Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman both pick up on the new book from Dennis Kuo saying that the "faith-based initiatives" program was a political scam.
The MSNBC piece contains a few colorful quotes about the shenanigans Kuo is reporting, which sound pretty bad. Kevin cites them, then asks:
Like I said a few days ago, are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?
I agree that they're being conned, but at the same time, what, exactly, does Kevin think they're going to do about it?
This is one of the central problems with the "What's the Matter With Kansas?" thesis. The people we're talking about aren't cynical political operatives, they're honest-to-God social conservatives. They're in favor of socially conservative policies not because they see it as an opportunity to gain political power, but because they sincerely believe that they're the right thing to do.
I'm not talking about the leaders of the various evangelical groups, here, or major lobbyists, or other Washington players. I'm talking about the ground-level voters who go to the polls and support Republicans on "values" grounds. They're not voting that way because they're stupid, they're voting that way because they really believe that abortion is wrong, that abstinence is the only appropriate birth control, that public prayer ought to be allowed.
Don't get me wrong, here-- I don't agree with them, and I think that many of the polciies they support are actively harmful. I don't question the sincerity of their beliefs, though. They're not voting for pro-life Republicans because it's a great "wedge issue" to use against Democrats, but because they really and truly believe that abortion is morally wrong, and that it's important to vote that way.
Given that, where, exactly, do you think they're going to go? Yeah, the Republicans are jerking them around, but are they going to vote for the Democrats? For a party that, as a matter of policy, actively opposes the policies they favor? (For sort of limp and spineless values of "actively oppose," anyway...)
Those "values voters" have a choice between a party that promises to support their position, but doesn't follow through, and a party that promises to do the exact opposite of what they want. What do you think they're going to do? Even if you think they're clueless rubes for believeing what they do, this isn't difficult math.
I suppose there is a third option-- they could just stay home. But then that puts liberals in the position of rooting for voter apathy and lower turnout, and, well, I'm just not fired up about that, either.
Am I saying that Democrats need to start adopting socially conservative policies in order to attract these people? Well, given that I think most of those policies are disastrously wrong, that would be a dumb thing to advocate. I don't think it would be a bad idea to start treating these voters with a little respect, rather than talking about them as if they were brainwashed morons, but that's a different flamewar.
But if you think they're going to "catch on" and stop supporting conservative Republican candidates at every level, you're just kidding yourself.
- Log in to post comments
I think the theory is that the "values voters" have an internal tension: they have a set of very conservative social preferences, but would be well served by a set of liberal economic policies. Currently, values trump interests (for some), and so the support of the economic policies comes along for the tride.
If they could be convinced that they're not going to be able to implement their social agenda no matter who they vote for, it might be that they could be convinced to support liberals on non-values grounds.
E.g. if you could convince them that voting Republican won't help them get school prayer, or the 10 commandments posted in hallways, but voting Democratic will at least get them schools that are well run and funded, then that would be the way to go.
I don't know if that's actually True, or practical, but it makes internal sense.
They don't all need to "catch on", but these revelations should be seen as an opportunity by those of us with more socially responsible attitudes to befriend some of the less die-hard followers. The betrayal by an authoritarian leader is one of the Cracks in the Wall that authoritarian followers need to enable them to see other points of view.
Well if the R's are not doing what they say they are going to do on the wedge issues, and you have come to realize that Katrina and/or the war in Iraq point to moral failings that are NOT related to sex......maybe its part of the process to changing who you support.
The Dems can't ignore values voters, they need to expand "values" beyond abortion and gay rights. "Thou shalt not kill", "feed thy neighbor", and all that other stuff eh???
Ideally they would stop voting entirely, as they did before 1980.
Mike has it right; the voter revolt of 1984 saw a chunk of the electorate make certain social issues their primary (some would say only) voting criteria. Who knows what will actually happen, but a rational voter who learned that he was being duped on those issues might heavily discount them and discover as a result that his overall beliefs are more in line with the Democrats. Personally I don't hold out a lot of hope in that regard; I was once deep in the evangelical community and although there is much to admire there, it is not what I would call rational. Still, we should remember that at one point the South was a Democratic stronghold. IMO, I think changing demographics is going to make the evangelical/value voters increasingly irrelevant. Forget Peak Oil, we've hit Peak Jesus!
I think that the idea is that disillusioned conservative Christians will choose to not vote, or will vote for third-party candidates in protest, to show that they should not be taken for granted, similar to "progressive" Democratic voters who were disillusioned with Clinton's policies and thus supported Nader in the 2000 presidential election. Nobody (nobody with sense, at any rate) is expecting conservative Christians to go over to the Democratic Party, but if enough of them abstain then the Democrats will get a leg up.
I don't think it would be a bad idea to start treating these voters with a little respect, rather than talking about them as if they were brainwashed morons, but that's a different flamewar.
Oh, come on.
Of course people who don't agree with you (whoever you happen to be) are stupid, ignorant, simplistic, etc. That's part of what makes it politics!
If we actually started respecting the ability to think in people whom we disagree with, then we might even have to think a bit harder about our own positions, which could be effort. It's much easier to belive that any thinking, rational person would just naturally come to the exact same conclusions and priorities that we have.
-Rob
Who knows what will actually happen, but a rational voter who learned that he was being duped on those issues might heavily discount them and discover as a result that his overall beliefs are more in line with the Democrats.
I tend to doubt it, given the weight those issues have for the people who vote on them.
I think their opinions on some issues will moderate over time, particularly when policies they oppose fail to bring about the end of the world-- the gay marriage debates have lost a lot of steam since the Massachusetts decision failed to cause the total collapse of morality, for example. Given time, they'll stop being quite so worked up about gays.
Some other issues, such as abortion, are probably more or less hopeless, though.
Personally I don't hold out a lot of hope in that regard; I was once deep in the evangelical community and although there is much to admire there, it is not what I would call rational. Still, we should remember that at one point the South was a Democratic stronghold.
Enh.
That was the result of a century-long snit over the Civil War, more than anything else. The South was a Democratic stronghold into the 1970's more because people there were pissed about Lincoln than because their economic interests aligned with Democratic positons.
That was the result of a century-long snit over the Civil War, more than anything else. The South was a Democratic stronghold into the 1970's more because people there were pissed about Lincoln than because their economic interests aligned with Democratic positons.
And a bit more cynically, the South was a Democratic stronghold up until LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Act, and has been Republican ever since.
Having lived in a split area that has been Republican lately I can't say how badly the Roe vs. Wade decision hurt Democrats. I think it is THE reason that many people that are socially actiove and would be with the Democrats vote Republican. It has been a disaster politically no matter that the judge who wrote it was Republican appointed and how correct it was.