In my post on sticky vs. non-sticky communities – talking about LGF and Political Animal – one point that I thought hard about was this: the ‘sticky’ community of LGF is relatively marginal today, while the Political Animal community has expressed intentions of actually leading a political movement.
Yesterday, Chris Bowers, at MyDD – a site that’s clearly framed around electoral power, rather than commentary or random musings (like some blogs I write for hang around at, stepped up and drank the Kool-Aid.
In partial response to the post on religion at Political Animal, Chris Bowers writes:
Democrats Should Target the Limbaugh Vote, and Other Brilliant Ideas
Internalizing and following the obviously poor election strategy offered up for Democrats by pundits within the established news media is one of the greatest problems we face when trying to win elections. The basic problem is that we are repeatedly told, and repeatedly believe, that in order to win, we must not go after either swing votes or rev up our own base, but instead focus our main strategy on actually trying to win over the Republican base itself. I call this the “Democrats Must Court The Limbaugh Vote” strategy syndrome, both because we tend to follow the election advice given to us by Rush Limbaugh types, and because that advice invariably means that we must target the hard-core Rush Limbaugh audience.
You know for a smart guy, Bowers really doesn’t act like one.
Here’s what he’s reacting to from Political Animal; Steve Waldman cited Michael Lerner:
“Overwhelmingly, the white activists who shaped the Left of the 1960s have remained mired in a culture of hostility toward religion and spirituality. If this were merely a historical curiosity, I’d leave this issue to the cultural historians. But since the Left’s hostility to religion and spirituality has become such a major stumbling block to the chances that progressive forces will ever win enough power to actually change the socially and environmentally destructive policies of the West, it becomes important to explore the roots of this hostility.”
The issue is twofold; first that there is nothing inherent in the fast-growing evangelical movement that locks them to the Republican Party – why aren’t the Democrats proselytizing in these “churches of service”?
I’m guessing it’s abortion, in some cases it doubtless is a significant wall between the churched and the Democrats – and I’ll bet that from the Democrat’s point of view, they tar the entire churchgoing public with Randall Terry.
As far as I know – and I know a fair number of evangelicals – there are some who will never be Democrats because of abortion. There are some who will never be Democrats because of education. But there are lots and lots of them who are looking for a mission to help others, and who would stand with progressive Democrats as they try to do so. They are one of the fastest growing groups in America, and tipping them into the Democratic camp would radically change the balance of political power in this country.
What would it cost the Democrats to do so?
Bowers suggests it would cost them their soul.
I think it would cost them one simple thing; a willingness to approach other people with a measure of respect, rather than the kind of contempt shown in the Political Animal thread, and in a related thread over at a site called ‘Faithful Progressive’ (I like that name – it’s almost as jarring as ‘Armed Liberal’), who’s blog I’ll be paying a lot more attention to.
That respect doesn’t presume that you encompass the notion that gays are evil, or that Bible Study should be a part of the grade-school curriculum in public schools.
It does presume that Democrats will offer similar respect to those whose lifestyle involves going to church on Sunday that they offer to those whose lifestyle involves going to the bathhouse on Saturday night.
It presumes that – and I keep dragging this quote out, because it is just so absolutely correct –
“Finally, if political education is to be effective it must grow from a spirit of humility on the part of the teachers, and they must overcome the tendencies toward self-righteousness and self-pity which set the tone of youth and student politics in the 1960’s. The teachers must acknowledge common origins and common burdens with the taught, stressing connection and membership, rather than distance and superiority. Only from these roots can trust and hopeful common action grow.”
– John Schaar, ‘The Case for Patriotism’
I keep coming back to this because I keep it close to my own heart as I try and figure out how to make my politics matter. I’m no better than those who go to church, or those who disagree with me; we’re all members of a polity together and my job, as a participant in that polity, is to try and convince others – through my words and actions – that my path is one worth taking.
Ask yourself when you read Kos, or Bowers, or any of the legions of the proud cosmopolitan netroots why someone who is a mainstream American voter should follow them, given the level of contempt and bile they dish out to everyone who isn’t part of their ideological clique.
Howard Dean said something a long time ago that hit me hard –
“I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” the former Vermont governor said in an interview published Saturday in the Des Moines Register. “We can’t beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”
Of course, the Chris Bowers’ of the party slapped him senseless for it, but he was rightm, and when we get Democrats fearless enough to accept that challenge, we’ll beging to have a Democratic Party that can win.
Nitpicking follows, regarding your last point.
Dean may have had the right sentiment. But he put it badly by dropping a bomb that was the Confederate flag. Dunno why he did. On the nice hand, he may have simply flubbed by giving a quote that could be taken so far out of context (there _are_ noble reasons to like the Confederate flag, but it’s so complex that it requires a lot of explaining to a non-Southerner – hence, bad quote material). On the sinister hand, maybe he revealed his (lack of) sense of Southerners – and in the process, demonstrated a nasty bias. Hard for me to say.
And then the hard left proceeded to overreact. So it was a big mess all around.
Dean needed a better stereotype prepared. It needed to be a stereotype, something that says “South” – but it needed to be universally well thought of. Like sitting on your porch on a hot, lazy July day, sipping an iced tea. Or having a rusty pickup. Or enjoying the rodeo. Or wondering when the drought will let up.
AL — I disagree here.
Mark Steyn’s obituary and remembrance of Eugene McCarthy states that 1968 and Clean Gene represent a breaking point; the destruction of traditional populist liberalism with “progressivism” and that disdain for ordinary folks religion is a feature, not a bug, of the larger disdain for ordinary folks themselves.
If you look at who the Progressives are, they seem to be white, upper class, elites who engage in status seeking to prove their moral superiority. While engaging in a broad philosophy of “if it feels good do it” personal fulfillment and moral and cultural relativism.
By definition then (if you accept this premise) they will not be able to reach out beyond their base without losing who and what they are. Personal fulfillment and feminist “destruction of marriage and family” ala Friedan or Ehrenreich are incompatible with Joe Middle Class struggling to raise a family. Denial that there is evil, or right and wrong (“stupid bourgeois attitudes”) is incompatible with Christian spirituality which has as it’s core the idea that there is a right; a wrong and that people should chose the right.
IMHO the Democratic Party needs to suffer a death or near-death experience to blast away the Spirit of 1968 (seen in the Yale Taliban) and the legacy of Clean Gene. Guys like LBJ simply can’t exist in the Party anymore except as marginalized figures (particularly with respect to military force) and that in a nutshell is why Democrats lose and will continue to lose as long as military force is part of important issues to Americans.
[The vehemence of the reaction you cite IMHO only re-inforces this notion that core beliefs and identity are threatened. Dem activists define themselves as the enlightened superior beings and the rest as unwashed inferior ones. You won’t change that belief IMHO only marginalize their holders.]
I must say this entire theme is quite confusing to me.
Do democrats heap disdain on Christians in America? Or is it only evangelical Christians?
I really don’t see it. And given that the vast majority of democrats consider themselves to be Christians, does that mean the heap disdain on themselves?
Just my opinion, but in politics you should court evangelicals the same way you court hispanics, accountants or bus drivers. With principled stands on issues that are important to them. If the abortion issue precludes some from joining the party that’s fine. I’d argue that it is highly unlikely those folks would join regardless.
Regarding the courting of the Limbaugh vote, don’t waste your time.
If an evangelical christian loves Rush Limbaugh, a thrice married non church attending windbag, do you really want them in your party?
I went and checked out that Wash. Monthly article — and the comments. Oh dear.
I am not religious. And aside from the general question of whether liberals are hostile to Christianity or not — those particular people are seriously kidding themselves if they can’t see how hostile that that entire thread is. Talk about protesting too much!! Doesn’t help that so many of them seem to have the liberal equivalent of a Chick-Tract religious sensibility.
But there are things inherent in the Democratic Party that lock them out. You’re right that abortion is a big one.
When I was growing up in an evangelical/Catholic community not so many years ago, there were lots of evangelical Democrats. Abortion was a problem, but it was not a particularly Democratic one. There were lots of pro-life Democrats they could point to, and lots of pro-choice Republicans.
All of that has changed over the past few years, as you know. There has been a mostly unopposed attempt to shove pro-lifers out of the Democratic Party, an effort that got a big boost during the McAuliffe regime. There has also been too much tolerance in the Democratic Party for the anti-Christian cultural propaganda of the left.
And Democrats still do not understand how much damage Clinton did to them among evangelicals. I know life-long Dems who swore they’d never support another Democrat again. It wasn’t what Clinton did that offended them, it was the way that Democrats defended what Clinton did. Most of the ire actually fell on people other than Clinton: Tom Daschle was a direct casualty of this.
Add in the big-mouthed and ultra-visible Hollywood Left, hanging around every Democratic candidate’s neck like a stinky albatross. And years of Democrats injecting super-heated abortion rhetoric into every Supreme Court nomination.
Liberals like to characterize socially conservative Christians as intolerant. They have no idea how much tolerance they’ve used up over the past three decades, and how much Christians have been provoked. They’ve actually been getting a free ride on evangelical tolerance for a very long time – with many, many things being overlooked or forgiven – but that train has gone about as far as it’s going to go.
The left thinks of evangelicals as anti-matter replicas of themselves, with identical but opposite ambitions. They couldn’t be more wrong. Evangelicals do not have one-tenth of the political dogmatism that the left does. Like orthodox Jews, their cultural life is centered in the home and the place of worship, not the public square. They don’t regard angry activism as a virtue. They are accustomed to ignoring things they don’t like, and their posture is defensive. Unlike the left, they don’t come and go in a heated rush, forgetting old ideas in favor of the latest political fads. They have long and consistent memories, too.
I think a point you, and others, may be missing is that Democrats fail to win Religious converts because their ideology doesn’t resonate. Abortion may be one part of the puzzle, but for the most part, Christian teachings don’t jive well with a socialist viewpoint. And for a great many, American Christians the Left will almost always be synonymous with the atheist Red Threat.
Not being a member of any faith myself, but leaning fairly right in my views, I tend to see a great disdain for Religious types by much of the Kos types on the left. There is an outright hostility to religious people that is almost as palpable as the hatred for Bush.
There is also an overwhelming attempt to link the Fred Phelps types as a representative of the modern Christian Right, and I think that most open minded religious people of either left or right persuasion are put off by this kind of quick judgmental lumping. If you’re a white Southern Christian, than you must be a fag hating, racist, bible thumper, who plays Rush Limbaugh recordings while your kids are in the womb. Sadly that’s the type of vibe I get when I read posts from people like Bowers.
Once again though, I would propose that Democrat electoral woes have far more to do with their antiquated and inflexible ideology, their beholdeness to their fringe constituencies and interest groups and their general overall lack of anything close to a positive agenda for the Nation, than their ability to get out the vote or convert religious types.
AL, I believe you’re on the right track with your questions, but don’t believe you will reach a satisfactory (or satisfying to liberals) conclusion at the end of this process. IMO, the DNC appears hostile to active (church-attending) christians; this is a generality and certainly exceptions do exist, but overall the percentages indicate fewer such christians inhabit the DNC, and those that do tend to not be in positions of leadership. I further suspect those christians that do remain in the DNC are somewhat discouraged by the direction their party has taken in recent years (decades?); this could easily dissuade such party members from even bothering to vote.
BTW, active christians are often very concerned about helping others, which is another reason they may be gravitating away from the DNC. The DNC may say they want to help those that need help, but their actions and policies say otherwise to a lot of people; it’s like those with needs are merely pawns to the DNC, and the party’s policies tend to keep those individuals in perpetual hardship.
I’d respond to Davebo’s question, but it’s in my political interest to keep him confused here. In the interests of at least some forthrightness, I’ll note that there is a compelling, data-driven answer to his question. Happy hunting.
Speaking of which, we need to turn Marc into “Armed Not a Liberal Anymore” so he’ll stop handing out this advice. The fact that the party remains too far gone to listen to him helps, but there’s always the risk that this could change. Now, where IS that blasted Krell mind-machine….
I think there was a poll within the past year that showed that most evangelicals who are registered voters are Democrats (although they may have voted Republican in 2004). I can’t find the link right now.
“the ‘sticky’ community of LGF is relatively marginal today, while the Political Animal community has expressed intentions of actually leading a political movement.”
Not sure “relatively marginal” is the opposite of “intentions to lead a political movement.” The LGF readers may be very influential through getting links and ideas from within that community and contributing them to other venues. Whereas the PA commenters my be under the illusoin they are influential but may indeed be not so.
we need to turn Marc into “Armed Not a Liberal Anymore”
The orbital platform has been locked on target for a long time now and the mind-warping mesons are all ready to do their foul work, but I swear to God he sleeps with that chrome helmet on.
Jeez (oops!) Joe! Why even bother?
Oh well, no one else cared to take a shot at it either so I can’t blame you.
Gabriel, could you expound on this?
And it might be helpful to include your working definition of socialism.
And I’d add that the democrats beholdeness(is that a word) to fringe groups doesn’t seem to be supported by the evidence. For instance, notice the swarm of democrats in congress rushing to stand beside Russ Feingold right now.
Frankly, I think the entire meme is a case of projection. And if one considers the topic of this post one has to see the irony.
But if you want to really get a feel for how the electorate feels about abortion you could do worse than keep an eye on the state of South Dakota.
Roughly 750,000 people there are going to have a huge effect on this subject one way or another very soon. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.
As someone is not religious but decidedly right of center, might I suggest that part of the problem lies in this little passage from Michael “Politics of Meaning” Lerner:
If the Left really is seeking political gurus to help it connect with American public, perhaps it might be wise to not start by seeking guidance from the ones that start from the premise that the United States is the problem.
I commend and endorse Glen Wishard’s comments in #5 above. Well said, and thank you!
“Armed Not A Liberal Anymore” would be a wonderful new handle for AL, but I’m just glad at this point to see a rational and thoughtful liberal who is apparently not excessively calcified. On a similar vein, I’ve really enjoyed following Neo-neocon sporadically for the past year or so:
http://neo-neocon.bl*o*gspot.com/
She’s making the transition, too.
I’ll resist the urge to point out that the current Chair of the DNC and the guest of honor in former President Carter’s box at the 2004 convention are evidence to the contrary.
Actually, what’s more telling is their unwillingness to put this bit of nonsense on Senator Feingold’s part to an up-or-down vote and kill it like they did Rangel’s call for a draft and Murtha’s call for a retreat from Iraq. The fact that they’re not willing to go on the record as opposing this crap suggests that either (a) they agree with it or (b) they’re not willing to go on record as opposing it for fear of alienating their base before the mid-term elections or derailing a few presidential hopefuls in 2008.
Davebo, I’m not remotely suggesting that Rush and his loonie follwing are the people the Democrats ought to be reaching out to. The mere fact that Chris Bowers automatically assumes that when you say “the religious” that you’re talking about dittoheads is a) prima facie evidence that he doesn’t have one clue to rub against itself when he talks about religion in America; and b) evidence that absent a single clue, he scorns that which he’s deeply ignorant of.
Now _that’s_ a winning strategist, if you ask me…
A.L.
Socialism/Collectivism/Communism, each being part and parcel of the other espouses an egalitarian viewpoint that is wholly incompatible with traditional “god given” or unalienable rights; life, liberty, property.
Wealth redistribution via the government is the essence of modern socialism in my viewpoint. Not to go off on a tangent, but for the most part the Modern Democratic Party is primarily socialist in its ideology and actions, one need only look at California’s State Legislature for a good working example.
As to beholdeness, you’re right its not a word.
I’m not sure South Dakota is a good gauge of “the electorate” as a whole, thus the need for abortion to be a states rights issue. Personally I have no problem with abortion, in some instances I would promote its use, in others not, but that’s a personal decision. I’ll leave it at that, the whole issue has been debated to death.
Consider Russ Feingold’s little censure play as the Dean Scream of 2006. Here we have it, right in front of our faces, the Kos plan in action (ala Crashing the Gates), in the flesh, in the public eye, and as most have predicted it’s about as beneficial to the Democratic Party’s electoral chances as Howard Dean’s leadership of the DNC has been. But it has been entertaining to see good ole Russ fall on his sword so publicly. It’s been a long time since I got such a chuckle out of such an amazing political flameout.
Thorely
Well, I suppose ones opinion on Dean is relevent to ones own political perspective. I certainly don’t consider the former governor to be a moonbat but others may feel differently.
Pretty stunning ignorance here. First, how could senate democrats kill a move to give the censure an up or down vote? I’d offer this handy guide for your reference.
Secondly the Murtha resolution was never allowed an up or down vote.
Well, there’s a real core ethical problem for the Democrats here, at least Democrats of a particular stripe. If we start with the premise that swinging the swing vote is the way to go, and further, that swinging that swing vote means swinging a lot of mildly to moderately religious people, here’s the problem:
Do Democrats swing that vote by trying to reason mildly to moderately religious people out of certain positions they hold based on their faith?
Or do Democrats swing that vote by changing their policies to be more in line with those religiously influenced positions?
Or do Democrats swing that vote by maintaining a tough and honest line on those policies, but hoping to appeal in every other respect so much that the moderately religious will grit their teeth and vote?
And by “those positions” I think we all understand that we’re talking about a core set of issues revolving around reproductive rights, sexual issues, health rights, and the big one, abortion.
The first seems like a recipe for consistent loss for another generation or so. The Republicans have likely lost the battle on homosexuality and gay marriage, they just don’t know it yet. And technology will lose them the battle on reproductive rights within twenty years. But during that time, the Democrats can consistently lose elections. The victory is strategic; the losses tactical; and the result may be getting the policies you want at the cost of your own political party’s viability.
The second seems ethically dubious, a sacrifice of principles that are just as important to (at least some of) the Left. And for what it’s worth, I have a lot of sympathy with the Left on these issues. I consider the fundamental unit of politics to be one man, and I believe that should apply to matters of faith as well– what irritates me to absolutely no end about the Religious Right is that they seek to make the basic unit of religious faith the community (and then the county, the state, and the nation) rather than the man. It is a glaring disconnect in Republican political philosophy to be advocating as little government as possible, except for those things that their religion wants. This strikes me as something legitimately worth fighting for on the Left and although they’re doing a hideous job of it right now, I would be sad to see them give it up.
And the third strikes me as an impossibly difficult balancing act to maintain for twenty years.
What’s a Democrat strategist to do?
Moving public schools off of center stage and going to vouchers will satisfy over 95% of the the so-called religous right. Leave folks’ kids alone and they’ll start calming down. Ultimately, abortion is just a side issue compared to this.
More like a pretty stunning lack of reading comprehension on your part that you would somehow read my chastising the unwillingness on the part of Senate Democrats to “put this [censure resolution] to an up-or-down vote and kill it” as suggesting that they should “kill a move to give the censure an up or down vote.”
Like I said, the fact that they’re not willing to go on the record as voting no like they were Rangel’s call for bringing back the draft or Murtha’s call for a retreat from Iraq* suggests that either they (a) agree with it (in which case Dean isn’t the only inmate running their asylum) or (b) they don’t want to go on record as voting “no” and risk alienating their base before the midterm election or derail the 2008 presidential ambitions of a few hopefuls.
* While his specific bill wasn’t brought up for a vote, one with the same substance albeit fewer weasel-words was.
Interesting theory in light of the fact that the trend is for individuals to become more not less socially conservative as they get older. In which case sixty million baby boomers will more likely than not shift the nation even further to right on social issues as they continue to outgrow the narcissism of the pro-abortion movement and the “if it feels good, do it” mentality of the sexual libertines.
That it is the Left rather than the Right that fears most actually putting these things up to vote suggests who it really is that knows that they’re losing the battle.
Thought experiment:
Pastor A preaches a sermon to men about living a godly life, eschewing sex before marriage, keeping your promises, remaining faithful, being a good father, and rejecting temptations of modern society for focus on the home and family.
What is the Democratic reaction?
If Pastor A is one of the “Promise Keepers” folks, that they are the Pat Robertson fifth column designed to make America into “the Handmaid’s Tale.”
If Pastor A is one of the African-American pastors in inner city African-American Baptist church, that “they don’t really mean it” and something that’s just shrugged off as pro-forma cultural aspect out of the James Brown Gospel scene in the Blues Brothers Movie.
This duality IMHO says what’s wrong with the Democratic party and why they have found electoral failure post 1968. Look at the reaction to overtly religious Baptists Clinton and Bush. One is celebrated for his ignoring religion in his personal life by l’affaire Lewinsky, the other derided for actually praying. [There are many things to dislike about GWB. Praying is hardly one of them I’d say. But that’s just me.]
Lurker.
As a fairly progressive person, I stand now to offer my support for a school voucher program.
I figure the $3,500 a year I pay in school tax as a homeowner as well as the $11,000 or so a year as a business owner on school taxes can certainly be put to better use! I’m thinking a 42′ Sea Ray might do the trick!
Jim,
Great comment!
But two questions. How much did Pastor A charge for admission to his sermon. And what percentage of the population did the black church ban from attending their sermon?
Answer? $60.00 USD, and 0%
jim rockford’s comment that progressives seem to be white upper class elites does not jive at all with the fact that the vast majority of non-white americans vote consistantly democratic, and poll consistantly progressive.
glen wishard’s comment that liberals have no idea how much tolerance they’ve used up over the past three decades, and how much christians have been provoked, could be mirrored by saying that christians have no idea how much tolerance they’ve used up over the past three decades, etc… the fact is that the opposite of multicultural is monocultural, and the monoculties systematically seek to impose their beliefs on everyone else whenever they’re in power – that’s what they do!
tolerance and intolerance are mutually exlusive. pick a side.
gabriel chapman’s point that the democratic netroots display a disdain for the religious right makes sense, though, because the religious right that gets the press coverage seems to genuinely think that the world is only a few thousand years old, that natural disasters are punishments sent by god, and that gay people deserve to be tortured for eternity in hell… among other things. now, i don’t think disdain is a useful reaction to such beliefs, but if anything justifies disdain, it’s stuff like this.
or should we not disdain those who believe they’ll be rewarded for their martyrdom with olive groves full of virgins in the afterlife?
also, the various commenters declaring the supposed incompatability of christianity and socialism need to tattoo “give unto cesaer what is cesaer’s” onto their foreheads and right hands – at least they won’t have to worry about the mark of the beast then! maybe, though, they’ve just gotten so good at pushing camels through needle-eyes that they don’t worry about that sort of thing anymore…
Davebo,
The Democratic Party does have a significant “big tent” problem. It has lost its major advantage over the GOP. Will Rodgers’ adage used to be true – “I’m not a member of any organized political party – I’m a Democrat.”
Class-based exclusivity games are death for an American political party, and the Democrats now have those.
You err seriously in thinking that anti-religion attitudes in your party are not class-based. They ARE class-based. Ask Bill Clinton and James Carville.
Until people like you realize this, and act on it, your party will continue losing nationally.
Thorley,
I’m a 61 yr. old freelove, pro abortion, anti-prohibitionist, etc. boomer.
Why do I support the Rs?
1. The war – they get it
2. Socialism – it doesn’t work. From the USSR, to the EU.
Now what Dem could I support? In fact what Dem would I love to vote for? Joe Lieberman. He gets the war and he gets that the best way to helop the poor is a vibrant economy.
Say hasn’t he been all but drummed out of the party?
Magick Number 450666
#24,
$60 dollars for a message – worth every penny.
$0.00 for the same message – worth what you paid for it.
Silly huh?
Since when did the price paid determine value?
You know I think Socialism has rotted the left’s brain re: economics. Believe it or not I said it a few years ago. Here even.
BTW given the “buy in” phenomenon the message might be woth more if you paid $60 for it.
Jim: “If Pastor A is one of the African-American pastors in inner city African-American Baptist church, that “they don’t really mean it” and something that’s just shrugged off as pro-forma cultural aspect out of the James Brown Gospel scene in the Blues Brothers Movie.”
That’s a good point, and it’s a point that many Democrats don’t even remotely entertain when they think about religion in America, or when they go overboard with their anti-religious rhetoric.
As I’ve said many times before, they ought to have paid attention to how black Christians (and their politically liberal but socially conservative elected representives) reacted to the Terry Schiavo issue. While they’re at it, they might try finding out how black Christians feel about abortion, school vouchers, and sexual politics.
tolerance and intolerance are mutually exlusive. pick a side.
Hardly. The same people who cheefully tolerate any an all sexual practices you can record on videotape are deeply intolerant of, say, the decision to own a handgun or an SUV.
As one of my favorite NRA posters puts it, “If government doesn’t belong in the bedroom, what’s it doing on my nightstand?”
And vice-versa on the other side, etc.
Well put Rob. The same clique that will gladly welcome a former Taliban spokesperson to the campus will just as quickly fire a newspaper editor for posting Mohammed cartoons, or shut down an affirmative action bakesale.
The two biggest indicators of how people would vote in the last presidential election were:
1) Religious service attendance and
2) Marital Status.
Those who went to religious services one time a week or more and were married voted over whelming Republican. In addition, their demographic voted disproportionately more than the rest of the population.
Those who were single and utterly secular voted overwhelmingly Democrat..assuming they voted at all.
In addition to abortion, Gay marriage also played a huge role with the religious vote. States that were “Redder” had more married religious people and were running 70/75-30/25 percent against Gay marriage.
The religious married view Gay marriage as a direct attack on their most cherished institution and their identity. There is no compromise with them on the subject.
While the Democrats are not overwhelmingly anti-religious, their Leftie fundraisers are. This paint’s the whole party with that brush because there are no opposing voices in the Party for the religious party to feel comfortable joining.
As long as the Democratic political elites are hooked on that money like IV drug users are on their next heroin fix, They will let the class sensibilities of the Lefties to color the whole party and poison it against the non-white religious. Point in fact, the erosion of the black and non-California Hispanic religious married middle class is an increasing point of worry for Democratic Political strategists.
The Lefties are no more able to compromise on abortion or Gay marriage than the Religious married are on abortion or Gay marriage.
Unless Democratic elected elites and their hanger’s on dump the Lefties to court the religious married, the Democratic Party is demographically doomed…and they won’t.
Those that think the Republican party has already lost the Gay marriage fight haven’t looked at the polls which are going hard against Gay marriage and further show that “tolerant 20-somethings” gain the same “intolerance” their married religious 30-something have when they reach that age. Trying to raise practicing religious children in the modern ages does that.
rob – it would be inconsistant and hypocritical to tolerance intolerance, right? that’s what i mean by saying “tolerance and intolerance are mutually exclusive”.
and who tolerates(or advocates tolerance of) all sexual practices you can put on videotape? not the ACLU! not the NAACP, or NOW, or greenpeace, or PETA, any of those other organizations so frequently called liberal!
they tolerate things consenting adults do with each other… and why not? that they see no reason to tolerate private posession of military weaponry is completely beside the point. they do so in the same way that you (surely) see no reason to tolerate private posession of chemical/nuclear/biological weapons.
armed tolerance hurts no one. armed intolerance has done all the damage in the world. to the extent that intolerance is disarmed, then tolerance doesn’t need arms either.
“if government doesn’t belong in my bedroom, then what’s it doing in my biological weapons lab?”
Sayke,
If it’s hypocritical to tolerate intolerace, then Yale has some serious explaining to do. As, for that matter, does everyone who preaches “tolerace” but uses derogatory terms like “Jesusland” among friends.
This isn’t the time or the place for a full debate on gun control, so I won’t go there.
But my comment about the intolerance of gun ownership was not directed at those who make a dispassionate, rational case for removing what you refer to as “military weaponry” from civilian hands.
It was aimed at those who talk about gun owners as racist, bloodthirsty morons who are compensating for their sexual inadequacies by brandishing handguns.
SAYKE: “christians have no idea how much tolerance they’ve used up over the past three decades, etc… the fact is that the opposite of multicultural is monocultural, and the monoculties systematically seek to impose their beliefs on everyone else whenever they’re in power – that’s what they do!”
I don’t know what you mean by culture, but Christian culture is hardly “mono” – it ranges from Blind Willie Johnson to T.S. Eliot. If you mean political culture (yuck) then Christians are equally diverse. There is hardly a significant political movement in existence that hasn’t included Christians, though a large number of them are currently at odds with the Democrats (see above).
If “multiculturalism” is being set up as an opposite here, I wonder how many multiculti proponents are Republican or Libertarian. They have about as much political diversity as UC Berkeley, circa 1968.
As for “multicultural” contributions to non-political culture, these are harder to assess because they don’t exist.
sayke,
> “if government doesn’t belong in my bedroom, then what’s it doing in my biological weapons lab?”
Word! You’ll get my Doomsday Weapon when you pry it out of my cold, dead, secret vulcanic lair.
This discussion reminds me of the Ayn Rand rant that conservatives and liberals each want to control different aspects of our lives. The conservatives want to control our moral lives, and the liberals want to control our economic lives, but there is a common denominator: each wants control, and plenty of it (a decent rant, IMO, suggesting that a stopped clock is right at least twice a day).
The challenge of (us) Democrats is, somehow, not being defined by our activists (good luck with that!), who’re used to spook the swing voters something feirce. If Democrats had more credibility when criticizing the Republican majority/admin spending taxpayers money like drunken sailors, or not prosecuting the war more aggressively (or effectively), or, say, their indifference to border security (a real issue in border states), they might really stand to make some political gains. As it is, that whole internationalist/socialist/Vietnam Syndrome schtick is flyover country poison.
rob – yale may indeed have some explaining to do. have they been discriminating against people because of their christianity? i haven’t heard of it happening, but if it has then i oppose it! however, when it comes to things deserving of mockery, intolerance pretty much takes the cake. why not mock theocratic beliefs? why not mock monoculturism (including “jesuslanders”), whatever its source? surely it’s ok to mock crazy-ass muslim beliefs, so why not christian ones…?
as for those who mock legal gun owners – i basically agree with you. you’ll hardly find a more peaceable and law-abiding bunch, and they frequently don’t get the respect they deserve for that. however, there are certainly racist, bloodthirsty morons who are compensating for their sexual inadequacies by brandishing handguns – they’re out there too, and they’re hilarious! so, they give a lot of good people a bad name.
glen – i totally agree with you about the diversity in christianity. christianity is incredibly diverse, thank god, and without that diversity our nation wouldn’t have so many things that make it great – like the bill of rights! the founders were multiculturalists and humanists (well, maybe not john adams) of the highest order, and without their foresight and commitment to tolerance we’d be just another post-colonial backwater.
however, *mono*culturalism seems to frequently correlate with religious thought – so we certainly can’t ignore all those self-proclaimed christians who wear their intolerance like a badge of honor. how many americans think the pope is the antichrist nowadays, anyway? we see less and less of that sort of thing as time goes on – and as the monoculties find new targets for their hate: first communists, and now muslims.
multiculturalism, on the other hand, is frequently both secular and religious, and i know quite a few multiculturally-inclined republicans/libertarians! i studied political science under a very astute one, in fact… he even said one of the chief goals of education is tolerance. he viewed it almost as an end unto itself, and had all kinds of pragmatic and philosophical reasons for thinking of it that way… let’s not get into that now though =)
i think you underestimate the amount of political diversity at berkely in the 60s, btw. have you ever witnessed a debate between syndacalists and marxists, or eco-centrists and union people? *damn* it can get heated =) the fact that the debate back then didn’t include many articulate conservative voices is almost as bad as the fact that the current media discourse doesn’t include any articulate syndicalist or post-marxist voices… 😉
non-conservative political thought is *vastly* more diverse then conservative political thought… but yes, i wish there had been more deliberation which included conservative thinkers at berkely in the 1960s. i also wish the ongoing deliberations at the american enterprise institute included some articulate progressive voices, but hey! we’ve gotta work with what we have =D
yale may indeed have some explaining to do. have they been discriminating against people because of their christianity?
Not that I’m aware. But they certainly have turned out to be awfully tolerant of “intolerance” and “monoculturism.” For how else to describe the Taliban, whose propaganda minister Yale actively recruited as a student?
My point is just that tolerance of X combined with intolerance of Y is quite common. So is intolerance of certain kinds of intolerance (Yale would never recruit a KKK leader as a student) combined with tolerave of other kinds of intolerance (Yale’s acceptance of a Talib).
I don’t think it’s anywhere near as simple as “pick a side.”
I saw this in Today’s Washington Times.
Democrats are so dead with the Religious married it is not funny.
bq. Washington Times
March 17, 2006
Pg. 9
bq. Go To Church, Back The War
bq. By Jennifer Harper, The Washington Times
bq. Protestants and frequent churchgoers are most supportive of the war in Iraq, according to research released yesterday by Gallup.
bq. “In general, the more frequently an American attends church, the less likely he or she is to say the war was a mistake,” noted Gallup editor in chief Frank Newport, who analyzed a series of polls that posed the question, “Is the war a mistake?” to 4,000 adults from January 2005 to February 2006.
bq. Overall, 45 percent of Protestants and 47 percent of “other Christians” thought the war was a mistake. The figure was 52 percent among Catholics, 58 percent among other religions and 62 percent among those who had no religion.
bq. Frequency of church attendance also held sway. Overall, among those who never went to church, 62 percent said the war was a mistake. Among those who attended services once a week, the figure was 44 percent.
and
bq. The survey found the most support among white Christians — 39 percent of Protestants did not think the conflict was a mistake. The figure was 50 percent among white Catholics, 55 percent among other religions and 60 percent among those with no religion.
bq. A partisan pattern also emerged.
bq. “The more religious the American, in general, the more he or she is to identify with the Republican Party. Frequent churchgoers tend to be Republicans, who in turn can be expected to support the policies of a Republican president,” Mr. Newport noted.
bq. Among Protestants, 19 percent of those who were Republicans thought the war was a mistake, compared with 50 percent of independents and 76 percent of Democrats.
bq. Republican churchgoers were the most supportive. Among those who attended services once a week, 16 percent thought the war was a mistake. The figure was 26 percent among Republicans who never attended church.
bq. Among Democrats, 79 percent who attended church weekly said the conflict was a mistake; the figure was 81 percent among those who never attended services.
rob – just like you were, i was surprised when i heard that yale admitted mr. rahmatullah, but surely we can imagine yale having legimitate interests here. might they want to further their understanding of the taliban and similar regimes, by learning from mr. rahmatullah up close? might that want to further develop empathy with their enemies, in the spirit of mr. macnamara’s first lesson? might mr. rahmatullah be essentially harmless now, and be rendered further so by his exposure to and engagement with yale academic culture? might having him around be very very good for yale’s other students and faculty? might erring on the side of engagement be, in general, a good policy? would the world be any better off if mr. rahmatullah was still in afganistan?
i don’t have a ready answer to all of these, but surely this sort of question is at least debatable… further, i hold that considering these things, and acknowledging the tradeoffs that come with this territory, in no way undercuts the necessity of picking a side (tolerance vs. intolerance).
it merely becomes a question of what approach will more effectively promote tolerance and dilute intolerance in the world. the choice yale was faced with in the case of mr. rahmatullah is a tactical one – the choice between engagement and isolation. i know what side i’d like to err on.
“rob – just like you were, i was surprised when i heard that yale admitted mr. rahmatullah, but surely we can imagine yale having legimitate interests here. might they want to further their understanding of the taliban and similar regimes, by learning from mr. rahmatullah up close? ”
So why are they so dead set against giving the same courtesy to the ROTC? Again, selective tolerance.
mark – if mr. rahmatullah wanted to officially recruit for the taliban at yale then his presence could be compared to that of the ROTC. however, he’s not doing that sort of thing, so your analogy doesn’t make any sense.
individual ROTC recruiters are no doubt welcome to attend classes at yale just like mr. rahmatullah is.
this is all beside the point, though – the fact that yale policy may be hypocritical in some cases (although they don’t seem to be in this one) has no bearing on the general importance of consistantly refusing to tolerate intolerance.
“individual ROTC recruiters are no doubt welcome to attend classes at yale just like mr. rahmatullah is.”
Yet none seem to have been specifically invited by Yale, nor were their visas partially approved thanks to having the Yale name attached to the purpose of visit. Lets not pretend the guy just happened to wander into Yale, he was specifically invited and would never have gotten into the country otherwise. That certainly indicated some official capacity and recognition by the university. How much official recognition rubs off by letting an ROTC recruiter set up a folding table on the quad compared to getting a high ranking Taliban official into the school is an interesting question. So they are very comparable in that regard.
Sayke,
I look forward to the day (well, actually, I don’t) when the KKK’s grand wizards, or whatever they’re called, are actively recruited to Yale in the name of tolerance, engagement, whatever. Will they do more good at Yale or in their Idaho mountain compounds?
(As an aside, I find the KKK far more tolerant and pleasant people than the Taliban, even if they do think my son is a sub-human mud child)
You’re bending yourself into rhetorical pretzels to defend Yale’s obvious tolerance (and indeed, embrace) of intolerace–when it was you who declared that everything was terribly simple, just pick a side and be done with it.
It’s not simple, as you yourself are demonstrating. Nor do most people just pick between tolerance and intolerance; most of us tolerate some things and refuse to tolerate others. With the exception, I suppose, of the Taliban, who seemed determined to be intolerant towards pretty much everything.
mark and rob – i originally asked a series of questions about what yale might accomplish by admitting mr. rahmatullah, in an attempt to suggest some possible motives underlying yale’s decision might be.
however, i said that was all the beside the point, because the fact that yale policy may be hypocritical in some cases (although they don’t seem to be in this one) has no bearing on the general importance of consistantly refusing to tolerate intolerance.
i hold to that. yale’s hypocracy (or lack of it) is completely tangental to any discussion of the importance of tolerance promotion. it really is simple. is recruiting mr. rahmatullah more or less likely to promote tolerance around the world? the answer is obviously yes.
but let’s take a look at what you’re implying, exactly. do you mean to seriously suggest that the involved yale faculty members think they has common cause with the taliban? do you honestly believe that they’re making some whack-ass enemy-of-my-enemy alliance-seeking calculation here?
or, as i asked before, might they want to further their understanding (and the understanding of their students) of the taliban and similar regimes, by learning from mr. rahmatullah up close? might they want to further develop empathy with their enemies, in the spirit of mr. macnamara’s first lesson? might mr. rahmatullah be essentially harmless now, and be rendered further so by his exposure to and engagement with yale academic culture? might having him around be very very good in other ways for yale’s other students and faculty? might erring on the side of engagement be, in general, a good policy? would the world be any better off if mr. rahmatullah was still in afganistan?
might yale have decided that converting or at least moderating mr. rahmatullah would be a likely side effect of his recruitment?
neither ROTC recruiters nor KKK grand wizards are at all comparable to mr. rahmatullah in this situation, except (presumably) in their comfort with violence as a legitimate and generally-useful problem-solving tool. mr. rahmatullah comes from a far away land with an alien culture – more specifically, from a movement/regime the US is currently seeking to eradicate. just as it was in the national interest to learn as much as possible about our enemies during ww2, it is in the national interest today to learn about the taliban, in as many ways as possible.
that you both so reflexively overlook this incredible opportunity (for yale students studying terrorism to have an actual taliban member right there!) underscores a pervasively common disconnect between the desire to defeat the enemy and the need to understand the enemy. it’s really too bad, but all you have to do is figure out how to put this in perspective by relating it to you personally – for example:
if you were studying terrorism as part of a degree program you hoped would land you at the state department, wouldn’t you be happy if there was an actual english-speaking former taliban regime member around learn from? wouldn’t all our leaders benefit from such an experience?
this is why yale is so good. the fact that they’re able to do this, in the face of such widespread knee-jerk outrage, leaves me no choice but to thank the gods for academic independence.
when the US is engaged in open warfare with the ROTC or the KKK, let me know. in the meantime, yale students enthusiastically opposed to the ROTC or the KKK can, no doubt, find some former ROTC recruiters or former KKK members to interview no more then a few hours of driving away… and i bet more then a few former ROTC recruiters and former KKK members have attended classes on yale’s ivy-covered grounds…
do you mean to seriously suggest that the involved yale faculty members think they has common cause with the taliban?
No, I mean to suggest that you have apparently thought this out much more thoroughly than Yale has. I do not know exactly what their rationale was–they are, after all, hiding under a rock–but I strongly suspect it was much more simple-minded and foolish than yours. Otherwise they would have made the case you are making. Not exactly “enemy of my enemy,” but rather status-seeking among their fashionable academic peers combined with clueless multi-culti moral blindess.
I agree that an Afghan student (or visiting professor) could be a great resource to the school and its students. But I would have picked at the very least a repentant Talib, or more likely a victim or opponent of the Taliban regime.
No, there is not in fact the slightest excuse for “admitting an unrepentant propaganda minister for the Taliban.”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008269.php Or a repenant one either, for that matter.
The fact that the liberal mind reflexively thinks that actively seeking out the Abu Goebbels of the Taliban for the privilege of admissions to America’s most prestigious universities is OK, but reflexively sees evangelical Christians as anathema (and clearly demonstrates both by their words and actions), tells most observers all they need to know.
rob – i totally agree that yale’s hiding under a rock on this, and that seems quite indicative of a certain moral cowardice on their part. i don’t know what exactly their student-privacy rationale is, but at the very least, i’m sure they could word a strident counter-attack of a press release such that privacy concerns are a non-issue…
i further agree that they may well have just not thought this through – that recruiting the guy may well have been more about prestige then anything else… “oooh look at the trophy we brought back from foreign lands! don’t you wish you had a former taliban spokesman for your political science students to study, harvard?” that sort of bullshit seems quite plausible to me =D
that doesn’t detract from the utility of having former rogue-regime flunkies around campus for your students to study, though =]
joe – he sounds pretty repentant to me, considering that he “claims to favor women’s suffrage and free speech”, and blames the bunch of the nasty stuff the taliban did on the ministry for vice and virtue, from whom he distances himself… he’s coming around. if people like you (dedicated to the notion that he’s irrepairably evil and must be made to suffer) don’t get in the way he’ll probably do a 180 and end up being a serious force for good in afganistan.
and please – don’t misstate my argument. i wasn’t merely arguing that it was ok to actively seek out former taliban flunkies for admission the prestigous american universities. i was (and am) arguing that doing so *is in the national interest*. kapeesh? =D