organizations like ours can register new voters, and making the voting process itself more difficult by requiring new types of identification, which lower-income voters are less likely to have.
Can your guest please discuss this Republican effort to disenfranchise voters?
They need to be called out on this obvious hypocrisy
If Bachmann knocks out Romney Bachman, Perry going to be much easier to take out by Obama
Chris Matthews hit the hardball out of the park last night
Let me finish tonight with a simple political question.
Why on God's earth should we reward the people who got us into this mess? You can't sell a house because you can't get a decent price for it. You can't buy a house because people can't believe what you're offering for it.
That's what we're living now. Okay, Obama hasn't been able to get us out of it yet - no doubt on that front - but that's what we're suffering from and there's no sense blaming one party or the other, but there's a helluva lot of sense in keeping your eye on the people who did it - who made millions on all kinds of off-the-wall investment "products" and then dumped them out there to people who didn't know what they were getting.
All I ask is why anyone, regardless of political philosophy, would want to be out there barking for better tax breaks for these people - why they could be so shameless as to tell us it's better to screw the old people out of their Medicare so we can keep the tax breaks Bush jammed through heading out the door, even if we have to deliver them in hot checks courtesy of the latest borrowing from abroad? Why? Ask somebody why reward the big shots who shot this economy dead with more millions in tax breaks - a running bonanza of generosity from you and the people who got screwed by the very people now with their hands out for more?
It's a no-brainer. For the average tax payer, it's simple. If there has to be pain to keep this country solvent - so we don't go the way of Greece - where do we come up with the deal? Do we sock it to the people who are old and sick or to the people making the big bucks who never really - come on! - really felt the hell they brought down on this country in the first place, the hell they left in town behind them.
.
http://hardballblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/28/6967455-matthews-fair...