red fuzzy jesus

Losing Winners

Like a lot of people, I was surprised by the outcome on Election Day.  The final results defied reliable indicators and traditional patterns.  Stunned, I spent most of Wednesday mulling how it happened and what progressive people should do now.  But nothing surprised or perplexed me more than the reactions of two conservative political science students.

The politics department here is very large but there are only seven of us pursuing doctorates in theory.  They run the full ideological gambit which I can only assume is by admissions design rather than academic default.  Believe it or not, I’m not the ardent liberal component of the seven.  As a self described ‘free-market liberal’ my comments in class seldom mesh with the NARAL girl who is undeniably, quintessentially liberal.  There are also two conservative guys who always have thought provoking things to say but make it clear they speak from the other side of a worldview chasm.  After the Democrats were hammered by Republicans I dreaded going to class on Thursday and hearing these two right-wingers gloat and justify their viability.  Everyone in class seemed pretty down.  Most hated Bush and thought Kerry would handily defeat him.  But what I didn’t expect or understand was why these two conservative guys had so little to say. 

The answer came to me as the class discussion progressed.  We looked at why Bush won – what pushed him past 50.  Polls show that those that voted for Bush ranked ‘moral issues’ as their top political concern beating out the economy, war in Iraq, and terrorism.  ‘Moral issues’ is code for unapologetic homophobic and pro-life views.  The fundamentalist sect of the Republican Party galvanized church goers in the South and Midwest with apocalyptic rhetoric over the threat to family and society gay marriage posed.  They worked to get marriage amendments on ballots in swing states and it helped turn out Bush supporters more than Kerry supporters. 

While always a potent component of the party, fundamentalist Christians showed a degree of muscle no one thought they had.  My own pre-election predictions dismissed these groups as unschooled hicks with minimal sway.  Make no mistake, they won this election for Bush.  And there is no doubt now which subgroup under the Republican umbrella has the most coalition clout.  And that is why my conservative classmates were tempered in their response to their victory.

In a way, polls showing why Bush won embarrassed these guys.  They would have loved for Bush to clean Kerry’s clock on tax policy or national security.  Kerry won those issues.  When it was brought up that a Newsweek/MSNBC poll showed the most effective PR move in the campaign was Bush MCing at a Nascar event, their discomfort was visible.  Every time gay marriage came up, both guys made it a point to say, ‘were not homophobic’ as if the mere label of conservative or Republican somehow now brought with it that moniker of bigotry.  When you lose on the issues you care about and win because of a prejudice that embarrasses you it doesn’t feel like much of a win. 

Most people who devote chunks of their lives to the study of politics care more about their party adhering to a viewpoint set rather than winning an election.  These guys are classic conservatives.  They argue against welfare and affirmative action using personal responsibility.  They hate an invasive centralized government and are quick to point out the powers the constitution gives to states.  Nothing about amending the federal constitution to dictate social policy concurs with these traditions.  Well read, intellectual conservatives – think George Will – come from an Anti-New-Deal, Post-Great-Society practice of conservatism that favors pragmatic solutions to problems over government moral imposition.  They’re slow to intervene militarily where no clear American interests are served and are careful not to confuse fiscal discipline with wartime tax cuts.  And they know the difference between politics and the pulpit.  All over America, many cosmopolitan conservatives woke up to find they no longer had a room in the house they helped build.  Power within the party has shifted and while their guy technically kept his job they’re left feeling largely unrepresented. 

Where did all those conservatives go that hold government officials responsible for ballooning deficits?  What happened to the party lines about full disclosure, accountability at every level of government, and fear of big government encroachment on civil liberties like privacy?  I’m guessing those guys are somewhere in that swash of red covering the bottom and middle of America, but I have to wonder if they’re feeling a bit blue these days. 

While many liberals respond to Nov. 2 by wondering what costal state rabbit hole they should burrow in for the next four years, many limited government proponents wonder how to regain control from Rev. Vice and the Christian values police.  A President, who hadn’t traveled abroad before becoming President, admits he doesn’t read newspapers, and quotes from old time gospel hymns in stump speeches is not the champion of their cause.  Old labels such as Republican, conservative, federalist, individualist, and pragmatist augment their definitions when twisted by government implemented moral burden.  As W’s second term develops it will be interesting to see if he rewards the Theocratic States of America for their support.  And just in case he does, I think a crucial component of the Dem’s recovery will be convincing the moderates to question that affiliation.                           

The Main Event

It’s Election Day and everything is still too close to call. My stomach is in knots and my heart rate is racing like a nervous little dog. Legal challenges not withstanding we should know soon. In non-election times I’m an opinionated wonk. During the run-up I’m equal parts strategist and ideologue. But, in these final moments, I devolve to a number crunching, entrails reading machine. With that in mind, there’s still time to make some final lap observations and predictions.

All of the credible polls, those that use scientific, empirical methods to generate their numbers, show the presidential race as a statistical dead heat. For the Electoral College the race is near even also. The three most important battleground states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida are polling right at 50/50. Both Bush and Kerry need 2 or those 3 states to win in all likely scenarios.

What’s more, the superstitious polls are evenly split too. An even number of omens predict victory for both Kerry and Bush. Supposedly if the challenger is taller than the incumbent the incumbent always loses. Kerry’s got that one. But if the first lady’s cookie recipe beats the challenger’s wife’s in a taste test the incumbent wins. Regardless of my angst over judging potential first ladies by cookie recipes, Laura and George win that one. The Halloween mask that sells the best before Election Day always wins. This year that honor went to the President. But the winner of the last Redskins game before Election Day is supposed to predict the victor and Kerry picked that one up this Sunday.

What about predictors somewhere in between scientific polls and coincidental omens? Well, the DOW Jones has steadily declined since September. Since investment behavior directly correlates with attitudes on the state of the union this bodes well for Kerry. Also, anger and fear are the most powerful motivators for voting. People have lined up in Florida to pre-vote and voter registration has skyrocketed to reverse the downward trend since the 60s. People don’t register in droves and stand in line for hours to vote early if they’re happy with the status quo so this also indicates a Kerry win. But, the Bush campaign has utilized fear over terrorism attacks and gay marriage very well. Bush polls high on security and with the recent bin Ladin tape that again is issue number one. Bush has also done a better job at stimulating his conservative, religious base. The most recent RNC mailing in states like West Virginia and Arkansas features a picture of the Bible with the word Banned! and a picture of a man kneeling in front of another man with the word Allowed! The headline encourages recipients to “stop the liberal agenda.” This plays well to those that fear men kneeling in front of other men but it is unclear whether those people will be allowed to vote considering most voting locations require shoes.

There are also things that could make turnout defy all those tied polls. For starters, there’s a mass of people called ‘unpollables.’ These are people that use e-mail as their primary means of communication and cells phones as their only phone. They are never counted by conventional pollsters and they all tend to be young, educated, and Democrats. If they turn out in large numbers it can tip the scale in Kerry’s favor. General high turnout always favors challengers and usually favors liberals. Also, Bush has never received a number higher than 48% in any major poll consistently for three weeks within three months before Election Day. Without obnoxious number crunching I’ll tell you that it makes it nearly impossible for an incumbent to get 51% of the popular vote. Similarly bad news for Bush, his approval rating has been hovering in the high 40s.

But the popular vote doesn’t matter. It’s the Electoral College. No sitting president since Bush Sr. has won the popular vote. Well, Nader ultimately failed to qualify for the ballot in Pennsylvania so that presumably gives Kerry a few points. And a federal judge ruled Monday that voter registrations couldn’t be challenged on the spot in Ohio. Republicans had planned on dispatching dozens of brownshirts to polling places in Ohio to challenge their legitimacy. The stated intention is to cut down on voter fraud but the actuality shows the effort intimidates minority voters away from the booths. It’s essentially a poll tax. It’s racist and wrong. Overnight another federal judge said the challengers can go ahead but Democrats were working on a stay for that decision. And at 2a.m. this morning the Supreme Court declared it wouldn’t intervene. It’s unclear right now what that means for Ohio voters but serves as a precursor for the legal battles that will likely continue Nov. 3 and beyond.

Polls might be tied but dependable predictors trend toward Kerry. Ultimately it will depend on who gets off their duff and votes. Elections are number games and numbers factor down to Joe and Jane public. I could be wrong but I predict a strong victory for John Kerry. Don’t act surprised.

Non-Attitudes and Know Nothings

There’s a famous political science study that I’ve read about at least twenty times in various classes and news articles. In it, a random selection of voters is asked about their opinion of the Public Works Act of 1975. People give a variety of answers with policy buzzwords and related opinions about the president. Then the answers are grouped by their party affiliation. There’s just one catch – there’s no such thing as the Public Works Act of 1975.

That study is used to show that, when it comes to politics, people are quite willing to offer opinions but are generally uninformed. I continuously read that America is in a crisis of apathy. That voter turnout has plummeted since the 1960s and national leaders are now being selected by less than 50% of the populace. Activists and authors wring their hands wondering what can be done to stave off this threat to democracy. I also read that a majority of Americans can’t name one of their Senators, don’t know how long a President’s term is, and get their news from late night comics. Is the former such a crisis in light of the latter?

Oprah currently has a campaign to get people to vote. She figures if she can make stocks plunge and book sales skyrocket she can use her influence to correct indifference. I saw clips of the documentary currently following Ms. Winfrey’s efforts. In it a tearful Cameron Diaz warns, “If we don’t vote the wrong person could be elected and rape could be legalized.” Hold up. Which party is pro-rape? Some other celebrity I didn’t recognize said, “The only reason a little black kid can go to school with a little white kid is because people went out and voted.” Really, I thought that was the famous Brown decision handed down by the Supreme Court. I’m not sure America suffers when Cameron Diaz doesn’t vote.

P Diddy also has a campaign to get young people to vote. It’s called Vote Or Die! The idea is if you’re not voting you might as well be dead in society because no one listens to you. He has a point. But the young people interviewed on his Mtv voting special didn’t have a clue why we were at war in Iraq or what the Federal Marriage Amendment was. Likewise, Jay Leno often features Jaywalking sketches where people on the street are asked questions regarding foundational aspects of America and they can’t answer them. More people can tell you why they voted for Clay Aiken before they can tell you why they don’t like John Kerry. In light of an epidemic of ignorance – is low voter turnout really such a bad thing?

Yes. Low voter turnout is bad no matter who’s not voting. I’m not an academia elitist that thinks the general dumb public should have their leaders chosen for them by the few and better informed. I often think individuals are plenty intelligent but don’t know how to apply that intelligence to politics in a meaningful way. What Oprah, P Diddy, and others are doing to get out the vote is noble. But in conjunction with the imperative pleas to vote, vote, vote should be a parallel effort that encourages people to learn, learn, learn. Oprah doesn’t tell people to read a newspaper. P Diddy’s efforts do not include ways to make politics significant to young people. There is little difference between millions of people staying home on election day and millions of people making their way into a voting booth only to find they don’t associate the names on the ballot with a belief system of their own.

Active participation is crucial to a democracy. But so is the disbursal of information. With the proliferation of the news media and internet it’s easier than ever to have informed policy preferences. You don’t have to be an academia elitist or a news junkie or an annoyingly opinionated writer to be informed. Likewise you don’t need to be able to name famous political figures for Jay Leno. Do you really need to know how long a President’s term is or name a Supreme Court Justice to be an active citizen? That stuff often boils down to trivia and is less important than a set of beliefs. All you really need is something to vote for. Without that, drives that encourage voting purely for the sake of voting have little value.

That famous political science study designed to show how ignorant people are doesn’t in my opinion. So what there’s no Public Works Act of 1975? The term ‘Public Works’ was enough to queue a lot of opinions from people regardless of specifics. Those people had their own ideas about how society should be run. People don’t need Oprah to give them an incentive to vote. They have jobs in jeopardy and kids at war. To reverse the decline in voter turnout the focus should be on bridging the information-application gap so people can translate the opinions they already have into civic action. Maybe P Diddy’s campaign should be titled “Read, Learn, Think, and Develop a Belief System that Compels You to Participate in Democracy of Die!” That doesn’t fit as well on a t-shirt.

Debatable Objectivity

I follow politics the way most people follow sports. Of course I want my home team to go all the way but I feel a sense of justice when the team that practices the most and runs the best plays wins. That’s how I felt about the 2000 election. I wanted Al Gore, the more liberal candidate, to take it. But I had to admit Bush was better prepared and made much more astute moves politically. His team of Hughes and Rove was masterful. The Gore campaign however had numerous blunders. They made mistakes no savvy politician or advisor should make. The outcome in 2000 wasn’t what I’d hoped. But I had to admit it made sense.

With the ‘home team’ way of following an election it’s difficult to be objective. One candidate is linked to an ideological worldview. It’s easier to take a balanced look at campaigns from the ‘strategy’ perspective. Bush/Cheney was smart to bring Mary Madeline on board and Kerry/Edwards was stupid not to enlist James Carville. I think marital stability had more to do with that result but the point still stands. Still, even from a strategy standpoint I cannot see how anyone would think the VP debate was a draw.

Cheney said he had never met John Edwards. Of course the media that night released footage of them greeting and sitting beside each other. Cheney said he hadn’t linked 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. Again, of course, there were lots of recorded quotes when he did. Regardless of policy preferences, over and over again Cheney made errors when he should have known better. I thought he did an embarrassingly bad job – in many ways worse than his boss the week before. But other people didn’t see it that way. To most, both candidates did equally well. Has my ideology become so entrenched that I’ve lost my ability to be objective about political maneuvers too?

I recently returned to school to pursue my Ph. D. in Political Theory. Most theorists I read are impossible to place on traditional conservative/liberal, collectivist/individualist, federalist/anti-federalists, spectra. Its making me think about politics and all that term means in fresh ways. Grad school must be serving its purpose. For years I’ve tried to balance my news with conservative and fringe liberal rags which have sometimes colored my concept of the world but more often angered and scared me. I’m trying my hardest to detach myself from the current election and evaluate it as if I don’t have a dog in the fight. After two presidential and one vice presidential debates I’ve decided I can’t.

I cannot view Cheney as having debated as well as Edwards because I cannot make this election fit my metaphor of a football game. Bush/Cheney seems to threaten the boundaries of the field more than compete. The cold monotone Cheney used to say there hadn’t been an effort to connect Iraq with 9/11 was the same he used with Leberman. But last time it made him seem fatherly and assuring. This time it frightened me to death. Likewise, Bush’s folksy awe-shucks attitude in contrast to Gore’s wooden nerdiness made him seem more amiable – like you’d want to slap him on the back and go have a beer with him. This time it made him infuriatingly ignorant and arrogant. How can this election be so close? The world – and America’s standing in it - has changed a lot since 2000. The attractive traits that sold these men so well four years ago couldn’t possibly be marketable now; or could they?

I understand conservative viewpoints and know a lot of intelligent people have them. My own schematic of opinions has a few conservative spikes in it. But I’m at a loss as to why anyone would think the current administration has effectively led. I keep remembering the story I heard in high school Latin class about the Roman Empire electing a horse to senate during its freefall. I watch the news and sometimes throw up my hands and quickly flip to Fear Factor because I find ingesting bull testicles slightly less disgusting. I want the best team to win November 2nd. I just hope the next few weeks don’t make me lose all respect for the game.

THE KEYES TO WINNING GOD’S VOTE

"The battle is for us, but I have confidence -- because the victory is for God." (source)

With those words, former U.S. Diplomat and Presidential candidate Alan Keyes kicked off his campaign to be the next Senator from Illinois. Keyes has never lived in Illinois but that didn’t stop the RNC from convincing him to run after a long list of Illinois natives declined. Party officials looked to Maryland where Keyes has lost two previous runs for the U.S. Senate along with two failed bids for a Presidential nomination and a talkshow on MSNBC that was cancelled after three weeks. (Winning appeal is not a prerequisite when your party is desperate.) Keyes faces an uphill battle against rising Democratic star Barack Obama who wowed the Democratic convention so well that predictions of the first black president immediately followed. First he has to get elected to the Senate and to do that he has to campaign against a conservative icon and, apparently, almighty God.

The cornerstone of Keyes campaign is his assertion of Christian values. More accurately, the cornerstone of everything he’s done in public life has been religious. He is a devout Roman Catholic with sincere faith and he incorporates his beliefs into public policy. Good leaders make decisions based on values and values have to come from somewhere – what’s wrong with religion? Nothing, as long as you can differentiate between your viewpoints and the will of God.

Polls now show that regular church attendance correlates with likelihood to vote Republican. (source) Republicans have done a good job in recent elections of selling themselves as the party of faith and values. Terms such as ‘pro-family’ and ‘faith-based’ are attached to Republican initiatives while ‘secular’ is a polarizing pejorative used against the Democrats at will. Since evangelical Christians make up the largest minority voting block with Catholics a close second it’s no wonder strategists are concerned with the perception. The Kerry campaign made naked invocations of faith and family throughout the convention to win the majority of swing voters who live in the Midwest where religion is still personal and practiced. Despite strident efforts to make Kerry safe for the faithful, the jury is still out on whether they’re convinced.

W. on the other hand oscillates between political candidate and religious revivalist on the campaign trail. With the help of Carl Rove, et al., his words are rote recitations of popular leaders on the religious (read, Christian) right. It’s necessary to stir the party faithful. The point when this becomes offensive is when he or any other politician speaks as if channeling a religious imperative directly from the big guy upstairs. Through not-so-subtle inferences the message sold is that God’s laws, God’s will, Christian values are enacted when A is elected and immorality reigns when B is the victor.

The marriage of faith and party permeates into other areas. In recent months the Catholic Church has ordered clergy not to give communion to politicians that vote pro-choice or pro-gay rights; both Democratic stances. The assumption is that no politician can intellectually walk and chew gum. It is possible for someone to think abortion immoral but leave the legal right for a woman to decide her convictions herself. Teachings of the church forbid abortion and homosexuality so it almost makes sense that politicians who use their power to forward such things don’t get to participate in church. But, the papacy fails in applying its teachings even handedly. Catholicism denounces the death penalty but so far politicians who support it, primarily Republican, have not been denied their wafers. The Pope opposed the war in Iraq but no one who voted for it is shunned. The church also condemns premarital sex, adultery, and divorce. Would all politicians exempt from this exclusion please come forward? If such logic were applied across the board, the halls of congress and pews at St. Peters would be mutually exclusive.

If the Democrats wanted to play the religious card they could do so skillfully. After all, is God on the side of polluters and Halliburton? And how does Jesus feel about the indifference to the working poor evident in votes against raising the minimum wage or tax cuts for the rich? But Democrats choose not to “wear their religion on their sleeves,” as Kerry touted in his nomination acceptance speech. (source) Instead they embrace religious pluralism - which may be more politically advantageous in the long run as America becomes more religiously pluralistic. Tolerance does not equal amorality and acceptance of others is not faithlessness. If there is a universal truth and a being that embodies it, it is prideful for any flawed and limited human to pretend to speak its exact will. Christian humility might better be exemplified by the vigilant search for truth without the self-righteous battle cry.

As Barack Obama said in his speech at the DNC, “We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States.” (source) Compare this to Keyes stump speech of “the victory is for God” and pray for an outcome in November that best matches your view of religion in politics.

The Death Effect

In presidential election years, everything can be seen through the prism of how it affects the race. With Kerry and Bush so close, small changes and slight missteps can have a large effect on the polls. Nothing quells partisanship like a large, national ceremony so during such a time candidates tiptoe to compete but not capitalize. Reagan’s death presents a unique challenge for both campaigns and may be the type of election year event that widens a close race.

The most obvious affect so far is Kerry’s decision to stop campaigning for a week or two. Kerry knows that nothing he says or does will get adequate news coverage during the mourning period so he’s smart to save his money. He’s also smart to know that his rhetoric of late depicts the antithesis of a Reagan America and is likely to alienate swing voters with the contrast. While Kerry steps back into the shadows – emerging only to say something nice about the former President – Bush is everywhere. The death occurred during ceremonies honoring D-Day. The speeches Bush gives during these ceremonies honor veterans but they’re also carefully constructed campaign speeches used to drum up a general sense of patriotism and draw parallels between WWII and the war on terrorism. Normally these speeches wouldn’t get such extensive coverage but this week they were pushed on air a little more because of interest surrounding the President’s whereabouts at the time of Reagan’s death. While Kerry takes a break, chances multiply for Bush to look presidential – or at least make that I’m-sad-confused-serious face I’m sure he practices in the mirror.

There’s also the question of how closely Bush will be connected with Reagan. Bush knew Reagan through his father, veep Bush senior, but it’s unlikely a degree of separation alone will help his campaign. Just as Kerry is trying to reduce damage after the death, the Bush campaign is starting to carefully walk a fine line to gain some benefit. They can’t appear to capitalize directly but conservative pundits are already drawing comparisons to the way Bush handles his challenges and the way Reagan handled his.

Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan Administration, was quoted by the AP this week saying, "The most important legacy that Ronald Reagan left was the proven philosophy of peace through strength -- a philosophy that he articulated and applied most decisively with respect to bringing down the Soviet Union," he says. "It is also, I think, a philosophy that is guiding President Bush in the present global conflict, which bears in fact some important similarities to the Cold War -- what some call 'World War Three.'"

Cold War = War on Terrorism
Reagan = Bush
Get it?

Another cliché campaign tactic involves tying current candidates to heroes past. The past two Republican conventions have featured former Republican presidents prominently. At the last one there were endless video montages of Reagan, Bush, and Ford cut with clips of them sitting together in the audience. The message is obvious, ‘hey, these guys were great, elect one of us again.’ When Nancy Reagan came out on stage during the ’96 convention the initial standing ovation took longer than the amount of time she spent speaking. Dubya’s campaign overtly did everything it could to connect him with his father and Reagan’s administrations and it’s likely they will do it again this year.

Even if voters never transfer their love of the now canonized Reagan to the current President directly, Reagan’s death can still have a positive effect on Bush’s poll numbers. Whenever there is a greater appreciation for the office of the presidency during an election year it tends to favor the incumbent. Reagan made the presidency quasi-regal. During his time in office he made it seem like America had never seen better days (if you don’t look at AIDS, high unemployment, and a ten fold increase in the homeless population). Images of Reagan dancing with Nancy and telling Gorbechev to tear down walls create nostalgia for the greatness of Reagan and his times, which can lift Bush a bit. On the contrary, the stark differences between America’s grandfather and the bumbling product of nepotism may do more harm than good.

There’s no guaranteed increase in percentage points for Bush. Reagan’s death may be huge news this week, forgotten the next. But if there is any effect on the election it will benefit Bush and hurt Kerry. Just how much will depend on how both utilize this turn of events. My guess is that plans for the Republican convention just got shuffled and we can expect to see subtle references to the cold war in Bush’s speeches till November. Maybe Reagan will play a cameo in an upcoming ad.

It may seem a calloused response to a President’s passing but I expect someone in each campaign is thinking along these lines. In the type of close election where every little step matters, how a candidate finesses the death of a popular leader can push him in either direction.