Comments on: Religion and politics

By: John

John — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:51:20 +0000

I think both sides should remember that about 45% of Kerry votes came from so-called “Red States”, while 35-40% of Bush votes came from “Blue States”. The trashing of “Red States” by depressed liberals in the past few days only serves to alienate even more voters. I myself voted for President Bush. Why? Briefly put, I did not trust the Democrats with the war on terror, their views on morality, nor was I appreciative of the Michael Moore-wing of their party. Dems would be wise to eject the extremists, moderate their tone on defense, and find some way of moving moral issues off the front-burner. May I suggest Federalism? This would appeal to moderate and conservative Bush-voters without sacrificing liberal ideals. Take abortion for example. It is clear that neither side will completely win over the views of the other on the national level. Fine. Remove it as an issue in national elections by throwing it back to the States. Liberal states will be permissive of abortion, while more conservative ones will restrict it. I understand purists from both sides don’t want the ardor of 50 protracted fights to have their views prevail, but it would be wise politically. Look at the consequences for this purist mentality, particularly for national Democrats. Would Senator Daschle have been defeated if abortion was an issue in South Dakota state politics and not on the national level? I doubt it. It might behoove Democrats to consider Federalism with regards to these morality issues, or they will continue to face stiff resistance and lose voters who otherwise might normally consider their party. They have a choice: change or wither away.

By: RattlerGator

RattlerGator — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:21:03 +0000

Regarding Massachusetts: it’s not simply that Bush got that percentage of votes. No, no, no. It’s that he INCREASED his percentage in Massachusetts over 2000 against a native son. Many of you are seriously, seriously deluded. Harry, I feel for you my man. I finally fled the Democratic Party this year and, as a black man, have had two-hour discussions with friends passionately trying to turn me back. No way, and this thread certainly affirms that decision. Harry, you do make some good points but there are fewer and fewer of you in and of the left. The responses to this election by many have been nothing short of shameful, not to mention juvenile and unserious. I mean, secession? SECESSION? I’d never voted for a Republican before but I couldn’t be more proud of voting for George W. Bush. And switching to the Republican Party. The CERTAINTY that people of faith are unthinking is the greatest liability of the Democratic Party. How long before the Amy Sullivan’s of the world just give the hell up on all of y’all too? And will any of you ever stop to think of the consequences of FORCING her out? Just last night I had another conversation with a friend about Judge Pickering. The blatant lies told by the Democrats about this man still resonate with black people in the South. But then you hit them with the facts—and the reasonableness of his action in the cross-burning case, especially given the dispensation of the case for the two other defendants—and immediately the issue changes to some OTHER trumped up reason why this guy is just another evil Cracker. Sad. Really sad. The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party has been allowed to live a lie for decades. Those days are ending. In actual fact, it is only because of rock-solid black support that the Howard Dean’s and John Kerry’s of America even have a national presence. Zell Miller is right and you folks still in the Democratic Party have no clue just how tenuous your national position is. You haven’t hit rock bottom yet but this thread clearly tells me that you are well on your way.

By: No Preference

No Preference — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:54:19 +0000

rhodeymark, good point. 39% of Massachusetts did vote for Bush. Why were the people at WEEI so happy about the Bush win?

By: rhodeymark

rhodeymark — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:00:21 +0000

Hey “no preference” – you don’t have to go to Kansas, pal/dear – we’re right here if you care to look around. It was funny, I was listening to WEEI (that would be the Boston sports affiliate for the rest of you) and it was party central the day after. Even the few Kerry supporting hosts reluctantly admitted their disappointment was tinged with varying amounts of disdain for their candidate. It isn’t just the religious right that you need to win over – but if you need to go there, have at it.

By: No Preference

No Preference — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:28:51 +0000

This thread is probably expired, but I wanted to thank “a visitor” for stopping by and sharing her views. I am a Massacgusetts liberal, and we tend to think of people who voted for George Bush as an undifferentiated, sinister, inscrutable mass. (Having right wing Christian family in Kansas, I know that this goes both ways). It was refreshing to hear from an actual person. Please drop by again.

By: jc

jc — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:36:04 +0000

Am I an idealist or am I just plain ignorant…do we or don’t we provide for the separation of church and state within our constituion? Granted, the realities of the situation are such that an individual’s vote will be cast based on their personal beliefs but pandering to the religious beliefs of the nation in order to secure votes seems to really muddy the separation waters. Truly, this election was not decided over issues of “moral” values – not by any definition of the word moral. No, this was an election based strictly upon religious values – that is different. Dramatically so. Until we come to grips with the reality that the religious right (and all of those too afraid to not jump on that “life” raft) are swinging a very large ax directly at the heart of the consitutional rights of the American people, then we, as a democratic nation (though I have my doubts that we are now, or ever have been), are doomed to demoralizing defeat. To counter such a swing in sentiment, it will require the same type of disgust, anguish and activism seen during the protests of the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam War. Once our country begins drafting young men (and women) into the military in order to feed fresh bodies into our under-prepared, over-burdened and under-staffed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (and dare I say, Iran, North Korea, Sudan…Pakistan?) then, maybe, we will begin to see the return of a real voter revolt. And a return to a more centrist government. But, of course, like history dictates, we will go too far – overliberalizing and thus alienating the right again – and the ax will swing right back (so to speak) favoring the safe-haven of religion (for who would ever question God in a time personal dis-ease?) and putting at risk the rights of the individual once again. This is such a silly game…Bill Clinton was a brief breath of fresh air in the middle of a right-ward swing that began with the election of Richard Nixon (who, by today’s standards, would be considered a moderate DEMOCRAT). Sadly, we have traveled soooo far to the right since the 1970s that today we are discussing HOW TO TALK EVANGELIC-ESE in order bring the right into a rational discussion. Puh-lease, the answer is not in learning to “speak” their language. It is not about finding “common” ground. Have you been to their chuches and heard their weekly indoctrinations? Have you ever tried to have a nonreligion-based conversation with these people? They are not even capable of it! This doesn’t make them wrong or bad…they just have conviction. Or faith. Or maybe they are just too scared, too ignorant, too simple or just too plain comfortable with not having to take charge of their own life situation. George Bush is not their President…George Bush is their Ayatollah – their spiritual and political leader. Their support of Bush puts them closer to their God. This is a very radical departure from partisanship…one God, one way and only one point of view – theirs.

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:25:42 +0000

Correlation does not equal causation. What is the mechanism by which Clinton encouraged fewer women to have abortions? Well, I alluded to “the 1990s economic boom and its virtuous social fallout.” The canonical answer would be that Clinton pushed through his tax increase (in a squeaker, without a single vote from the other side of the aisle), and that this resulted in between one and two trillion dollars of averted federal debt, lower interest rates, a better investment climate, twenty million jobs, and a lot of women (in high schools and junior colleges, in better-than-minimum-wage jobs, in relationships with gainfully employed partners, in the know about their contraceptive options) making better life choices. But, as I also noted, a lot of people will read the tea leaves differently. Success has many fathers, they say. (Failure, on the other hand, has driven the abortion rate right back up to where his own father left it.)

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:54:40 +0000

Joshua – Correlation does not equal causation. What is the mechanism by which Clinton encouraged fewer women to have abortions?

By: harry

harry — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:39:38 +0000

robbo, I was getting increasingly impatient, and none of it was helped by the fact that I had received a seriously abusive anonymous email from one of my students early in the discussion; which contained the assumption among other things that I had supported Bush. So I was in a lousy mood (for different reasons from everyone else) and I can see re-reading all that how it comes through. Apology accepted, and reciprocated (as it were). So, one of the things that unnerves me about a lot of what I read here yesterday, and also from a lot of what I have heard from people today, is how few people I know seem to have on-going personal relationships with the kinds of people who voted for Bush on ‘moral values’ grounds. I do know several of these people, very well, in fact (ironically, most of them live in Ohio). I don’t think they are wicked, or out for world domination. The people I know are in the grip of a deeply misleading worldview which is not captured by looking at their moral values, but by seriosuly misleading information they are fed and which is not challeneged by anyone they ever talk to or hear except me. They are motivated much more by fear than by the desire to dominate, and the fears they have are fuelled partly by genuinely wicked entreprenuers (including Bush and co), who portray everyone to the left of, I don’t know, Colin Powell, as libertines, relativists, people with no values. My worry is that this portrayal gets purchase by the public response I observe liberal making to many moral issues; even though I know most of them, in fact, have entirely senisble and right-thinking views about them. I think if I lived nearer to my Republican relatives I could persuade them to vote for a socialist party, even if that socialist party had a shot at winning. I suspect the same is true of you, and others on this thread…. anyway, you get the idea.

By: robbo

robbo — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:01:49 +0000

Harry, I guess we’re all better at perceiving a “sneering tone” in others than in ourselves. I know that I surely do, and I do sincerely apologize for letting fly with a “freaking idiot” swipe. That’s truly uncalled for and it does get in the way of the discussion. Again, I do sincerely apologize. Still, when you accuse others of having a “reading deficit” and suggest that we all should have said “Fuck You!” to President Clinton that also contributes to an unpleasant tone. I’ll also take care not to confuse social-democrats with Democrats in the future—I’d just always assumed that, in our effectively two-party system, the social-democrats considered themselves to be more-or-less Democrats. For my part, I’m registered Green, but for all practical electoral purposes I’m a Dem.

By: harry

harry — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:15:35 +0000

OK, I looked it up.

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:14:36 +0000

Anthony writes: Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” really resonated with voters, even though Clinton didn’t actually do anything which might have made abortion more rare. During Mr. Clinton’s eight years in office, legal induced abortions per 1000 women per year fell from 24 to 16, and the rate per 1000 live births went from about 330 to 245. See http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/surv_abort.htm for more detailed numbers and breakdowns by state. After the NASDAQ and the violent crime rate, this is one of the most impressive of the “bubble” numbers. While what the Onion so aptly calls “our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity” lasted, about 300,000 human lives were being saved per year. Obviously, though, the 1990s economic boom and its virtuous social fallout was merely a delayed consequence of the Coolidge administration’s fiscal policies.

By: harry

harry — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:12:04 +0000

Robbo—no, I’m a socialist, or an old-style social-democrat, or something like that. Reasonably liberal about so-called social issues; but issue-by-issue. You’ll get a sense by reading some of my posts on CT. I tend to support progressive Dems, in particular races. I have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on my car and yard sign in my yard. But had no enthusiasm for him; whereas I do for my Senator, Feingold (who went furether than any other Demcrat against Clinton in the impeachment process, and not coincidentally is one of the most left in the Senate). Interesting, isn’t it, that it is hard to ‘read’ people’s politics in these post-election debates. What’s Godwin’s Law? I ought to know, no doubt.

By: robbo

robbo — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:45:59 +0000

Whoops, sorry Harry. Assumptions, you know…so you must be Libertarian, then?

By: Jimmy T

Jimmy T — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:08:27 +0000

Read an interesting article re. why secular progressives need to reach out to believers on a British website: Love thine enemy (New Humanist)