Seed Media Group

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search this blog

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is also a graduate student at the University of Kansas, completing a doctorate in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not modeling species distributions or battling creationists, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Affiliate programs: buy through the links, and TfK will get a percentage.

Buying some music for your friends?

Apple iTunes

Or maybe some gift certificates?

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com

Good government

Find your state legislators

Help elect sensible leaders

Re-Elect Nancy Boyda!

Internet neighbors

Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

Blogroll

Progressive Blogroll Alliance

Show PBA Blogroll

Register here to join the PBA.

« Friday Find: Declining pollinators and the importance of wild bees | Main | Dembski dismisses Biblical literalism as "anti-Christian myth" »

Who defeated what?!?

Category: Culture Wars
Posted on: November 10, 2006 1:29 PM, by Josh Rosenau

Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics, argues that:

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard. A significant number of candidates elected are social conservatives on issues of life and family, economic populists, and committed to a new direction in Iraq.
He presents no actual evidence for this claim, which is frustrating. I wasn't aware that the secular and religious left were at odds in this election, so I don't know how he could say one lost to the other. I do agree that the religious right got beaten badly, and have argued that point already.

It is the case that Nancy Boyda was recruited into running again by Sojourners (Wallis's group) and that she succeeded in part by reaching out to religious voters with a progressive vision. To claim that she's a social conservative on issues of life and family, though, is at best, ambiguous. Wallis may be trying to redefine those terms, though I don't see what end that achieves. Otherwise it just isn't true. Look at her takes on the issues and tell me which positions are socially conservative.

Media Matters surveyed the new Democratic majority and found them to be solidly progressive on key issues. A minimum wage, support for stem cell research, opposition to more legislation on abortion – these are not "conservative" views on "issues of life and family," at least not in the sense that anyone actually uses those terms. Kos has also dismantled the attempts at spinning this election as a win for conservative Democrats. I especially like his point that "during the campaign, every single one of these Democrats was accused by their Republican opponents of being 'too liberal.'" It's a little late to try to claim they are actually conservative now.

On the other hand, I'm with SusanG. Her message to those pundits:

please, don't catch on that every time you insist that "conservative Democrats" won, every time you couple the words, "conservative" and "Democrat," not only does an angel get its wings, some voter in Mississippi is getting the message that there is a natural home for conservatives in the Democratic Party. Make it crystal clear, repeatedly, from now until 2008, that citizens in the Mountain West and the Midwest who cast their votes next to a "D" for perhaps the first time in their lives were NOT betraying "traditional values," but were, in fact, reinforcing them.

If the right-wing devotes thousands of hours to this "conservatives really won by electing a Democratic majority" in the next two years, they'll have softened the South up enough for us to canvass in 2008 with the simple statement, "Hey, I'm a Democrat and I want your value vote," and it will make perfect sense.

For my purposes, substitute "Kansas" for "Mississippi" or "the South." And ultimately, I don't care about motives.

I support action on climate change and habitat protection because I feel a responsibility to the world I live in. I get that from a personal love of the natural world, other people are taking the same stand on the issue because they see it as a Biblical injunction to act as stewards.

Whatever works for you, I guess. If it gets a sensible set of policies implemented to protect our natural world, to support working Americans, to cure our ills and to defend our nation against attack, I don't see a need to fight about motivations. At the end of the day, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments

#1

In fact, a number of Democrats who are conservative on values issues such as abortion (e.g. Senator elect Casey from Pennsylvania) were elected. This election was basically decided by the Iraq war which trancended all other issues. There was a deliberate strategy by the head of the Democrats' Congressional campaign committee, Rahm Emanuel, to recruit such individuals to run in conservative leaning districts. Although Ms. Palosi will be the new speaker of the house, I suspect that Emanuel will be the power behind the throne for his part in placing her there. Emanuel is an extremely ambitious individual, somebody who is going places, possibly a future speaker of the house, a future senator, or even a future president

Posted by: SLC | November 10, 2006 4:34 PM

#2

If Rahm Emmanuel is to be the leader of the party, we are all, if you'll pardon my use of crude language, fucked square in the ass standing. Emmanuel's first moves after the election have been to move the party to the right, but not because of any genuine mandate from the people who elected the Democrats (although some more rightward-leaning Dems won, the majority were still solid progressives), it's because he wants to shore up his connections with K-Street. He's just another Republican-lite Clintonian, and if we listen to him, the Democrats tenure in the majority of the legislature will be ephemeral.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 10, 2006 10:23 PM

#4

It's true that some anti-abortion Democrats were elected, but many more anti-abortion Republicans were replaced by pro-choice Democrats.

Everything I've heard about Nancy Pelosi suggests that she'll do just fine in running the House without anyone else pulling her strings. Rahm will be the Caucus chair, a position where he'll get to use his legendary skills at enforcing party cohesion.

Rahm Emanuel made some enemies by either refusing to jump into some races or jumping in too late with too little.

Posted by: Josh | November 10, 2006 10:32 PM

#5

If Nancy sees your smiling faces everytime she looks up, she and you will do just fine. If she sees only Rahm, Rahm will do just fine.

Posted by: Greg | November 10, 2006 10:49 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most German

Search All Blogs



GeoURL ecto powered