Just over half of interviewees (51%) in a Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University study, who identified as “people of faith,” responded that they are likely to vote in the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The “people of faith” label is given to those who identify with a recognized religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism or Islam.
The study found that approximately 104 million people under the “people of faith” umbrella are not expected to vote this election, including 41 million born-again Christians and 32 million who regularly go to church.
Perhaps one or two could even be convinced to support the party that advocates for charity, kindness and goodwill to the poor. Responsible stewardship of gods creation. Openness to forgiveness and redemption for criminals. Treating your neighbors well. Just generally doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, even when you do not fully understand them.
Let’s not get crazy
No, let’s stick to pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps the same way Jesus did: by having a powerful father.
No that’s communism, they’d say
but abortion
They’re fine with charity as long as they decide who is deserving of the money. They love government handouts as long as they are going to Christofascist pursuits. Just as Jesus taught us, I guess.
Rights are things all people have equally and unconditionally.
Charity is something that gets given arbitrarilly and under whatever conditions the “givers” of Charity decide and which can stop at any time for anybody and any reason.
I come from a country which used to have a Fascist Dictatorship were pretty much everybody but a handful of people were crushingly poor and while a handful of very rich families who helped maintain the system of oppression and exploitation that caused so much misery, the “ladies” of those families boasted about how much “Charity” they practiced.
Charity is a moral-salve (makes them think and seem to be “good people”) of the better to reduce the moral weight on the from being part of and benefiting from the exploitation and at times even pillaging of the rest of Society.
There is no such party in the US.
The best you can get is the “Let’s make the rich richer by avoiding equality like the plague and never undoing the regressive measures from the Other Party whilst claiming to be charitable” Party.
It’s still better than the “Let’s kill everybody not like me” Party, but lets not try and deceive people with the preposterous fantasy that they’re actual Good Guys rather than Not Quite As Bad Guys.
That’s funny, they usually let the tax cuts expire when it comes time to renew them. They’ll have yet another opportunity here to prove that shortly. Executive actions are also usually overridden. Legislation is harder, unfortunately, unless we remove the filibuster which we probably will at some point.
Anyway, might want to get your facts straight.
Now, it is worth mentioning that they absolutely do not want perfect communist equality, that’s extremely unpopular here in America, probably low single digits in support percentage. We like some economic inequality, just not too much, we call it “mobility”. Yes there are classes, we plan on keeping those, we just let you move from one to another when the system is working appropriately.
I live in Europe.
In my country the politics of the Democrat Party would fall between those of our most rightwing mainstream party and the far-right parties. We do have a Communist party here and they’re seen as far-left so it’s not as if the policies in Healthcare, Education, Public Transportation and Social Safety Net supported and expected by pretty much everybody here are “Communism”.
And this is Portugal, which is a disgrace next to, say, Scandinavia when it comes to being a proper State that properly represents the interests of most people.
You only think the political “weekly reaming” (not in a good sense) over there is great because you know no other way to live and the other guys are the “daily reaming” party.
The US is just horribly bad when it comes to treat all people in a fair and humane way, so being thrown a sweet after their weekly reaming is enough to make many think they’re so priviledged and led by such wonderful politicians, as is normal in an abusive relationship.
It’s not so much that I think it’s great as I understand all the individual causes of everything, since I follow politics. The details are important, who votes for what is important. It’s just a lot to track, and generally isn’t paid much attention unless someone is specifically interested in politics. It’s a very complicated mess, but being accurate has its own value.
I’ve been following politics in various countries and have even been a member of small political parties in two of the countries I’ve lived in (as an EU citizen I get to vote in Local and EU Elections in any EU country I live in) and the lies and deceit also cover the “causes”.
I would say the deceiving goes at least 3 levels deep, sometimes more. You’re being fed spin and misinformation to make you draw the desired conclusions and are even being fed spin and misinformation to make it more likely that you would trust the former kind of spina and misinformation.
What really openned my eyes to the deep stack of lies upon lies in modern politics, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, was being right smack in the middle of the Investment Banking Industry in London during the 2008 Crash and the “Recovery” years after it: the “causes” we were being told about were bullshit if you looked at the Industry from the inside, the official economic figures we were provide were bullshit if you dug down on them (in at least one case doing the calculations from publicly available raw figures using standard Economic formulas yielded very different results from the Official figure) and the people they ended up helping were the ones who least needed any help (pretty much the opposite side of society that needed it).
A lot of what you see might look like good things because you’re fed a carefully crafted picture of the “we have no other option” kind as rationale or you’re given some of the reasons but not the full picture so that you yourself naturally reach the conclusion others desire using that half-picture and hence think they’re doing the right thing. Further, there are various cognitive shortcuts in the human mind, one of which is called “Anchoring” - things look much or they look little always relative to other things - which is used in Sales to get people to accept higher prices (basically, you given them an even higher figure upfront in some way and then the real price doesn’t look so much because the brain is judging that price relative to the first figure), and also in Politics to make barelly benificial measures (or even measures that merelly remove detrimental previous measures) look like they’re great things because that how it looks for people who are used to only getting shit.
Mind you, this kind of manipulation impacts me as much as it does you. It’s just that as the slant is different here and I have a different experience of politics in the various countries I lived in, I can look at what’s done in the US with lots of examples of how governing can be so much more for the majority of people than it is in the US even by the Democrats.
It’s like when I first moved out of my own country, Portugal, to The Netherlands - with the broadening of experience from seeing how things were done elsewhere, looking back at my own homeland revealed all sorts of quirks and ways of doing things which were pretty bad, at all levels (not just Politics) that before I thought “that’s just the way things are”. By having a broader experience of “what can be done” and having my axis of reference moved by that broadening of experience, suddenly things that for me before looked like good things were now viewed as being “the minimum they can get away with”, symbolic and purposefully innefective or similar.
There are other biases worth paying attention to as well, confirmation bias most particularly. This is why details are so important. It’s not good enough to simply wave your hand at “bullshit”. You need to examine exactly what the bullshit is, who it benefits, and most importantly, who votes for it.
That last part is critical. We can whine all day long about our systems, but in any representative government, those votes are the most important data point. Here in the States, for instance, we had a couple specific people in the Senate stonewalling our recent attempts at progressive policies. These specific individuals need to be noted and remembered, instead of taking the easy way out and handwaving the whole system or whole groups of people away.
On top of that, there is still the electorate to consider. The reason the US leans to the right of most of Europe is because the American populace leans much further to the right, to the point of openly flirting with fascism. And not just now, either, it’s littered throughout our history. Even pre-WW2, there was a significant amount of fascist support here, and its never really gone away. Because of our form of government, we will get what we ask for, for better or for worse.
Agreed.
The reason why I simplified it down to “bullshit” is because my post was too long already without going into details about the what the “bullshit” actually was. ;)
And yeah, having returned to my homeland with all the political experience from abroad, I also see here the cultural factors that keep the system as is, as well as how the voting system written into the constitution mathematically creates a pair of “winners” - not as bad as the US but not all that much better - who are the only ones who could change said Constitution to make the system more Democratic, which they will never do).
The US is, IMHO, even more calcified socially and politically (some years ago I would’ve said “not so much in the personal freedoms axis” but lately all the attacks on things like women bodily autonomy and trans-sexuality make me think otherwise) and hence far harder to steer away from Ultra-Capitalist dog-eat-dog Far-Right thinking and into even just the minimum subset of Social Democracy ideas (such as Universal Healthcare).
I don’t really know what might work to change things there. I can only thing of grassroots campaigns against specific congressional candidates (like plastering posters with pictures of Palestinian childrens’ corpses - tiltle “This is what X has been paid to defend” - all over the place in the areas of were candidates who got AIPAC money are running and doing the same on the run up to the next Democratic Primary).
That said, that doesn’t change the point that the Democrats are not a party “of the people, for the people”, which probably explains how so many less well off and less educated people ended up being drawn so fast to the populist rhetoric of Trump and his wannabe clones - most of the Democrat Party has become so bad at ruling for normal people (and the Press so riddled with slick lies and manipulation in defense of doing things for the benefit of the few) that any old loud raging bollocks that just sounded different was enough to attract lots of votes.
Looking from the outside, it seems to me that the field that Trump sowed and already harvested once was plowed and fertilized by all those years when both parties were ruling for the few whilst using the Press as nothing more than Propaganda outlets to deceive and swindle the many.
Agreed on some points, but again, the details are important. Most dems do consistently vote for more beneficial policies, stronger social support structures, against tax cuts, etc. It needs to be understood exactly how our legislation gets passed, how a filibuster works, etc though. You cannot simply say “well, dems were in charge, so why wasn’t everything fixed?” without going into the details of what sorts of tools obstructionists have at their disposal. Details are critical if one wants to accurately understand, you can’t just stay at a big-picture view regardless of how tempting it is.
I do think the answer is grassroots, but try to remember, in a right-leaning society people won’t care as much about Palestinian children. That’s not a right-leaning position. The right-leaning position is to shrug your shoulders and callously go “not my people”. So it’s important to think about how to frame things in a way that will convince typical Americans, while acknowledging their biases.
Too bad no such party exists. Many will claim some of that, but their actions show it is false.
I would argue support for higher taxes, social services, more environmental regulation and criminal justice reforms like Harris’ Back On Track program are indicative of pretty strong actions in support of those principles.
You can do that. Many others would argue differently. There is no particular reason to think anyone is correct - even though everyone likes to think they are right all the time.
Don’t forget that stated support for something and actions often tell very different stories.
So how about capping the price of several prescription drugs, resulting in lower profits for pharma companies? Or Walz implementing free school lunches in Minnesota? Those actions speak about anything to you?
Plenty of ecconomicists have said why capping prices are bad. That you read others is your choice. This is supposed to be an exercise in undertanding, not an exercise in convincing someone they are wrong. So quit asking what I think. Instead understand what and why they think - they are not stupid.
It’s not about whether capping some prices is good or bad for the economy. It’s about whether it helps poor people or not, whether its something in-line with Christian principles of helping the poor.
You were asking for actions that back up their words, so I give you actions that show one party is much more in-line with Jesus’ teachings. Where the other one just spits on them while waving an upside-down bible for a photo op.
Something that makes things worse for everyone doesn’t help the poor at all. Sure it sounds good, but anyone who looks at deeper effects will discover that it is even worse for the poor.
Worse for everyone? I’m not so sure about that, the stock price of one pharma company is not “everyone”. So you really think capping the price of insulin somehow makes things worse for the poor, who already are struggling to afford it? Not sure how much worse it can get for them, if they can’t afford a drug they need to live. That seems pretty close to dying.