Hardkill

This might seem like a dumb or crazy question—especially considering your political beliefs and mine—but if the country elects Trump 2.0 and embraces neoliberalism on steroids in 2024, with America still stuck in toxic Stage Orange mania, what then? Do you think the Democratic Party should start supporting more and more of Trump’s and the GOP’s policies—like more tax cuts for the rich, further deregulation of the financial system and environmental protections, and cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on? Or is that not what you are saying or suggesting?

Those Damn emojis....... But hey, there's nothing wrong with the bullet-point style format. It makes statements more organized and readable.

One thing that I don't think anybody has really been talking about is the fact that the Left has ceded the narrative of religion and God to the right-wing and Republicans way too much for far too long. Even the most religiously expressive Democrats, like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden still have never leaned into religion nearly as much as Republicans and the Right have. Democrats Lean In More Cautiously Because: 1. Their Coalition Is Religiously Diverse Includes seculars, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and atheists. Leaning heavily into one religious tradition risks alienating others. 2. They Embrace Pluralism and Church-State Separation Even religious Democrats tend to be uncomfortable politicizing religion the way the GOP does. Democratic leaders prefer moral language rooted in compassion, justice, and inclusion, rather than invoking divine authority. 3. Their Activist and Academic Base Is Mostly Secular Many leading voices in progressive activism, media, and education view religion with skepticism or even hostility. 4. Democrats Think: “America’s Becoming Secular — Why Bother?” However, I now think that the Democratic party and progressives pulling back from visible, values-based religious messaging — especially after the 1990s — has become a costly mistake for them both electorally and culturally. 1. Ceded the Moral Narrative to the Right The GOP successfully framed itself as the party of “faith, family, and freedom”, especially to white Christians. Meanwhile, Democrats often sounded like the party of policy and rights, but not moral conviction. That opened the door for Christian nationalism to grow unchallenged in moral language, with Democrats mostly reacting, not reframing. “If Democrats won’t speak in moral terms, we’ll do it for them — our way.” 2. Lost Key Religious Voter Groups White evangelicals became solidly Republican. Mainline Protestants drifted right. Even Latino Catholics and Pentecostals have trended more conservative in recent cycles. Only Black Protestants and liberal Catholics have stayed reliably Democratic — and even there, turnout has fluctuated. 3. Missed Opportunities for Bridge-Building Faith communities care about: Poverty Healthcare Immigration Racial justice Climate stewardship These are Democratic-aligned issues, but Democrats rarely frame them as moral imperatives rooted in faith — leaving religious voters unengaged or unconvinced. 4. Allowed the Left to Be Branded as Anti-Faith Even though Democrats have many religious members and leaders, the lack of consistent public messaging made it easier for Republicans to portray the entire party as secular, elitist, or even hostile to religion. 5. Even in this current era, most Americans are still religious: Approx. two-thirds of Americans still identify as Christian Approx. 2 percent of Americans identify as Jewish Approx. 10 percent of Americans identify as belonging to some other kind of religion Only less than 25% of Americans identify as not being affiliated with any religion If Democrats combined the modern Jimmy Carter–style approach with a call for moral education rooted in the wisdom of religious traditions (especially Abrahamic ones), while being clear that this is about learning from religion, not enforcing it, they could: 1. Reclaim Moral Leadership By linking values like discipline, compassion, integrity, and courage to religious teachings, Democrats could show that faith traditions have long supported the very ideals they fight for — social justice, inclusion, and dignity. “We’re not telling kids what to believe — we’re showing them what generations before us believed about honor, service, and the common good.” 2. Respond to the Crisis of Meaning Among Young People Many young Americans today feel: Disconnected from tradition or community Overwhelmed by anxiety, digital overload, and political division Starved for a sense of purpose bigger than themselves Teaching about faith traditions (without preaching) could help offer roots, narrative, and community values — tools for anchoring their lives. 3. Bridge Divides Across Generations and Faiths Older Americans might feel heard when Democrats say: “We know our children are missing something. They deserve to learn not just how to succeed — but how to live.” Immigrant and minority religious communities would likely respond positively, seeing their traditions valued, not erased. Even secular voters could support this if framed as values education, not religious indoctrination. What This Message Must Be Careful To Do: ✅ Emphasize: Learning from religion, not practicing it “We’re not here to preach. We’re here to teach. About how different faiths, especially the Abrahamic ones, helped shape the ideas of service, duty, and compassion that built this country.” Frame it as inclusive and pluralistic. Include discussions of: Christianity, Judaism, Islam Humanism, secular ethics, Eastern traditions Moral questions like: What do I owe others? What gives life meaning? How should I treat people I disagree with? ✅ Tie it to civic purpose “We want young people to know they matter — not just to themselves, but to their neighbors, their communities, and their country.” Moreover, Democrats would need "cultural depth" to make that kind of religious-values message credible and not come off as just pandering. They would have to embed it authentically within their broader cultural, political, and moral identity, rather than just dropping a one-off talking point. Here’s how they could add cultural depth to a message encouraging voluntary religious participation for people: 1. Show Long-Term Engagement with Faith Communities Not just a campaign slogan — but consistent outreach and partnership with: Churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples Faith-based nonprofits (soup kitchens, youth programs, refugee aid) Interfaith coalitions working on housing, climate, and justice If Democrats are already working with faith leaders on issues like poverty, addiction, and education, then a message about “faith and moral formation” feels grounded — not opportunistic. 2. Highlight Faith-Based Democratic Voices Instead of vague nods to “faith,” platform devout Democrats who live their values: Black pastors supporting economic justice Catholic activists working on immigration reform Muslim leaders promoting civic engagement Jewish Democrats advancing civil rights Let them speak for the party — not just in religious language, but in moral, community-based terms that align with core Democratic values. 3. Tie Religious Values to Universal Democratic Goals Make the case that faith-based upbringing supports goals like: Empathy and compassion → social justice Discipline and responsibility → strong families and education Charity and service → anti-poverty programs “Whether you draw strength from scripture or conscience, what matters is that we raise children to care for others and work for justice.” 4. Include Pluralism and Secular Morality in the Message Balance the religious tone by: Affirming that secular Americans also raise moral, civic-minded kids Framing faith as one valuable path, not the only one Emphasizing mutual respect and shared public values “This isn’t about forcing belief — it’s about honoring the many ways Americans raise children to be compassionate, curious, and courageous.” They should also like Jimmy Carter make a strong call for moral education rooted in the wisdom of religious traditions (especially Abrahamic ones), while being clear that this is about learning from religion, not enforcing it. If they did then they could: 1. Reclaim Moral Leadership By linking values like discipline, compassion, integrity, and courage to religious teachings, Democrats could show that faith traditions have long supported the very ideals they fight for — social justice, inclusion, and dignity. “We’re not telling kids what to believe — we’re showing them what generations before us believed about honor, service, and the common good.” 2. Respond to the Crisis of Meaning Among Young People Many young Americans today feel: Disconnected from tradition or community Overwhelmed by anxiety, digital overload, and political division Starved for a sense of purpose bigger than themselves Teaching about faith traditions (without preaching) could help offer roots, narrative, and community values — tools for anchoring their lives. 3. Bridge Divides Across Generations and Faiths Older Americans might feel heard when Democrats say: “We know our children are missing something. They deserve to learn not just how to succeed — but how to live.” Immigrant and minority religious communities would likely respond positively, seeing their traditions valued, not erased. Even secular voters could support this if framed as values education, not religious indoctrination. What This Message Must Be Careful To Do: ✅ Emphasize: Learning from religion, not practicing it “We’re not here to preach. We’re here to teach. About how different faiths, especially the Abrahamic ones, helped shape the ideas of service, duty, and compassion that built this country.” ✅ Frame it as inclusive and pluralistic Include discussions of: Christianity, Judaism, Islam Humanism, secular ethics, Eastern traditions Moral questions like: What do I owe others? What gives life meaning? How should I treat people I disagree with? ✅ Tie it to civic purpose “We want young people to know they matter — not just to themselves, but to their neighbors, their communities, and their country.”

Yeah, economic issues are supposed to be bipartisan and unifying issues, but apparently too many Americans seem to prioritize or get too distracted by culture wars like Trans and queers vs. anti-Trans and anti-queer, gays and lesbians vs. straight people, white people vs. racial minorities, Immigrants vs. native-born Americans, men vs. women, religion vs. secularism, nationalism vs. globalism, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, and on and on and on. Okay, you got me. Some of what I posted on my original post was from using Chat GPT, but not all of it was. In fact, it took a lot of time to refine the kinds of responses and texts that I was looking for.

It's actually not a bad idea. Or it could be more like Judeo-Christian Democracy.

Yeah, and large parts of the country perceive the Democrats as overeducated, too urban, too coastal, and too secular.

@Emerald @DocWatts Alright, well you both have made valid points. Let’s hope enough people in America still care about their rights, despite the intense cynicism surrounding our country’s system.

So then, why haven’t the arrests of protestors in Russia led the majority of the population to withdraw their support for Putin’s regime?

@DocWatts @Emerald And what are protestors supposed to do if the police start arresting and imprisoning them without due process—just because Trump says so—and the legal system fails to stop it, like what happens in Russia? What if Trump declares martial law nationwide? He controls the most powerful military in the history of the world.

@Emerald @DocWatts I didn’t say that protests or protestors should incite or start any violence. However, every American has the right to bear arms and defend themselves against an intrusive, tyrannical government. Right now, we’re living in extraordinarily frightening times—times in which your rights and freedoms could be taken away with alarming ease. I wouldn’t count on the courts or the legal system to check Trump’s reign for long. Too many law firms have already capitulated to him, and if enough of them across the country bend the knee, there may be nothing stopping Trump from arresting protestors at his whim. Furthermore, Trump and his administration continue to ignore or slow-walk court rulings made against them, and it’s still unclear to me how—even the U.S. Supreme Court—will be able to enforce compliance if Trump refuses to follow their orders. If law enforcement or other aggressive groups start using violence against peaceful protesters, it could send a chilling message across the country—intimidating Americans into silence and killing protest culture altogether, just like in authoritarian regimes such as Russia. I am very concerned about this.

I feel like everybody at the protests need to arm themselves with a weapon protect themselves in case the federal government tries to arrest the protestors. I used to be against the idea of civilians having the right to bear arms, but I am now making an exception to that given the serious looming threat of government tyranny we are facing now.

Congratulations Leo! Now you're officially recognized as being the person closest to becoming God. 🤣

I never thought that this thread would turn into a heated debate over trans and corruption.

but left-wing policies that have granted civil rights and voting rights for racial minorities, women, the lgbtq+ community, etc. have restricted what kind of good freedoms?

The right-wing is not truly for freedom either. Right-wing ideology and conservatism is really about hierarchy, order, and traditions.

Oh....so is becoming a tier-2 individual all about transcending the corruption of left, right, and center?

So, are centrists less corrupt than the right-wing, but more corrupt than leftists, are?

Pretty much. The media environment used to be very centralized and relatively neutral. Before the 1980s-1990s, the internet and social media obviously never existed and there were only a very few amount of channels on the radio and on TV that had political commentary. Furthermore, every show on tv and radio that talked about politics had to present both left-wing and right-wing views on every single issue because of the Fairness Doctrine. That's it. That helped create enough downward pressure on right-wing propaganda, which helped Democrats, liberals, and moderates get their message across clearly and helped keep the spread of misinformation in check.

Liberals and centrists used to dominate the media environment before the rise of the right-wing media ecosystem beginning in the 1990s.

Yeah, I’ve tried convincing conservatives to be more open-minded about abortion, diversity, civil rights, and immigration rights, and they’ve responded with things like, “No! It’s murder! It’s murder!!!” or “I’m not going to argue with you about this. Obviously, we’re not going to agree, so leave me alone!” or “I’m sorry, but I just can’t get there… it’s so un-American!”—or they simply refuse to engage at all.

Right! I would mean that we fight another day so to speak on trans rights and other social justice issues. Also, have them talk about how corporate greed, Elon Musk, and Trump are the real Devils who are destroying the Judeo-Christian roots of our country. The Democrats have to really talk A LOT more on masculinity and how there's nothing inherently wrong with male sexuality of men and men being good strong leaders of society. They should also say that while they respect women's right to work any kind of job and earn as much money as she wants, many women these days are not behaving as feminine as women in older generations did and don't have the right kind of men who can guide them guide them properly and protect them.

Why can't we just hold off on fighting for more civil rights for another decade or so, while focusing on fixing the economic problems first?

So, then why don't run on socially moderate to conservative stances while running on economic populism from now on?

If people are so malleable, then why did it take a bloody Civil War to free African Americans from slavery? Why did it require one of the largest and most effective civil rights movements in U.S. history just to secure women the right to vote? Why did it take yet another herculean effort—along with the traumatic loss of many innocent lives—to finally end Jim Crow laws through the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century? And why did so many gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people suffer, face violence, die by suicide, or endure unnecessary death and suffering from AIDS during the decades-long fight for LGBTQ+ rights—before mainstream acceptance and the eventual legalization of gay marriage in the mid-2010s? Democrats obviously shouldn't normalize Nazism or Trump-like rhetoric. Hell, even most Republicans don't normalize Nazism.

So, what if we are conforming to old-school values from the 1940s? Most Americans are either conservative or moderate. How can you realistically expect to convince the majority of Americans to accept DEI, transgender rights, and other left-leaning social issues when many are undereducated and barely making ends meet? Let the right-wing and the Republican Party think they’re winning by siding with them on almost all social values—except on abortion and climate change—and then completely shock them when they realize they're losing the fight on economics through a revival of New Deal or Square Deal-style policies. That doesn’t mean Democrats have to sound insulting toward foreigners, racial minorities, women, or the LGBTQ community like Trump often does. And it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t call out serious, unconstitutional actions committed by Trump and the GOP—especially when those actions have gravely harmed individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Democrats just need to sound more like Reagan Republicans on cultural issues—minus the rhetoric on “welfare queens,” anti-abortion stances, and climate denial—while forcefully opposing far-right extreme freaks like Alex Jones and Steve Bannon. On economic issues, they should sound like New Deal Democrats.