GOP Losing Evangelicals?
Feb 6
It looks like the evangelical portion of the GOP base isn’t really happy with the prospect of a McCain presidency. You’ve probably heard about Dobson’s remarks by now, but it looks like the rank-and-file evangelicals are following orders. Roanoke blogger Mr. Dawntreader is the latest to suggest he’s thinking about taking his ball and bat and going home:
Let’s face it. Not voting is a type of vote. It is a vote that all of the choices are unacceptable. Pragmatically this throws the election to the Dems of course. But maybe the long term effect of conceding to the Dems in 2008 is better than allowing the party of conservatives to be redefined in the likeness of McCain.
As a Christian, the thought of not voting in a presidential election has always been unthinkable. It might as well have been a sin. This unusual election, however, has caused me to rethink this option. As Christians, we are called to be the best of citizens. Maybe being the best of citizens means exercising the non-vote vote option.
As those who have followed the marathon (and not always as civil as they should have been) debates between me and LarryE can attest, we’ve seen plenty of this sort of attitude on the left. On the one hand, it pleases me to see it happening on the right for once. But on the other hand, it’s never really a victory when people give up on democracy, and lose faith in the process. And that’s clearly what seems to be happening here.
I certainly don’t want to talk these people out of staying home, of course (by all means, stay home!), but their opinion that from their perspective, somehow a McCain presidency would be no better, or only marginally better, than a Clinton or Obama presidency, is simply mystifying to me. (I also think opposition to McCain-Feingold has become an article of faith, with people giving only vague reasons for why they hate it, and never any specifics. This leads me to believe that they simply don’t understand it. But I digress…)
Once again, this brings me around to an apparently-common opinion that I don’t think I’ll ever understand. Why do people seem to think it’s better to accept the “worst,” rather than to settle for someone who, while less than ideal, still isn’t the worst possible choice? Why are people so unwilling to compromise in politics? Do they really think this advances their cause in the long run? And do they really think those long-term advances are worth the short-term costs?
As a side note, I have a further annoyance with Mr. D.:
I would like self-professed Christians to weigh in on this question. I will absolutely not publish comments from commenters who I know are not followers of Christ (by their own admission).
Nothing like an echo chamber to get productive work done. I wasn’t aware that only “self-professed Christians” have valid opinions, even on issues of Christian doctrine. Are evangelical Christians really so insecure in their beliefs that they only welcome comments from others who already share them? Are they that averse to open debate? I like Mr. D., and I’ve commented over there a lot — and these debates have always been civil, and almost always on-topic. He hasn’t always been like this. But he’s been playing this game more and more often, and I don’t like it one bit. It strikes me as a great way to alienate a good number of his readers, and only further isolate himself. I guess I just don’t remember the part of the Bible that says you’re supposed to hide from opposing views, rather than welcome and address them.
#1 by LarryE at February 7th, 2008
| Quote
Just a quick response on a few points, offered not as advocacy but as an attempt at explanation:
Why are people so unwilling to compromise in politics? Do they really think this advances their cause in the long run? And do they really think those long-term advances are worth the short-term costs?
I don’t think it’s a matter of being “unwilling to compromise.” It’s a question of what is meant by the word. For those outside the electoral mainstream, elections are the place where you say “here I stand, I can do no other” - but after the election, when the subject turns to policies, legislation, and forming citizen coalitions to push certain causes, we can “compromise” with the best of them in order to get things done and bring pressure to bear.
The thing is, “compromise” should mean I give some and get some, and you give some and get some. But in elections, again as applied to those outside the mainstream, the “compromising” is supposed to be all on our side: We are to compromise our convictions and give our votes while the party we are expected to support gives nothing in return.
There simply can come a point where “less bad” is just not good enough and things getting worse more slowly is no longer acceptable and you either takes risks in the attempt to make things genuinely better or you just give up.
Which serves to answer your other two questions. The short answer to both is “Yes,” because otherwise there would be no point in doing it. The longer, subtler answer is that there is no guarantee but what can be guaranteed is that not doing it will only see us slowly slip further and further from those goals.
Oh, and thanks for the link. It was, uh, very civil of you.
#2 by tgirsch at February 7th, 2008
| Quote
Thanks for trying to explain.
It’s interesting to me that our views are actually so similar and yet so different. I agree that the bulk of the work to be done needs to be done after the election — building support and coalitions, working for positive change, etc. — I just disagree (as you well know) about what to do at the election. My view is that you’re going to be stuck with one or the other, so you might as well take the best (or lest bad) you can get.
I suppose it all depends on whether or not your distaste for the more-bad party outweighs your disappointment with the less-bad party.
I also suppose it depends on what you’d view as “getting something” in return. From where I sit, not nominating or confirming a Samuel Alito is a pretty big “something.” Finally getting an energy bill that starts to address efficiency (while doing nowhere near enough) is “something,” too. From the other side, I expect Mr. D. would be happy not getting another Ginsburg.
The divide, it seems to me, is between idealism and pragmatism. The more one leads toward the former, the more likely one is to take your/Mr. D.’s view of it. The more one leads toward the latter, the more likely they are to take my view of things.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing your views on this.
#3 by Janet at February 7th, 2008
| Quote
“The divide, it seems to me, is between idealism and pragmatism. The more one leads toward the former, the more likely one is to take your/Mr. D.’s view of it. The more one leads toward the latter, the more likely they are to take my view of things.”
Liberalspeak definition of pragmatism: Forget your conservative principles and do it the liberal way.
#4 by LarryE at February 7th, 2008
| Quote
One last - I swear - note of explanation on this go-round and again, I’m not trying to argue right or wrong but only to consider what drives the difference by describing an outlook.
When I wrote of “gives nothing in return” I was referring to the usual understanding of “compromise” where each party offers something positive to the other. “I’m not as bad as the alternative” is not offering something, it is standing pat. It could be likened to a mugger saying “Let’s compromise. You give me your money and in exchange I won’t kill you.”
If I vote for a Democrat instead of a candidate closer to my views, I’m compromising: I’m supporting the Democrats and in a one-on-one exchange, I could reasonably expect increased support for my point of view in return. But of course it’s not one-on-one, it’s one-on-millions and the Dems are not going to shift policy because of just me.
The history of 3rd parties in this country has been to force one of the majors to shift position, sometimes dramatically, because enough people came to say “we will not move toward you with our votes unless you move toward us with your policies.” That, of course, is a gross oversimplification (sometimes, for example and ala the theocratic right v. the GOP, it was the threat of a 3rd party rather than he existence of one that produced the shift) but it does express the underlying experience.
Is it ultimately an idealism-pragmatism spectrum? I dunno: I’m hesitant both to consider myself a non-pragmatist and you a non-idealist. Still, if I’m to be damned as too idealistic, I can think of worse fates.
#5 by Stormy Dragon at February 7th, 2008
| Quote
>Why do people seem to think it’s better to accept
>the “worst,” rather than to settle for someone who, while
>less than ideal, still isn’t the worst possible choice?
Because if you think your party is heading down a blind ally, voting for the lesser evil may just delay the necessary changes for another eight years. It’s a question of balancing short term pain vs long term benefits.
#6 by tgirsch at February 7th, 2008
| Quote
LarryE:
I don’t want to get into the third party thing again — believe me — but that’s not what these evangelicals seem to be talking about. They’re talking about simply staying home (which, while I don’t understand it, I encourage them to do).
But I think I see a portion of our disconnect here. We seem to be applying the term “compromise” differently. You seem to be talking about compromises between the you and the Democratic party, or between your preferred party and the Democratic party, or something like that. Whereas I’m talking about the differences between what I want and what I can get.
So as I said before, my take is, in the general, take the best you can get, and then work like hell to move them toward your way of thinking while they’re in office, and work like hell to get better candidates the next time the primary comes around.
I sympathize with many of your qualms about the Democratic party, I really do. I just fear that in working against the Democrats, we’d effectively be rewarding Republicans, who I view to be far, far worse.
Stormy:
But how much short-term pain are you willing to accept? In the case of W, it’s going to take a decade or more just to fix the damage he’s done and get the nation roughly back to where it was when he took office. Was that pain really worth it? Did it really advance some greater good long-term? I wish that were so, but I just don’t see it. In any case, I’m not that patient. I’d have to be damn sure that the short-term pain would produce some serious long-term benefits before I’m willing to go down that road.
Janet:
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Mr. D is the one suggesting that religious conservatives should effectively concede the election to a Democrat. How am I the one saying “do it the liberal way?”
#7 by LarryE at February 8th, 2008
| Quote
Just a point of clarification:
but that’s not what these evangelicals seem to be talking about
When I mentioned “the theocratic right v. the GOP” I wasn’t talking about now, I was talking about the sharp move to the right the GOP took in the latter 1970s. As most everyone seems to have forgotten, after Ronald Reagan failed to get the nomination in 1976, the theocrats started making noises about bolting the party and going independent. The center of the party shifted dramatically to the right in order to keep that from happening.
#8 by Janet at February 8th, 2008
| Quote
“How am I the one saying “do it the liberal way?””
My response was in response to the portion of your post in quotation marks. Whenever a liberal wants a conservative to compromise, he means “do it the liberal way.”
#9 by Stormy Dragon at February 8th, 2008
| Quote
>But how much short-term pain are you willing to accept?
And that’s the question each voter has to ask of themselves. For myself, I don’t have the raving dislike of McCain most of the establishment has. I voted for him in the 2000 primary, and while I don’t consider him a good choice, he’s an acceptable one (the only two candidates this year I actually liked were Ron Paul and Fred Thompson). Certainly more acceptable than Romney or Huckabee.
I’ll probably still vote for Paul in the primary. Who I vote for in the general depends on three things:
1. Who the democrat is.
2. Who the VP candidate is (this is actually very important to me this time since I have a feeling McCain may not survive his full term do to his advanced age and already declining health).
3. Who seems likely to end up controlling congress.
>I’d have to be damn sure that the short-term pain would
>produce some serious long-term benefits before I’m willing
>to go down that road.
“rather to bear those ills we have than fly to those we know not of” then? My experience is that there’s rarely progress without risk (if the risk-free progress were possible, it would have happened already). If you can’t handle the possiblity things might get worse, then things will never get better.
#10 by tgirsch at February 8th, 2008
| Quote
Janet:
The history of the last seven years or so seems to contradict that theory. How many “compromises” have the liberals won recently?
Stormy:
It’s not about the possibility that things will get worse, for me; it’s about the certainty that things will get worse. In 2000 and 2004, I was convinced that things would get worse if W was (re)elected. Turns out, I was right. And maybe I’m missing the forest for the trees, but I just don’t see how losing in 2000, 2002, and 2004 was good for the long-term interests of progressives (or, more broadly, the country).
As for GOP VP candidates, it’s early, but I’ve heard Karen Hughes’ name bandied about.
#11 by Stormy Dragon at February 8th, 2008
| Quote
Let’s suppose Kerry had gotten elected in 2004. It makes it much less likely the Dems would have taken control of congress in 2006. You’d also be facing his unopposed reelection campaign now instead of the possibility of Obama winning. Do you think Kerry + Republican controlled congress is better for progressives than Obama + Democrat controlled congress?
#12 by tgirsch at February 8th, 2008
| Quote
#1, there’s no guarantee that the Democrats retain Congress this election.
#2, it’s far from certain that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
But still, while you may have a point about 2004, that doesn’t address 2000 (or 2002)…
#13 by Stormy Dragon at February 8th, 2008
| Quote
>#1, there’s no guarantee that the Democrats retain
>Congress this election.
Given how many of the remaining Republicans have announced their retirement since 2006, I would be SHOCKED if the Dems don’t increase their majority, much less lose control of Congress.
#14 by tgirsch at February 8th, 2008
| Quote
It’s the Senate that I worry about more than the house.