Election Results And What They Mean, and more…
We write somewhat in advance of publication and at the moment it looks like a huge Republican sweep, but you can keep up to the minute at Twitter and talk about it on Facebook. But that won’t stop us from commenting now.
New Jersey is about corruption and rejection thereof. Virginia gives us the best picture of Republican fortunes at the moment and NY-23 well, that’s what everybody is talking about.
Patrick Ruffini looks at strategic third party runs. Analysis in a minute.
This guy thinks Romney blew it. I am sure he is not alone, but I am also sure they are people that would not vote for Romney anyway. Besides, Romney is looking really, really smart now that Hoffman lost.
Dan Gilgoff keeps wondering if Hoffman is all about a social conservative comeback. Obviously not, at least in the sense that they won, but maybe in the sense that they will learn cooperation is more important than labels.
They are even wondering in Great Britain.
Rod Dreher thinks Republicans are going to turn hard, hard right. Oops.
In terms of POTUS 2012, I don’t think these elections say much of anything – too much distance. Clinton was hard left in the first year, saw results like this and turned moderate, got re-elected, no point counting those chickens. I do think the hard left turn of the Obama administration has re-energized the right and the results are in evidence, but all this Hoffman/third party stuff is silly. First of all, there was no primary up there, Hoffman should have been the Republican candidate. Secondly, third party stuff plays on a local level, sometimes even state-wide (Jesse Ventura/Joe Lieberman) but nationally it just has never played. Not even for political figures casting a shadow as big as Teddy Roosevelt. As the results in NY-23 show, in-fighting between Republicans and “true” conservatives just weakens the coalition and makes room for the other side to win.
Last election’s losses were about in-fighting. Third parties, social conservatives playing “See I told you so” games, and all this other nonsense will not help with that problem, in fact I am afraid it will exacerbate it. In Monday’s entry in the Telling The Story series I said:
All these factors will exist in Campaign ‘12 as well, should Romney elect to run. But this observer thinks their effects will be radically different, not because of any change in the people, but because three years of a radically left-wing administration and at least two years of a radically left wing Congress. There is nothing like watching the opposition work to place things in proper perspective.
After being out of power for several years, the differences between Mormon and Evangelical theology will not be nearly so important. Should Obamacare become a reality, we will be far more concerned with turning back as much of it as we can as opposed to making sure Mormons do not gain a greater level of “cultural acceptance.”
That’s what yesterday’s results are about more than anything else. The only exception to the rule was the one race where we fought with each other instead of the Democrats/left. There is a deep, deep lesson in that, and one we will do well to remember going forward.
Speaking of Romney . . .
He did the Sunday shows last weekend – the video is top of our video widget on the left. Take a peek.
Further, he is being “exonerated” over the ugly charges Ted Kennedy threw at him in the ‘94 Senate race.
Issues . . .
There was a marriage measure on the ballot in Washington state yesterday. And there was a related court case. Even George Will commented. The case centers on releasing names that sign petitions for such ballot measures. The constitution provides for secret ballots precisely to prevent intimidation, and after what we saw in the wake of Prop 8 that right needs to be reasserted and applied to petitions.
I had a fascinating thought while reading about this stuff. I’m not a big gun guy, don’t own one, but have enjoyed shooting from time to time in my life. But that said, I believe strongly in the right of people to own them. My thought was that I wonder how willing activists would be to practice this kind of intimidating tactic if guns were more widely owned in the nation. This stuff is just nasty and there is no place for it.
But what is truly amazing is while liberals want to intimidate votes, they also accuse us of hate speech. The cognitive dissonance in that one has my head spinning in an Exorcist sort of way.
There was a symposium last weekend at BYU on Mormon political attitudes. It sort of creeped me out. I have no desire to see my Mormon friends get locked into the “A real Mormons votes…” kind of fights like have become so commonplace in Evangelical circles.
Speaking of Mormons, Orrin Hatch is backing provisions in the health care stuff to cover Christian Science faith healings. I think this is wrong on a lot of levels. Number one, it may be a healing effort, but its not medicine. I think Christian Science adherents have the right to do as they will, but they should not take money for it. Secondly, I think the average Evangelical thinks Christian Scientists are really nuts while Mormons are just weird. Hatch is the current highest ranking Republican Mormon elected official in the federal government and the real jerks in Evangelical circles will use this to paint Mormons as nuts as Christian Scientists. This is a real political loser.
Finally, speaking of creepy, look at this.
Lowell’s Added Ruminations
I don’t think Romney blew it in the Hoffman race. Had he endorsed Hoffman, he would have looked like he was pandering (and I’m afraid Pawlenty and Palin were doing just that). My guess is that the same guy who criticized Romney for not endorsing Hoffman would not have given him any credit for doing the opposite. Romney struck the right tone by withholding his endorsement from Scozzafava.
Regarding that symposium at BYU, I am not thrilled about the idea that Mormons have a “distinct set of political attitudes.” I don’t think that’s true, and I hope BYU, the intellectual nerve center of the church, doesn’t perpetuate the idea by holding such symposia.
Maine also is voting on gay marriage, in a referendum that for the first time seeks to overturn a law sanctioning same-sex unions that was actually passed by a legislature. The law was passed in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by opponents.
At this writing the Maine results are too close to call. It will be interesting to see what happens, and what impact the ongoing battle over the issue will have in 2010 and especially in 2012. Romney’s Mormonism, and his church’s notoriety in the gay marriage wars, may well play a role. John adds at publication time: Maine overturned the law allowing same-sex marriage. In Washington, the measure passed, but it is domestic partnerships, not marriage.
Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 04 Nov 2009 at 12:09 pm #
I am scratching my head over John’s comment:
“There was a symposium last weekend at BYU on Mormon political attitudes. It sort of creeped me out. I have no desire to see my Mormon friends get locked into the ‘A real Mormons votes…’ kind of fights like have become so commonplace in Evangelical circles.”
I am even more nonplussed by Lowell’s statement:
“Regarding that symposium at BYU, I am not thrilled about the idea that Mormons have a ‘distinct set of political attitudes.’ I don’t think that’s true, and I hope BYU, the intellectual nerve center of the church, doesn’t perpetuate the idea by holding such symposia.
The comments seem to be based on one section of the Deseret Morning News story about the symposium, which was not about “Mormon political attitudes” but concerned “Religion and Politics: The Philosophical Problem and Its Contemporary Implications . . . the role and influence of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in politics.” It seems to me that this is, broadly, one of the topics of Article6blog.com. If we can talk about it here, why can’t BYU political science professors, a lawyer, and a judge talk about it there?
John and Lowell’s comments seemed to focus on one presentation, which is summarized as follows:
“However, his group’s unique findings were that even when compared with their fellow Republicans, Mormons are still peculiar, with a ‘distinct set of political attitudes,’ Karpowitz said.
“The study surveyed 35,000 Americans, including 250 Latter-day Saints, and the rough data showed that Mormons are more conservative than self-proclaimed, born-again Christians in some areas and less conservative in other areas.
“‘The finding is … Mormons and evangelicals may appear to be politically sympathetic, but it’s wrong to infer that these two groups are always in sync,’ Karpowitz said.
“For example, it’s the evangelicals, not Mormons, who more often picked the title ‘very conservative.’
“And Mormons overwhelmingly support the church’s stance on abortion (only in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother), whereas evangelicals are more likely to say abortion should never be permitted.”
These are not prescriptive statements, but findings out of a broad national survey of American voters. They don’t tell Mormons what to believe politically, but reveal what a majority of the 250 Mormons surveyed answered about certain questions.
Besides, the two specific statements, when carefully read, reveal that there is overlap between many Mormons and self-identified Evangelicals on both these issues. There are both Mormons and Evangelicals who call themselves “very conservative”, and Mormons and Evangelicals who do NOT classify themselves by that label. Should we expect enmity between Evangelicals who are only “conservative” and those who are “very conservative”? What do those labels mean when someone like Mike Huckabee can get strong support among Evangelicals, even though he is clearly not “conservative” on a number of issues? The majority of both Mormons and Evangelicals oppose unrestricted abortion at the sole discretion of the woman having the abortion, with some Evangelicals agreeing with the majority of Mormons that narrow exceptions should be allowed, in the law, to that general ban on abortion.
Professors have to talk about differences and distinctions in order to have something to talk about. That does not mean that such variations in the degree of support of various positions along the conservative political scale should lead to internecine warfare among conservatives of whatever religious persuasion. Any group of voters large enough to constitute an election-winning majority will have variations in the views of its members. The point of electoral politics is to form coalitions around common points of interest in order to see those commonalities enacted into law and policy, rather than argue pointlessly over which particular mix of attitudes or views is the ideal. Only when Roe v Wade is overturned can any discussion about the degree of regulation of abortion and exceptions for particular reasons be anything other than an academic exercise. Any voter who wants to ban all abortions who refuses to vote for someone who agrees with only minor exceptions (like Romney), and lets someone be elected who opposes any restraint on abortion (like Obama), doesn’t understand how to get his views translated into public policy.
The other topics reported at the symposium included:
“Quin Monson, also an assistant professor of political science at BYU, shared his findings that people refrain from voicing negative views about the thought of women, blacks or Baptists holding public office, but not against Mormons. This came after a study of the recent election involving Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.”
This is exactly what Article6blog.com has been saying!
Attorney David Leavitt said “it’s important to avoid the bickering and negativity that can exist in the political sphere. . . . the ability to give meaningful service is lost when individuals participate in politics in a non-Christlike way”.
This is another major theme of Articl6blog.com!
“Judge Thomas Griffith, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. District, also encouraged Mormons to get actively involved, using their religious beliefs as energy.
“‘The restoration gives us a jump-start,’ Griffith said, referring to God’s appearance to the boy prophet Joseph Smith in 1820. ‘I think we can do best by bringing our enthusiasm that comes from this modern witness of God’s eminence [imminence]and his involvement in the world to support fellow Christians.’”
Here Mormons are being advised to employ their own religious beliefs to energise their support for–not Mormons–but “fellow Christians”! Article6blog.com has been calling on Evangelicals to recognize that the religious beliefs that energize their political involvement in issues like abortion and same-sex marriage should be employed in supporting candidates regardless of religious affiliation. So what’s wrong with Mormons being advised to do the same thing?
A presentation on the topic of “Religion and Politics” that was presented to the BYU Toqueville Society in October was just posted at http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleWoodReligionPolitics.html. SquareTwo is an online journal concerned with making the LDS religious voice heard in the public square, sort of an adjunct to First Things journal, which publishes primarily Catholic and Evangelical views on that topic (though Mormon authors have been published).
To sum up, for the life of me I can’t see why either John or Lowell are worried about BYU having symposia on the intersection of religion and politics, since Article6blog.com is an ongoing seminar on exactly that topic. Nobody at BYU is telling Mormons what they “should” think, or defining a “Mormon politics”. Rather, they are examining the diversity among all religious citizens, and encouraging Mormons to become actively engaged in the public square and electoral politics, to make the spirit behind Article VI of the Constitution a living thing in the 21st Century.
I would encourage John and Lowell to post a link to SquareTwo and to the proceedings of the BYU Toqueville Society symposia when they become available in full, just as they have posted links in the past to the insightful essays of Evangelical and Catholic scholars writing on the interface between religion and politics.
coltakashi on 04 Nov 2009 at 12:22 pm #
Great news from Virginia and New Jersey showing that there is a very real possibility of weakening Democrats’ hold on Congress in 2010 and of a more conservative Republican having a successful run against an incumbent Democrat who has squandered his political capital less than 10 months into his administration by openly pursuing his agenda of the Federal government taking over the financial, manufacturing, medical, and energy segments of the American economy, not to mention attacking independent communications media. It may not be socialism, but this is where socialism starts.
Which is a good point to note that part of the world view of the people at President Obama’s side who want to make the USA more like Europe is that they want French-style suppression of religious expression in public forums, including public schools and legislatures and elections. They are seeking, not the religious neutrality of Article VI, but actual hostility to religion. For a discussion about this, see the essay at http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleWoodReligionPolitics.html.
As government takes over more parts of our lives, it will have more power to coerce us in the remaining “free areas”, including religious exercise and expression.
CarlH on 04 Nov 2009 at 1:01 pm #
From what little I’ve been able to dig up about the symposium at BYU, including this unofficial schedule (from an LDS-related blog, “Faith-Promoting Rumors”), it appears that the Deseret News article linked above (and particularly its headline) may well have missed the broader implications–and hopefully broader scope–of, and outrageously oversimplified what may have been discussed by presenters under the title, “Religion and Politics: The Philosophical Problem and Its Contemporary Implications ” (which certainly seems to stretch well beyond “explor[ing] the role and influence of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in politics” as characterized by the article). Here’s hoping that the symposium lived up to its title, rather than marginalizing itself to the topic(s) highlighted by the reporter.
And, John, I share your being “creeped out” by the suggestion that Mormons (lumped together, based on “rough data” from a survey that included 250 Mormons out of total of 35,000 Americans) have a “distinct set of political attitudes” when compared with “Republicans” (also lumped together) or even–oh my gosh!–”self-proclaimed born-again Christians” (you guessed it, lumped together). Might even the “rough data” suggest that all three categories have a more diverse “set of political attitudes” than can–or, let alone, ought–to be conveniently lumped together at all? Yikes, is about all I can say! Might the characterization of the “rough data” reflect more about a particular professor’s assumptions (confirmed or disproven) about the three groups in question than anything about the three groups whose “political attitudes” are supposedly being explored?
FWIW, this is the first I’ve heard anything about “BYU’s Tocqueville Project” (and all I’ve been able to find that is even close is a link to a page for a “BYU Tocqueville Group” listed as a student organization on the BYU Poli Sci Department’s webpage, which lists Prof. Ralph Hancock as its faculty advisor).