November 2004 Archives

From Rabbi Michael Lerner:

Tens of millions of Americans feel betrayed by a society that seems to place materialism and selfishness above moral values...

In the Right wing churches and synagogues these voters are presented with a coherent worldview that speaks to their "meaning needs."

Imagine a Democratic Party that could talk about the strength that comes from love and generosity and applied that to foreign policy and homeland security...

Imagine a Democratic Party that could talk of a New Bottom Line, so that American institutions get judged efficient, rational and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize people's capacities to be loving and caring, ethically and ecologically sensitive, and capable of responding to the universe with awe and wonder...

Imagine a Democratic Party that could call for schools to teach gratitude, generosity, caring for others, and celebration of the wonders that daily surround us!

If the Democrats were to foster a religions/spiritual Left, they would no longer pick candidates who support preemptive wars or who appease corporate power.

Instead of assuming that most Americans are either stupid or reactionary, a religious Left would understand that many Americans who are on the Right actually share the same concern for a world based on love and generosity that underlies Left politics, even though lefties often hide their value attachments...

It is this spiritual lesson --- that our own well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet and on the well-being of the earth --- a lesson rooted deeply in the spiritual wisdom of virtually every religion on the planet, that could be the center of a revived Democratic Party...

The last time Democrats had real social power was when they linked their legislative agenda with a spiritual politics articulated by Martin Luther King. We cannot wait for the reappearance of that kind of charasmatic leader to begin the process of rebuilding a spiritual/religious Left.

From John Fund of the WSJ (subscription req'd):

The general GOP euphoria over Tuesday's election results should not obscure the fact that the election was close and that Republican victories become scarcer as you go further down the ballot. Republicans did win governorships in Indiana and Missouri and are tied in Washington State. But they lost the New Hampshire and Montana governorships and wound up losing seats in state legislatures overall.

Of the country's 99 state legislative chambers, the GOP lost control of six and won only four from the Democrats. Republicans have apparently gone from having complete control of both chambers in 21 states to only dominating 17 states. Most of the GOP pickups involve the slow dissolution of Democratic dominance in the South. In Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma the Republicans will now control the state House for the first time in decades, or in the case of Georgia since Sherman's march to the sea in 1864.

But Republicans also lost ground in some traditional strongholds. Democrats now control both houses of the Colorado legislature for the first time since the 1950s. They also failed to win any seats at all in California, despite the campaigning and fundraising prowess of Arnold Schwarzenegger. In Hawaii, that state's popular GOP governor, Linda Lingle, saw the voters ignore her appeals for a more cooperative legislature as unions picked off several Republican incumbents. Even in the South, Democrats made some gains, winning back complete control of North Carolina's state House.

The lesson here is that while Republican grassroots efforts may have improved, the quality of many of their state legislative candidates and campaigns remains poor. Democrats may be the opposition party in Congress, but they are alive and kicking at the state level.

(HT to kos)

Then...

...and now:

Electoral College Map of 2004 Election

I'm just saying.

UPDATE: I am genuinely sorry if you're offended by this, but please stop and ask yourself these questions:

Do these maps highlight an historical coincidence? If so, say it. If not, say THAT too.

(HT to Kevin Drum)

If the Democratic Party wants to take this country back, it's going to have to fight for it, district by district, seat by seat.

Chris Bowers has the story:

In the 2004 election, Democrats contested 398 House seats, even though there are 435 House seats. One of the seats Democrats did not contest, VT-AL, is held by Bernie Sanders and can be forgiven.

The other thirty-six absolutely cannot be forgiven.

Most, but not all, of these districts have horrible demographics for Democrats. I freely admit that had Democrats run in these districts, they all would probably have lost, and many, if not most, would probably have failed to come within 20%.

However, even knowing this, I have had enough of the argument that even spending time to find a sacrificial lamb to run in these districts is a waste of Democratic Party resources.

The fact is that for around $360,000, one-quarter the cost of a competitive congressional district, we could have found a candidate for each of these districts and raised $10,000 for that candidate's campaign.

That $360,000 would have been the best $360,000 the Democratic Party would have spent at any level this entire election cycle. Combined throughout these districts, it probably would have resulted in another 1-2 million votes for Democrats for Congress. And that is just this election cycle and just in those congressional elections.

Let's summarize:

Lots of bad stuff happens when the GOP goes unopposed:

• Abandoning a district has repercussions in other elections.

• GOP money and campaign goes to Republicans in more competitive elections.

• Future elections are impacted.

Lots of good things can happen when Dems challenge every GOP candidate:

• Sometimes you win.

• You identify Democratic activists in each of these districts.

• You open up new lines of attack and speak the truth against power.

We need a candidate on every congressional ballot, period. When it comes to the House, 2004 is now a lost cause. However, starting in 2006, we must never let this happen again.

Jason debunks a myth:

The days following the November 2nd election have been dominated by misleading stories in the media reporting that turnout among young voters did not reach “expectations” and that the “youth vote” was not a factor because Kerry lost.”

The spark that ignited this misinformation was a syndicated Associated Press story published on election night that claimed young voting turnout was “identical to 2000 and represented one in ten voters”. This was story based on exit polling taken earlier in that day and focused exclusively on the 18-24 set. It failed to take into account absentee voting, and confused young voters’ share of the electorate with their percentage of turnout.

So what's the real story?

According to an analysis of exit polls and early-vote tallies released on Wednesday by the Center for Information & Research on Civil Learning & Engagement, at the University of Maryland at College Park, at least 20.9 million people ages 18 to 29 voted on Tuesday, an increase of 28 percent, or 4.6 million, over 2000.

Turnout rose by 9.3 percentage points, to 51.6 percent from 42.3 percent four years ago. The previous peak came in 1992, when 47.9 percent of young Americans voted.

Young people voted at a much higher rate in contested, “battleground” states. In the ten most contested states, youth turnout was 64%, up 13 percentage points from 2000. In the battleground states, the youth share of the electorate was 19%. In the remaining 40 states and the District of Columbia, youth turnout was 47% and the youth share of the electorate was 18%.

In addition, every exit poll that showed that Kerry won the young-voter demographic by a wide margin (unlike 2000)-- despite the efforts of groups like the College Republicans.

How about this? New Mexico (red state) gets back $1.99 for every dollar it sends to Washington, while New Jersey (blue state) gets back only 57 cents.

You can see the whole list here. The truth is, 20 out of the top 25 "parasites" are red states.

So here's a question: what if you introduced a bill to even out these disparities so that $1 in gets you $1 out? Here's another question: how many Republicans and how many Democrats would vote for it?

Last question: how many House and Senate Republicans come from states that get more than they give up?

Can someone please do the math on this?

P.S. Please don't lecture me on how we need to send less money to Washington, OK? Get real: how many spending bills did Pres. Bush veto in his first term, anyway?

(HT to Atrios)

Juan Cole makes a couple of observations then puts up an interesting idea:

My family has roots in Virginia and I apologize about this, but Virginia is just not going to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008, unless Bush has so driven the country into the ground that Americans want anything but a Republican.

The Democrats need to find a southern governor with a southern accent who is a Baptist.

They also need to start defusing deadly cultural and "moral" issues that have been so effective for the Republicans. And they need to be sly about it...

The Baptist southern presidential candidate should start a campaign to get the goddamn Federal government out of the marriage business. It has to be framed that way.

Marriage should be a faith-based institution and we should turn it over to the churches. If someone doesn't want to be married in a church, then the Federal government can offer them a legal civil contract (this is a better name for it than civil union)...

[M]arriage is sacred and the churches should be in charge of it.

If you succeeded in getting the Federal government out of the marriage business, then the whole issue would collapse on the Republicans. You appeal to populist sentiments against the Feds and to the long Baptist tradition of support for the US first amendment enshrining separation of religion and state.

Michael Kinsley called this "privatizing marriage." And, coincidently, the writers of The West Wing wrote this into a minor sub-plot in last night's show.

What do you think?

Much has been made about the 20% or more of the electorate that described themselves as "born-again Christians." Much has been made about how 80% of them voted for Pres. Bush.

Much has been made about how clueless the liberal Democrats and progressives are about the role of religion in public governance.

Can I offer a simple observation for the purpose of starting a discussion?

This is still a nation that sees religious faith as the foundation on which it stands. And, I might add, on a national level, arguments to the contrary will get you defeated at the polls.

So what can Democrats and progressives do about this?

For starters, it would be instructive to look at the history of church-guided political activism in the progressive community.

My perspective on this is based on personal experience. My father was a Congregational minister. My family grew up in Detroit in the 60's where African-American churches were (and still are) a major force behind political activism.

Think Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact, think Rosa Parks because, in Detroit, she isn't just a symbol -- you probably know her personally as a friend and a neighbor.

The late Rev. C.L. is a revered figure in that town, and not just because his daughter Aretha made it big.

Rev. Jim Holley was the keynote speaker at the standing-room-only interfaith memorial service in suburban Detroit on Sept. 11, 2002.

And so on.

The truth is, if you want Michigan's electoral votes, you best be spending time in Detroit, which means speaking from the pulpit in more than one black church on Sunday. And you better mean what you say.

Now, what does this mean to mainstream liberal Democrats and progressives who are trying to figure out how to reconcile the role of religious faith and public governance?

Well, let's go to Sunday School to find out.

African-American church-goers believe (as does any observant Christian) in a Jesus that taught that you should help the poor. Jesus also spoke out against the hypocrisy of the powerful elites. He also spoke out against the unchecked power of the ruling class. He also preached non-violence. In the 1960's, civil rights leaders (backed by the church AND progressives of all colors and persuasions) translated that into a series of significant tactical victories that added up to substantial historical change. It all seems so quaint now. But it worked.

Who amongst us believes that those struggles (poverty, hypocrisy of the powerful elites, the unchecked power of the ruling class) have been permanantly solved?

You can say that the 1960's were "then" and this is "now." You can say that we have a different set of injustices to correct. And you'd be right -- the issues are different now. For example, progressives might feel betrayed by observant Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But there is a common ground even there. There are plenty of church leaders who understand gay rights. There are a smaller number of church leaders that are, in fact, openly gay. They have a constituency. The same goes for church leaders on the issue of abortion.

And so forth.

I think we can agree that conservative Republicans do not own the issue of moral values.

So, why aren't progressives more attuned to this view of the world? Why are we using words like "theocracy" to describe the difference between our sides? That doesn't convince anyone, mobilize anyone; it won't win any votes.

Why can't liberal Democrats and progressives respect and honor the kind of religious faith that should be so natural to them?

Who wants to answer my questions?

Will Saletan is on a roll:

Hey, Democrats!

One silver lining in last night's debacle is that for another 24 hours or so, you might be open to rethinking what your party stands for. So, while I have your attention, here's an idea.

Go back to being the party of responsibility.

I'm not talking about scolding people. I'm talking about rewarding them. Be the party that rewards ordinary people who do what they're supposed to do—and protects them from those who don't.

Of course, Saletan suggests that the Democrat best-suited to carry this message is John Edwards:

Pres. Bush [says Edwards] has shown a pattern of striving "to eliminate the taxation on wealth and the income on wealth...

"He wants to see the estate tax gone; he wants to see the tax on capital gains gone; he wants to see the tax on dividends gone...

"The president wants to shift the tax burden in America from wealth and income on wealth —- people who sit at home and get their statements every month from their investments and see how much money they've made —- to people like my father...

"He wants working people to carry the tax burden..."

Edwards instinctively understands how to frame an argument in terms favorable to his own value system. George Lakoff has written a book about this called Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives. Check it out.

The people have spoken, the bastards!

[I originally posted this the other day but I've decided to bump it up to the top of the page today. Hope you enjoy it. It comes closest to expressing how I feel about this election.]

Channel surfing the other day, I caught the closing song of a Bruce Springsteen Vote for Change concert. It was on the Sundance Channel, I think.

Springsteen was joined onstage by REM, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, John Fogerty, Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, John Mellencamp, James Taylor, the whole crew. They were singing Patti Smith’s People Have the Power:

I was dreaming in my dreaming
of an aspect bright and fair
and my sleeping it was broken
but my dream it lingered near
in the form of shining valleys
where the pure air recognized
and my senses newly opened
I awakened to the cry
that the people
have the power to redeem
the work of fools
upon the meek
the graces shower
it's decreed
the people rule


The people have the power

The people have the power

Today I read about Sen. Kerry's comments in Wisconsin:

I've heard your struggles, and I share your hopes," Kerry said. "Tomorrow we have a chance to move America forward, to make a difference in the lives of so many Americans and the character of our country itself."

As he will at each stop today, Kerry called on his supporters to get out the vote.

"Here we are, 24 hours from the great moment America and the world are waiting for. I need you in these hours to go out and do the hard work. Go out and make those phone calls, talk to friends, take people to the polls. Help us change the direction of this great nation."

Do it.

We can win this thing.